Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-06-01 CC Agenda Packet
Zccm Meeting Participant ID: 372312 City Clerk, Beth... Carrie L Barb's ipad pause/Stop Recordi Participants (12) C. Find a participant 113 O 0 0 • 11 O C. (Co -host, me. participant ID: 372312) IT Alerts (Host) Stillwater AV Barb's ipad Carrie L Cynthia Marie Joe Sockalosky jutiekink Les Abrahamson Mikaela Huot two7five Wendy Gorski Invite CEO 4' 0 S S Stillwater City Council Study Presentation 6/1/2021 Emily Jorgensen, Project Manager Joe Ayers- Johnson, Asst. Project Manager Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Presentation 1. Study Background & Scope 2. Study Goals Public Engagement Results Transit Scenarios Recommendations Next Steps Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Study Scope & Goals Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study 7Washington County Study Scope: What is the Highway 36 Transit Study? The purpose of this study is to: • Identify transit service needs and recommendations that are reflective of the Highway 36 corridor's existing and anticipated future travel demands and patterns • Consider transit and complementary facilities to improve travel options and provide alternatives to highway congestion for Washington, Ramsey, and Hennepin County residents, businesses, and visitors Study Scope: Transit Project Development Process System Planning and Feasibility Studies T Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis Highway 36 is here Design and Engineering Rush Line is here Red Rock is here Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study SWLRT is here Gold Line is here 7- Washington County Study Scope: Who is involved? Project Management Team City Technical Advisory Working Group Operations Technical Advisory Working Group Study Goals Transit improvements along Highway 36 are intended to address several goals, including: Identify Improvements that Increase Access & Ivfohiiity dKEEM identify improvements that Benefit People Who Rely on Transit and Historically Disadvantaged Populations Identify Improvements that Support the Environment and Health Identify Improvements that are Cost - Effective and Efficient • *":& identify Improvements that are Supported by Existing and Planned Land Use Public Engagement Results Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Public Engagement: Questionnaire Summary 90% of respondents are not current transit riders* Route 61 and Route 270 are the routes most taken by respondents 73% of respondents are interested in taking transit within Study Area 36% of Washington County residents *refers to people's travel before COVID 19 (February 2020) 1200+ Questionnaire Responses Hennepin County 6% Ramsey County 32% Public Engagement: Questionnaire Summary ■ The convenience of driving, travel time on transit, and challenges of getting to/from the bus stop some of the biggest barriers to riding transit Frequency of service was the challenge identified most by those who currently ride transit Most Desired Destinations for Transit Trips Greater Stillwater Area (Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport) Downtown Minneapolis Roseville/Rosedale (Highway 36 at Snelling Ave) Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Transit Scenarios Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study 7Washington County Transit Scenarios ■ To determine feasibility multiple points of comparison are needed Transit Scenarios 4 scenarios Different termini Different transit option combinations Termini and stops are NOT finalized but used for comparison Termini and stops will require many more phases of study Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Transit Scenari • • ansit Definitions Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Express Bus Local Express Bus (previously called "Limited Stop") On -Demand Public Transit • All day bi-directional service • Mixed traffic or bus lanes • Infrequent and high amenity stations • Typical park -and -ride service • Peak traffic periods • Mixed traffic or bus lanes • Similar to regular route bus • 1-2 miles between stops • Flexible stop spacing • Low amenity stops • Uber meets Metro Mobility • Car or van • Specific geographic service area • First mile/last mile or door-to- door service On -Demand Public Transit ■ "Dial -a -Ride meets Uber/Lyft" A solution for areas that need transit but fixed -route is not sustainable How does it work? Specific geographic service area Door-to-door service or first mile/last mile No formal route, responds to daily demand Request ride via app, website, phone call On -demand, reservations not required No price surges Shared ride is sent to pick up rider All vehicles are ADA compliant Transit Scenarios: Scenario 1 - Rice St to Minneapolis 2 Miles Saint Anthony Village , Roseville Little Canada Pine Springs,.„ Grant 17 oak vatic HHesghts j Bayport BRT Express - Downtown Minneapolis to Stillwater Express - Rice St to Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport On Demand Public Transit Transit Scenarios: Scenario 2 -Maplewood Mall to Minneapolis Saint Anthony Village Grant 17 Pine S ings ss . ayport BRT Express - Downtown Minneapolis to Stillwater Express - Maplewood Mall to Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport On Demand Public Transit Transit Scenarios: Scenario 3 - Hadley Ave to Minneapolis 0 l 2 Miles 11 1.�i� Lauderdale Falcon [^ mil LE .VpIll + r� Heights l .� 94 _ . 8a -f ,,ir-dimagrape,al pompm . kill inrimw_ Eivrigliii 11111111141imm ,, witt.prel,411=Vellill119. MiliiiK MIIMITP.111,4** mamma iiimilw-40` A I1 p�1►.. -_ _ Ark i, llllll� �� Little Canada Minneapolis 'y Roseville Maplewood battle Creek North St Paul w r-d z Vakdale Grant 17 Lake Elmo - take Elmo kAt LLStillwate 'r i 1 Oak,Park•Heights Bayport . . . BRT Express - Downtown Minneapolis to Stillwater Express - Hadley Ave to Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport On Demand Public Transit Transit Scenarios: Scenario 4 - Stillwater to Minneapolis I1, IV 111 K A Saint Anthony Village 694 A Roseville Lauderdale ale Falcon —' Heights J 0 }- Little' Canada 0 North St. Raul " i1aplewood e ■ 4114111LICA WilglIMMIN , 1••1141•ROA Minneapolis —::3111314 .. ��=� ■■■ s : Pauly irr vrillarthtafi EMIL IND nearmi-74—iliwy°4§fAn, 15 IIINEWSP, `1)\ pt _, JP 1.11\ a i AWN* i+ •j .cookecirtle 494 Pine Springs 129 0 Grant 1 5 )P =---)- Lake Elmo Oakdale Lake 120 Elmo Imo' A i i ru.! r i-- .Stillwater BRT 40 On Demand Public Transit Heights • ayport Scenario Based Evaluation Evaluation Measure Rice St Scenario Maplewood Mall Scenario Hadley Ave Scenario Stillwater Scenario 2016 Ridership* (Average Weekday) 3,500-4,600 3, 700-5, 300 3,000-4,300 2, 600-3, 800 Operations & Maintenance Cost 2030: $13M 2030: $16M 2030: $15M 2030: $17M Capital Cost 2030: $80-105M 2030: $75-100M Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study 2030: $80-105M 2030: $80-110M Washington ,County Scenario Evaluation & Feasibility The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility of transit improvements on Highway 36 between Minneapolis and Stillwater. The evaluation shows: Transitway investment in the Hwy 36 corridor is feasible Bus Rapid Transit in the Hwy 36 corridor is feasible Transitway investment along Hwy 36 to Stillwater is feasiblE So, which scenario is the best? Next step is to identify the preferred scenario for the corridor Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Study Recommendations Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Existing Context and Challenges COVID-19 Pandemic Financial challenges and constraints Uncertain changes to transit market County Participation Competing transit priorities for our county partners Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit Participation Financial constraints Competing transit priorities Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study 7Washington County Study Recommendations: Near Term 0-2 Years: Focus on Washington County Study and consider pilot on -demand public transit service Continue to prioritize, maintain, and invest in mobility management Washington Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study County Study Recommendations: Mid-term 3-! Years: Form Hwy 36 Corridor Commission Form a corridor commission to: Identify funding sources Develop multijurisdictional agreement Scope out future studies and projects (transit service and infrastructure, including mobility management) Work with Metro Transit and St. Croix County on monitoring need for peak period express bus service to report to the corridor commission 7 Washington Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study County Study Recommendations: Longer Term 5-8 Years: Develop Corridor Plans & Partnerships ■ Develop a plan for mobility hubs in the Highway 36 corridor for adoption by the commission Partner with cities to develop small area plans for transit access areas along the corridor Partner with MnDOT and the corridor commission to develop and adopt transit advantages plan for Highway 36 and Highway 280 Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Study Recommendations: Ongoing Ongoing: Continue engagement & collaboration Partner with the cities and MnDOT to plan and construct bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including applying for funding opportunities Continue engagement efforts throughout future transit projects in the corridor Washington Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study County Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Questions? Project Website: Highway36Transit.com Study Background ■ 2014 ■ Metropolitan Council releases the "Highway Transitway Corridor Study: Final Report" Highway BRT along Highway 36 between downtown Minneapolis and Hadley Avenue in Oakdale is feasible ■ 2017 St. Croix Crossing Bridge opens, traffic increases by over 30% on Highway 36 ■ 2017-2020 ■ Washington County residents and community members express interest in transit and driving alternatives in the Highway 36 corridor during engagement efforts for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Community Survey, and Washington County Bike/Ped Plan ■ 2020 ■ Washington County initiates the Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Study Washington County Washington County in collaboration with RAMSEY COUNTY m DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION M ETROPNOLJTAN ^ip !TA 111►1, ikwyl -qr �H;v:5% Minneapolis y 4 11IIIIl1I�'I P Saint Anthony Village 691 Roseville ■p 'mot TW P Lauderdale Falco Heights P 11�•kik . L� L • • �r • Little p Canada 35E 5t. Paul 94 NM 1 T 77 I R. w FPT C Maplewood 0 North 5t. Paul 7- Pine Springs tto Grant Stillwater 15 Sfi • Oak Park Heights NiQhway 36 Study Area Park -and -Rides P Closed Lake Elmo Future Oakdale Lake Q open Ira y� A 5 F�1 N G u t.• • © Transit Centers • Metro Tra nsFL Bus stags in COt5 dor • Park and Pool Lots — Existing Bus Routes - A Line i Blue Line - Blue Line Eslensi on - C Line Gold Llne Greenlsne — ' Green tine &tension i Norrheter Orange Line Red Line i Rush Line e i 2 • �Milrs �_ Industrial job center Planned very high housing density Downtown Minneapolis • rimM 1■1■ Low vehicle availability Activity center, Rosedale Center • • - University of Minnesota 1 � Planned very h ) l housing density 0 "i�A11�1 Planned very high housing density eus,e.: le 36 Professional job center Law vehicle availability Low incomes Al% One out of two residents of color Zak 111 �5E Century College i Maplewood Mall • PPArrilii NMI AfiLd rirralillYar " Fr Mir e d i Planned very high housing density ov?a•ie oo• II 1 1040 *Akan 114 Planned very high housing density One out of four residents of color emur CfrEk [sx Highest numbers of residents under 18 or over 65 Downtown Stillwater Activity center MN Correctional Facility -Oak Park Hei Low vehicle availability MN Correctional Facility -Stillwater Industrial job center i • • •••. 0 Relevant Demographic Trends Relevant Housing Density Trends Other Key Destinations Metropolitan Council Defined Job & Activity Centers Highway 36 Study Area moznante 3S NVS NON I - 1101113‘111S - EBLB VVE,S9 SIFI 913 H SIVNOVA '1113 39VVVIV1 009E 'V'd siaau!Sua gumnsuop W NYN21 K9i1V)I Tor=f27,.:1.11FFF:.F.E.1,°, M11-12A1 EN NM EMI E21•=1 SZO-I'LYNOLLYINNOANI NOV'S Ntlld 311S ZBOSS NIN1131VM1111S 1SWOO19 VS )11VM213Ald ONV NOI1VZ1119V1S NNYgNI% ?MIN XIONO 5, pgamwo ;MOW tort) 41P tiorom )arA I I/ ;T; / / / / 44 1 0 A i!! js147-1-s NaSij Ktt Ye! 4,1,10 M1111,0, 0 ,49,P n.01 .4.-DsoalkerSN,s4.,ww....mals+pati.w.ssa goaa, ronc rti TH36/ Manning Ave Interchange Project Trunk utility Extension Storm water treatmentDeveloper Paid Public Utilities58th Streeta.k.a CR 15 extensionInterchange(S. Manning Ave)TH 36CENTRAL COMMONSCENTRAL COMMONS TAX ABATEMENT IMPROVEMENT MAPN Central CommonsTax Abatement CommitteeResponsibilityTotal Cost waivedCentral Common's Central Common'sLakeview Costs typically assumed ExtraordinaryImprovement/itemcost (est.)by Citycost (out of pocket)cost (assessed)cost (assessed)by developerDeveloper Costs1. InterchangeCounty$31,000,000nana$173,566na$132,237-$41,3292. 58th StreetCounty$10,000,000nana$1,200,000na$0-$1,200,0003. Trunk Utility Extension to Central Commons perimeterCity$2,000,000nana$1,422,100$597,900$0-$1,422,1004. Public Water & Sewer fo Hy-Vee and apartments Developer$410,000na$410,000$0na$50,000-$360,0005. Storm Water Treatment Developer$1,188,780na$671,408$0na$0-$671,4086. Developer Paid Engineering fees for Public ImprovementsDeveloper$400,000na$400,000$0na$200,000-$200,0007. City development feesDeveloper$945,027$0#REF!$0na$945,027#REF!TOTALS$45,943,807$0#REF!$2,795,666$597,900#REF!Financed by City and assessed to Developer-$2,663,429Financed by Developer -$1,231,408Tax abatementTax abatementTotal-$3,894,837Improvement/itemCountyCityTotal1. Interchange$0$41,328$41,3282. 58th Street$0$1,200,000$1,200,0003. Trunk Utility Extension to Central Commons perimeter$750,000$672,100$1,422,1004. Public Water & Sewer fo Hy-Vee and apartments $0$360,000$360,0005. Storm Water Treatment $0$671,408$671,4086. Developer Paid Engineering fees for Public Improvements$0$200,000$200,0007. City development fees$0$0$0Total$750,000$3,144,836$3,894,836This is $132,237.48 + $41,328 that will be passed through to the City from the County6/1/2021 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • Phone (651) 439-4439 • Fax (651) 439-0574 June 1st, 2021 TO: Tom McCarty, City Administrator *** ALSO VIA EMAIL: tmccarty@ci.stillwater.mn.us ** City of Stillwater 216 4th Street N. Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: South Frontage Road — City Resolution 21-05-22 & Related Positions Dear Tom: As I mentioned, the City Council for Oak Park Heights has affirmed its past positions on the matter of the South Frontage Road potentially associated with the proposed development at the southeast corner of Manning Ave and STH 36 now under review by Stillwater. Please see the attached Resolution 21-05-22. We wanted to be sure this position is again stated, but perhaps more importantly to convey that if this road is inherently critical to the developer's proposal, this roadway is unlikely to proceed in the near (or long) term without the City of Oak Park Heights' consent. Moreover, our City Council's position also includes parameters that do not support the use of prospective County Tax Abatement when there is not a clear demonstration of creating living wage jobs nor for the apparent subsidization of high -end — luxury housing. Such elements are essential measures of the County's tax abatement policy and should be followed; perhaps these will be demonstrated in any forthcoming application, but to date these have not been apparent. We have previously shared two studies with your office that outline: • If the South Frontage Roadway and the Development are inextricably tied, a clear detrimental economic impact on major retailers in our respective communities is possible and offers concerns that it will foster other retail vacancies. See STANTEC Study 7/28/20 (attached) — excerpt below. Our chief findings are the following. • The introduction of a new Hy-Vee grocery store at the proposed location would have a significant negative impact on the safes of existing stores in the area_ The estimated impact is such that it could result in the closure of Cub Foods and+or r{owalski's Market. • The proposed service road linking Manning Avenue to Stillwater Boulevard would make a meaningful difference to Hy-Vee in the amount of grocery sales the store would make. It would have a corresponding negative effect on the sales of the existing grocery stores_ In other words, a new Hy 'wee with a new service road would result in a greater decline in sales at existing stores than a new Hy-Vee without the new service mad. • Offers that the South Frontage Roadway is not necessary given a "no -build" scenario of this development and shifts meaningful and problematic issue to the intersection of 58th Street and CSAH 14. Or in other words, this development is causing demand for the roadway and not the general travelling public. See STANTEC Study 8/18/20 (attached) - excerpt below. In summary. the proposed development at the southeast camerof the proposed Manning Avenue interchange generates significant additionaltraftic and its impact on the overall road network creates the need for the proposed southern frcntage road ccnnection. The proposed development along with the props ed southern frontage road negatively impacts the operations at the Stilwater Boulevard & 58th Street intersection. Use of public funds (or roadway construction) instantly entwines all of us in the discussion of impacting the local market and economies, which exceed standard local zoning parameters. That said, our City has no commentary relative to the use of Stillwater's own abatement tools; but if such development ultimately hinges on a roadway in Oak Park Heights (which the County has sought funds from Oak Park heights to pay for) and also seeks to secure County Tax Abatement — each to the detriment of our tax base, results in negative impacts to the business general community and worsens traffic conditions in our City, you can understand why we are obligated to comment here. Perhaps in short, if a development at STH 36 and Manning does not require a South Frontage Road, nor is further pursued by the County or a provision of County Tax Abatement, Oak Park Heights would likely have little basis for any commentary. So... it is a complex matter. I appreciate you listening and reading this material. If you would be willing to enter this documentation into your public record it also would be appreciated. Absolutely let me know if you have any questions and thanks for listening as always! Sincerely Eric Johnson City Administrator RESOLUTION 21-05-22 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS OUTLINING CURRENT POSITIONS ON PROPOSED SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD - MANNING AVE AND STH 36 AND RELATED USE OF COUNTY TAX ABATEMENT Whereas, the City of Oak Park Heights, the "City", has offered written support for the development of traffic solutions at the interface of Manning Ave/ STH 36 including the development of an interchange; and which has commenced construction; and, Whereas, the initial discussions and public process for this interchange did not include a meritorious inclusion of a "South Frontage Road Connection" and the City has gone on record with such objections as outlined in City Resolution 20-06-21; and, Whereas, at this time the City of Stillwater continues to consider a Project being a $3.6 Million tax abatement proposal from a Developer for commercial / retail development (including a large box grocery, convenience/gas) and a "high -end" housing area lying in the southeast quadrant of this interchange as which was publicly discussed at the May 4, 2021 City of Stillwater Workshop; and, Whereas, at the Washington County Board of Commissioner's meeting held on February 16, 2021 it was stated that the County expects that it will be approached to provide $750,000 in County Tax Abatement for this development with funds being used to subsidize the Developer's costs necessary to foster the development; however as of this time any actual application date or timeline is not known but is expected in the corning weeks; and, Whereas, it was stated and made clear by the Developer at the May 4th workshop to the City Council of Stillwater that this South Frontage Road is of "critical importance to its Project", however to date the City of Oak Park Heights has not been approached by the City of Stillwater as to the apparent need of this element for such critical purposes by the Developer; and, Whereas, the City of Oak Park Heights has completed studies in 2020 associated with this proposed South Frontage Road and the market impacts of a large -box grocer with the conclusions of such studies being that the South Frontage Roadway is unwarranted for the community at -large given current and anticipated traffic conditions and that the need for the South Frontage Road is derived from the development itself and not due to current or anticipated traffic conditions; and, Whereas, such roadway construction would shift already problematic and significant traffic impacts to the City of Oak Park Heights and that the introduction of a large box grocer is expected to have a definable negative effect on current retailers in the community. See STANTEC studies dated July 28, 2020 & August 18, 2020; and, Whereas, the City of Oak Park Heights has received comments from City businesses that such South Frontage Road will be detrimental to their operations, that the use of County tax abatement is not appropriate and have requested that the City not allow such South Frontage Road Project to advance; and, Whereas, Washington County is actively considering the increase of its local option sales tax (from .25% to .50%) to pay for continued roadway maintenance denoting in their materials that, "...general road maintenance is falling behind", accordingly efforts to create unnecessary roads is difficult to justify as is the attempted shift to City taxpayers to subsidize such costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights does not support the further advancement of the South Frontage Road as the impacts to the City, its tax base and expected traffic operations will have a detrimental effect on the City of Oak Park Heights, its business community as well as the community as a whole. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the application for any County Tax Abatement review and consideration should transparently follow and be consistent with the established County Tax Abatement Policy #4006 including the plain creation of living wage jobs and the meritorious and demonstratable creation of affordable housing and is not to be used to subsidize "high -end" luxury housing or intervene in the retail market without identifiable public benefit which results in the use current local taxpayer funds to benefit their local competitors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Oak Park Heights does acknowledge that in some communities there can be a lack of grocery options and that may require the market intervention of government agencies to better enable the local acquisition of food, but such conditions are not a reality in Oak Park Heights area — as there are not less than six major grocers in the immediate market and thus there is not a clear public role for such intervention. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Economic Development Authority (EDA) Board of Directors is requested to weigh in on any County Tax Abatement proposal as it relates to the EDA established goals — including the underlying rationale as to why the County initiated economic development activities which committed at the time of its creation to not foster competition between public entities and to comment if its mission is to subsidize by local taxpayers "high -end" market rate housing and benefit non -living wage jobs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does direct its Staff to: 1. Provide written comment to the City of Stillwater that the City does not support the creation of the South Frontage Road and again share with the City of Stillwater the above studies from STANTEC. 2. Provide written comment to the County Economic Development Authority Director that the City does ask the County EDA to comment on this Project should it proceed and to inform them that the City does not support the use of County Tax Abatement for any project that does not definitively create affordable housing or create living wage employment opportunities. 3. Provide written comment to the County Administrator that the City does not support the construction of this South Frontage Road and should the County persist to pursue this South Frontage Road, now or in the future, that the County shall be solely responsible for any and all related costs associated with such project as City taxpayers are not in a position to subsidize State, County or Regional projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does direct its Staff to proactively inform other public agencies of the positions taken in this Resolution. Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Par ights th*5th day of May, 2021 Atte nson, City Administrator 4,6 VIa McC ber, Mayor Stantec To: Mayor and City Council, From: Pat McGraw, PE Eric Johnson, City Administrator Adam Capets, EIT City of Oak Park Heights Stantec Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Date: August 18, 2020 Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the City of Oak Park Heights request, a traffic study was conducted on the proposed Manning Avenue interchange and southern frontage road connection between Manning Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard. The study focused on the impacts the interchange, the proposed developments and the proposed southern frontage road have on the surrounding road network. The study utilized data and assumptions in the Washington County/SRF traffic study related to the proposed interchange, developments and south frontage road Two scenarios were analyzed with the proposed development in place — one including the proposed frontage road and one without the proposed frontage road. Both scenarios were analyzed using forecasted volumes for the year 2040 during the PM peak -hour of traffic. The study measured performance based on queue length, delay experienced per vehicle, and the level -of -service (LOS, a letter grade A — F assigned based on delay; A — D are typically acceptable in an urban environment, E or F are not acceptable) was determined for each movement (ex. northbound left, eastbound through, etc.). The analysis presented the following: • The proposed development creates a draw for traffic and negatively impacts surrounding intersections under both scenarios (with or without the southern frontage road), with the Stillwater Boulevard & 58th Street intersection being impacted the most. The intersection experiences high delay and queueing for several movements, performing at LOS E or F. This includes movements that lead to/from the development. The Manning Avenue and 62nd Street intersection also has movements that experience high delay under both scenarios, performing at LOS E or F. • Under the scenario without the frontage road, the network overall had a reduction in performance. The movements at the following intersections experienced changes in performance between the two scenarios (g reen or red text indicate an improvement or a reduction in performance, respectively, when the frontage road is excluded): 1. Manning Ave &Westbound TH 36 Off-Ramp/N Frontage Rd (1) a. With the frontage road, the westbound left performed at LOS F, the westbound through performed at LOS D, and the westbound right performed at LOS C. b. Without the frontage road, all westbound movements performed at LOS F. Also, the queue was measured to be 1320 feet, which reaches the TH 36 through lanes and can potentially cause interactions with freeway traffic, without modifications at the top of the ramp. 2. Manning Ave & Eastbound TH 36 Ram ps/S Frontage Rd (2) a. With the frontage road, the eastbound left performed at LOS E, the eastbound through and right movement performed at LOS F, the westbound left performed at LOS E, the westbound through and right performed at LOS C, and the southbound left performed at LOS F. Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 2 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study b. Without the frontage road, the eastbound left performed at LOS E, the eastbound through performed at LOS C, the eastbound right performed at LOS B, all westbound movements performed at LOS F, and the southbound left performed at LOS D. 3. Manning Ave & 62nd St (3) a. With the frontage road, all westbound movements performed at LOS F, the eastbound left performed at LOS F, the eastbound right performed at LOS E, and the southbound left performed at LOS E. b. Without the frontage road, the westbound left and through movements performed at LOS F, the westbound right performed at LOS A, the eastbound left performed at LOS F, the eastbound right performed at LOS B, and the southbound left performed at LOS A. 4. Stillwater Blvd & 58th St/S Frontage Rd (4) a. With the frontage road, all eastbound movements performed at LOS F. The westbound left performed at LOS E, the westbound through performed at LOS F, and the westbound right performed at LOS D. The northbound left performed at LOS F, the northbound through performed at LOS E, and the northbound right performed at LOS B. b. Without the frontage road, the eastbound left performed at LOS F, the eastbound through performed at LOS E, and the eastbound right performed at LOS C. All the westbound and northbound movements performed at LOS F. 5. Stillwater Blvd & Eastbound TH 36 Ramps (5) a. With the frontage road, the eastbound left performed at LOS E, the eastbound through performed at LOS F, and the eastbound right performed at LOS C. b. Without the frontage road, all eastbound movements performed at LOS F. Also, the queue was measured to be 1317 feet, which reaches the TH 36 through lanes and can potentially cause interactions with freeway traffic, without modifications to the top of the ramp. 6. Stillwater Blvd & Westbound TH 36 Ramps (6) a. With the frontage road, the northbound left performed at LOS C. b. Without the frontage road, the northbound left performed at LOS F. • The study also included analyzing an auxiliary lane on the eastbound direction of TH 36 between the Manning Avenue interchange and the Stillwater Boulevard interchange under the scenario without the frontage road. Without the auxiliary lane, the merge area at the on -ramp performed at LOS C and the split area at the off -ramp performed at LOS D. With the auxiliary lane, both areas performed at LOS B. Although the performance improves with the auxiliary lane, LOS C & D are considered acceptable. However, the queue length on the eastbound Stillwater Boulevard off ramp, with its current configuration at Stillwater Boulevard, with the added traffic from the development, in the scenario without the southern frontage road, is 1317-feet. The queue would reach the TH 36 through -lanes, Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 3 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study absent modifications to the configuration at the top of the ramp, such as the addition of a second right turn lane. BACKGROUND Washington County initiated a study in 2017 for the replacement of the Trunk Highway 36 (TH 36) & Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) intersection with a grade separated interchange. In addition, there is significant development planned for the southeast quadrant of the interchange. Subsequently, Washington County with their consultant SRF, have also developed a layout for a southern frontage road connection between Manning Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard (CSAH 15) connecting to 58' Street in Oak Park Heights. This traffic study conducted by the City of Oak Park Heights and Stantec, analyzes the traffic impact of the interchange and development on the surrounding road network with and withouta southern frontage road connection, and also reviews the addition of an auxiliary lane along eastbound TH 36 between Manning and Stillwater Boulevard. EXISTING CONDITIONS TH 36 is a principal arterial highway connecting the Twin Cities metro area with the cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights as well as Western Wisconsin. The posted speed limit on TH 36 in the vicinity of the TH 36 & Manning Avenue intersection is 60-65 mph and the daily traffic volume is approximately 41,000-42,000 vehicles per day. The daily traffic volume on Manning Avenue is approximately 16,800 vehicles per day on the north leg, and 500 vehicles per day on the south leg. The existing TH 36 & Manning Avenue intersection is signalized. See Figure 1 for the existing geometric layout of the intersection. Bike and pedestrian facilities are limited in the intersection vicinity, with one multi -use trail running north to south along Manning Avenue and a marked crosswalk crossing the east side of the intersection. Figure 1 — Existing Conditions Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 4 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study PROPOSED GEOMETRY Washington County's preferred alternative for the interchange consists of a grade -separated interchange with two signalized intersections at the ramp termini. The TH 36 eastbound and westbound off -ramps are traditional diamond interchange -style ramps. The TH 36 eastbound on -ramp is a loop in the southwest quadrant. There are two separate on -ramps for TH 36 westbound traffic— a loop in the northeast quadrant for northbound Manning Avenue traffic, and a traditional ramp for southbound traffic. The existing north frontage road/60th Street (NW Quadrant) intersects Manning Avenue at the proposed westbound off -ramp intersection. See Figure 2 for the proposed geometric layout of the interchange. Due to the proximity of the interchange with the Stillwater Boulevard interchange to the east, an auxiliary lane connecting the westbound on -ramp at Stillwater Boulevard to the westbound off -ramp at Manning Avenue is proposed. An auxiliary lane in the eastbound direction was considered but is not proposed. Washington County is also proposing a southern frontage road connection between Manning Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard. The frontage road would intersect Manning Avenue at the proposed eastbound off -ramp intersection and connects to Stillwater Boulevard at the existing 58th Street signalized intersection in Oak Park Heights. The frontage road is proposed as a median -separated section with four lanes on the western half and two lanes on the eastern portion in Oak Park Heights. Pedestrian and bike facilities are proposed, with a multi -use trail connection on the north side and a sidewalk connection on the south side. The existing unsignalized intersection of 58th Street & Memorial Avenue is proposed as a roundabout. The existing eastbound 58th Street approach to Stillwater Boulevard would be reconfigured and business access would be reduced. See Figure 3 for the proposed geometric layout of the southern frontage road. Washington County's traffic study indicates that the daily trips on the southern frontage road will be 17,000 to 21,700 (2040) on the 4-lane portion to the west and 11,000 to 12,000 (2040) on the 2-lane portion, west of Memorial Avenue. Including the existing volume, the daily trips on the portion of the southern frontage road between Memorial Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard will be 16,000 to 17,000 (2040). Developers are proposing to develop sites within Stillwater Township limits in the southeast quadrant of the proposed interchange. The proposed developments are commercial and the primary traffic generator within the development is a proposed Hy-Vee grocery store. Several accesses for the sites are proposed along the southern frontage road, as shown in Figure 3. Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 5 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study Figure 2 — Proposed Geometric Layout, Interchange I RRSECTION TYPE TBD South Frontage Rd Figure 3 — Proposed Geometric Layout, Southern Frontage Road Connection Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 6 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study METHODOLOGY The analysis conducted by the City of Oak Park Heights is supplemental to the analysis conducted by Washington County. The Oak Park Heights analysis takes a further look at the effects that the Manning Avenue interchange, the southern frontage road, and the proposed developments have on the surrounding road network. The primary purpose of the analysis was to gain additional information regarding the performance of the network, with the proposed development in place, with the southern frontage road included (Scenario 1) and without the southern frontage road included (Scenario 2). The addition of an eastbound auxiliary lane on TH 36 between the Manning Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard interchanges was also analyzed to determine its effect on TH 36 performance in the case without the southern frontage road. The no -build (no development, no interchange) forecast was also modeled for comparison purposes. Both scenarios were analyzed under the highest volume case— forecast year 2040 during the PM peak hour. Two Synchro 10 models were developed to reflect each scenario. For Scenario 1, the initial Manning Avenue Interchange model developed by SRF was expanded to include several surrounding signalized intersections, including Stillwater Boulevard from 58' Street to Curve Crest Boulevard, TH 36 & Washington/Norell Avenues, and Manning Avenue & 62' Street. The traffic volume generated by the proposed development plus the existing volume diverted through the southern frontage road were routed through each new intersection and added to the respective intersection traffic counts. For Scenario 2, Scenario 1 was modified by removing the southern frontage road. The traffic volume from the frontage road was rerouted to use TH 36 and was added to the respective intersection traffic counts. The signal timing plans used in Scenario 2 were identical to Scenario 1. All data and assumptions were provided by Washington County/SRF. SimTraffic 10 was used to simulate the models and collect delay, Level -of -Service (LOS), and queue data. The data was recorded as a performance average over five runs. Each run consisted of 15 minutes of traffic seeding and one hour of data recording. The data received assumed that 31% of the development -generated traffic volume would utilize the southern frontage road to reach the development. It was assumed that 97% of the development volume using the frontage road originates from Stillwater Boulevard from the north and south and 58`h Street rather than from TH 36. This assumption results in 490 inbound and 480 outbound vehicle trips during the forecast year PM peak hour. Additionally, the frontage road is expected to divert existing traffic volume destined for Manning Avenue or Stillwater Boulevard away from TH 36. The data received assumed that 60% of all vehicles originating from Oak Park Heights and Stillwater Boulevard south of TH 36 would divert to the frontage road. This results in 127 inbound and 127 outbound non -development related vehicle trips during the forecast year PM peak hour. Since Synchro has limitations with freeway analysis, Highway Capacity Software (HCS) models were utilized to analyze the performance of TH 36 and the interchange ramps. The HCS models reflected four variations of the two scenarios — Scenario 1 a: Scenario 1 (with the frontage road) without an eastbound TH 36 auxiliary lane, Scenario 1 b: Scenario 1 with an eastbound TH 36 auxiliary lane, Scenario 2a: Scenario 2 (without the frontage road) without an eastbound TH 36 auxiliary lane, and Scenario 2b: Scenario 2 with an eastbound TH 36 auxiliary lane. The original HCS models were provided by SRF and were modified by adjusting freeway ramp volumes and the inclusion of the eastbound auxiliary lane. RESULTS The result of the analysis with the traffic from proposed development, with and without the presence of the south frontage road, on the surrounding road network, follow. The results reflect The Scenario 1 and Scenario Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 7 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study 2 Synchro/SimTraffic analysis LOS and Queue Length tables are attached to this memo in Appendix A. Aerial maps with LOS graphics are shown in Appendix B. According to the Synchro results, several key intersections and movements performed differently between Scenario 1 with the frontage road, and Scenario 2 without the frontage road. The intersection numbers correlate with the aerial maps in Appendix B. Manning Avenue & North Frontage Road/Westbound TH 36 Off -ramp (1) The westbound approach of the intersection has reduced performance in Scenario 2, performing at LOS F compared to LOS D in Scenario 1, and much higher delay for all westbound movements due to the higher volume diverted to the approach. The westbound left -turn movement still performed at LOS F in Scenario 1, but with less delay. The westbound approach 95th percentile queue is 1320 feet in Scenario 2, which reaches the TH 36 through lanes and can potentially cause interactions with freeway traffic. The southbound through movement performance improved in Scenario 2 from LOS E to LOS A. Overall intersection performance decreased from LOS D to LOS F. Manning Avenue & South Frontage Road/Eastbound TH 36 Ramps (2) The westbound approach movements of the intersection reduce in performance from LOS C & E to LOS F in Scenario 2 due to the higher volume diverted to the approach. Conversely, the eastbound through and right - turn movements improve from LOS F to LOS C & B in Scenario 2 due to the increased phase time caused by the westbound movement volume. The southbound left -turn movement improves in Scenario 2 from LOS F to LOS D. Overall intersection performance decreased from LOS D to LOS F. Manning Avenue & 62"d Street (3) The intersection has eastbound and westbound movements for both scenarios that performed at LOS F due to the intersection being unsignalized combined with a high main street through volume. The eastbound/ westbound movement performance is better in Scenario 2 with less delay, but still performed at LOS F. The southbound left -turn movement performance improved in Scenario 2 from LOS E to LOS A, likely due to a difference in platoon timing and distribution from the upstream signal. Stillwater Boulevard & 58' Street/South Frontage Road (4) The eastbound approach of the intersection operates at LOS F for all movements under Scenario 1 due to the addition of frontage road and development traffic. In Scenario 2, the eastbound left -turn movement operates at LOS F, but with less delay. The westbound and northbound approaches reduce in performance in Scenario 2 from LOS E to LOS F due to the increase in traffic on certain movements, particularly the northbound through and the westbound right -turn movements. Overall intersection performance decreases from LOS E to LOS F in Scenario 2. Stillwater Boulevard & Eastbound TH 36 Ramps (5) The eastbound approach of the Eastbound Ramps intersection reduces in overall performance from LOS B in Scenario 1 to LOS F in Scenario 2. While the eastbound left -turn and through movements operate at LOS E & LOS F in Scenario 1, the delay is much lower. The eastbound approach 95th percentile queue is 1317 feet in Scenario 2, which reaches the TH 36 through lanes and can potentially cause interactions with freeway traffic, absent modifications to the configuration at the top of the ramp, such as the addition of a second right turn lane. . L?eaign with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 8 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study Stillwater Boulevard & Westbound TH 36 Ramps (6) The northbound left -turn movement of the Westbound Ramps intersection degrades from LOS C to LOS F in Scenario 2. These reductions in performance are due to the higher volume diverted onto TH 36. TH 36 Freeway/Ramps, Auxiliary Lanes According to the HCS Analysis results, removing the frontage road in Scenario 2 also affects the performance of the freeway portion of TH 36 and the on -/off -ramps of the Manning Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard interchanges. • For the westbound direction of TH 36, the on -/off -ramps and weaving section of the auxiliary lane performed at LOS B in all scenarios. The addition of the diverted traffic volume does not have a negative effect. • In Scenario 2a, the eastbound TH 36 on -ramp and merge area from Manning Avenue degrades from LOS B to C when compared to Scenario la, and the eastbound TH 36 off -ramp and diverge area to Stillwater Boulevard degrades from LOS C to D. • If an auxiliary lane is added to the eastbound direction between Manning Avenue and Stillwater Boulevard in Scenario 2b, the combined weaving section improves in performance and operates at LOS B. The eastbound auxiliary lane added in Scenario 1 b also performed at LOS B. The merge and diverge sections in Scenario la performed at an acceptable LOS. However, the queue length on the eastbound Stillwater Boulevard off ramp, with its current configuration at Stillwater Boulevard, with the added traffic from the development, in the scenario without the southern frontage road, is 1317-feet. This queue would reach the TH 36 through lanes and potentially cause interactions with freeway traffic, absent modifications to the configuration at the top of the ramp, such as the addition of a second right turn lane. CONCLUSIONS The findings regarding the impact of the traffic generated by the proposed development under the proposed Manning Avenue interchange project, with and without the proposed southern frontage road, are as follows: 1. With the added traffic from the proposed development and without the southern frontage road, the queue on the eastbound TH 36 off -ramp at Stillwater Boulevard would exceed storage capacity. The queue would reach the TH 36 through -lanes, absent modifications to the lane configuration at the ramp terminal, such as the addition ofa second right turn lane. 2. With the added traffic from the proposed development and without the southern frontage road, more volume is diverted through the network to reach the freeway which results in several turning movements performing at LOS F. Additionally, some movements of the proposed ramp terminal intersections of the Manning Avenue interchange performed at LOS F without the southern frontage road connection, particularly the westbound off -ramp and the westbound development access approaches. See Appendix B. 3. With the added traffic from the proposed development and with the southern frontage, the traffic volume has negative impacts on two intersections in the existing road network: Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 9 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study • In its current status, the Stillwater Boulevard & 58'h Street intersection has some existing performance concerns. The addition of the traffic generated by the development degrades the performance of the intersection. The performance of the intersection, with and without the south frontage road are LOS E and LOS F, respectively. The geometry of the intersection limits the type of signal timing plan that can be utilized. The current operation is split -phase between the eastbound and westbound approaches. Further analysis should be undertaken to determine what geometric and signal timing changes would mitigate the increase in volumes at this intersection. o With the southern frontage road, the eastbound approach fails significantly in performance, while the westbound through and northbound left movements also fail due to the development generated traffic and rerouted local traffic. Connecting the southern frontage road to the eastbound approach of the intersection generates more volume than the split - phase operation can handle. o Without the southern frontage road, all westbound and northbound movements fail along with the eastbound through and left movements. • The Manning Avenue & 62' Street intersection is currently unsignalized with side -stop control. The through volume in both scenarios was high enough to significantly impact the performance of the 62nd Street approaches. Conversion to signal control at this intersection may be warranted. In summary, the proposed development at the southeast corner of the proposed Manning Avenue interchange generates significant additional traffic and its impact on the overall road network creates the need for the proposed southern frontage road connection. The proposed development along with the proposed southern frontage road negatively impacts the operations at the Stillwater Boulevard & 58'h Street intersection. Design with community in mind August 18, 2020 Mayor and City Council, Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 10 of 10 Reference: Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Pat McGraw PE Associate, Senior Project Manager Phone: (612) 712-2088 Pat.McGraw@stantec.com Adam Capets EIT Transportation Engineer In Training Phone: (612) 712-2026 Ad am.Cap ets@stan tec.co m Attachment: Appendix A— LOS and Queue Length Tables Appendix B— Aerial LOS Maps c. Lee Mann (Stantec) Design with community in mind Appendix A - Intersection LOS and Queue Lengths e 1- Scenario Intersection Direction Movement PM 95% Queue Delay/ Vehicl MVMT LOS LOS LOS Manning Ave & 62nd St EB Left 72' 210.c F F (139.7) E (55.9) Thru 72' 0.0 A Right 32' 38.1 E WB Left 1369' 1486.1 F F (1218.9) Thru 1369' 1706.7 F Right 346' 462.8 F NB Left 15' 8.3 A A (4.1) Thru 0' 4.3 A Right 4' 2.6 A SB Left 222' 39.3 E C (25.4) Thru 639' 25.1 D Right 625' 23.1 C Manning Ave & N Frontage Rd/WB TH 36 Off ramp EB Left 23' 42.3 D C (25.6) D (37.7) Right 28' 19.2 B WB Left 288' 91.4 F D (41.5) Thru 666' 53.3 D Right 302' 26.5 C NB Left 26' 17.5 B A (9.9) Thru 120' 9.8 A SB Thru 984' 55.9 E D (54.8) Right 60' 5.1 A Manning Ave & WB TH 36On- ramps NB Thru 30' 1.7 A A (1.3) A (4.8) Right 0' 0.2 A SB Thru 126' 11.1 B A (7.7) Right 0' 0.9 A Manning Ave & S Frontage Rd/EB TH 36 Ramps EB Left 450' 59.5 E E (74.6) D (54.4) Thru 713' 107.5 F Right 713' 92.5 F WB Left 18' 71.8 E C (29.1) Thru 196' 29.4 C Right 293' 28.4 C NB Left 15' 26.8 C C (33.3) Thru 52' 37.8 D Right 52' 20.4 C SB Left 486' 164.3 F E (59.2) Thru 658' 40.0 D Right 0' 2.4 A Intersection Direction Movement PM 95% Queue Delay/ Vehicl MVMT LOS LOS LOS Stillwater Blvd & S Frontage Rd/58th St EB Left 299' 333.9 F F (263.0) E (74.7) Thru 776' 224.9 F Right 133' 158.0 F WB Left 538' 68.4 E E (62.7) Thru 538' 88.2 F Right 482' 48.1 D NB Left 485' 142.0 F E (75.9) Thru 785' 69.2 E Right 377' 19.7 B SB Left 182' 35.0 C C (23.5) Thru 183' 22.3 C Right 163' 12.4 B Stillwater Blvd &EBTH36 Ramps EB Left 332' 71.0 E D (50.7) B (199) Thru 332' 81.6 F Right 255' 23.2 C NB Thru 200' 13.7 B B (12.8) Right 101' 9.5 A SB Left 120' 27.2 C B (10.2) Thru 181' 8.3 A Stillwater Blvd & WB TH 36 Ramps WB Left 134' 50.5 D D (39.6) B (11.9) Thru 134' 50.9 D Right 75' 17.0 B NB Left 231' 33.8 C A (9.9) Thru 152' 5.7 A SB Thru 151' 9.9 A A (9.4) Right 90' 8.0 A Stillwater Blvd & Curve Crest Blvd EB Left 41' 54.2 D C (29.4) C (28.6) Thru 77' 55.6 E Right 105' 19.4 B WB Left 523' 76.6 E E (59.3) Thru 523' 85.3 F a Right 129' 2.2 A NB Left 79' 58.6 E B (19.2) Thru 247' 22.0 C Right 93' 9.1 A SB Left 202' 56.4 E C (23.1) Thru 240' 17.3 B Right 16' 3.3 A TH 36& Norell Ave/ Washington Ave EB Left 647' 121.7 F F (89.7) E (76.0) Thru 1333' 89.6 F Right 615' 62.3 E WB Left 588' 89.9 F E (59.7) Thru 975' 60.2 E Right 592' 27.2 C NB Left 427' 94.5 F Itir (80.2) Thru 326' 74.0 E Right 326' 69.5 E SB Left 266' 64.7 E E (73.5) Thru 238' 79.8 E Right 10' 26.7 C Intersection Direction Movement PM 95% Queue Delay/ Vehicl MVMT LOS LOS LOS Manning Ave & 62nd St EB Left 35' 68.4 F D (41.1) A (7.3) Thru 35' 0.0 A Right 23' 11.3 B WB Left 175' 155.2 F F (112.7) Thru 175' 111.3 F Right 28' 7.5 A NB Left 16' 7.6 A A (3.2) Thru 0' 3.4 A Right 3' 1.6 A SB Left 22' 8.3 A A (2.4) Thru 0' 2.4 A Right 0' 1.4 A Manning Ave & N Frontage Rd/WB TH 36 Off -ramp EB Left 31' 47.5 D C (24.5) F (83.3) Right 27' 15.1 B WB Left 349' 503.0 F F (396.8) Thru 1320' 413.9 F Right 506' 294.0 F NB Left 22' 12.2 B A (4.3) Thru 96' 4.1 A SB Thru 179' 5.3 A A (5.3) Right 5' 1.7 A Manning Ave & WB TH 36 On- ramps NB Thru 3' 0.8 A A (0.6) A (0.8) Right 0' 0.3 A SB Thru 0' 1.1 A A (1.0) Right 0' 0.7 A Manning Ave & Dev. Access/EB TH 36 Ramps EB Left 413' 60.2 E D (48.0) F (83.3) Thru 351' 21.4 C Right 351' 14.2 B WB Left 154' 157.4 F F (199.5) Thru 1165' 219.7 F Right 428' 160.8 F NB Left 15' 25.5 C D (37.7) Thru 58' 44.6 D Right 58' 15.7 B SB Left 412' 52.3 D C (28.1) Thru 357' 28.6 C Right 0' 2.5 A Intersection Direction Movement PM 95 % Queue Delay/ Vehicl MVMT LOS LOS LOS Stillwater Blvd & 58th St EB Left 350' 138.3 F -1111r- (112.3) F (121.9) Thru 521' 75.7 E Right 47' 23.6 C WB Left 2006' 92.2 F F (197.3) Thru 2006' 98.9 F Right 2073' 265.4 F NB Left 494' 135.4 F F (149.6) Thru 914' 162.0 F Right 602' 83.6 F SB Left 188' 33.0 C B (19.7) Thru 168' 13.2 B Right 49' 4.2 A Stillwater Blvd & EB TH 36 Ramps EB Left 1317' 579.4 F F (421.9) F (93.2) Ill Thru 1317' 230.5 F Right 502' 257.7 F NB Thru 776' 52.6 D D (45.1) Right 309' 14.8 B SB Left 133' 34.4 C B (10.3) Thru 133' 6.9 A Stillwater Blvd & WB TH 36 Ramps WB Left 104' 50.3 D D (40.3) D (41.6) Thru 104' 38.5 D Right 94' 23.8 C NB Left 466' 1115 F a E (69.1) Thru 1083' 13.0 B SB Thru 135' 9.4 A B (10.6) Right 185' 12.1 B Stillwater Blvd & Curve Crest Blvd EB Left 53' 54.7 D C (30.1) C (26.6) Thru 78' 54.9 D Right 101' 20.2 C WB Left 451' 70.6 E D (54.7) Thru 451' 82.7 F Right 78' 2.2 A NB Left 76' 47.0 D B (15.6) Thru 207' 18.2 B Right 88' 6.9 A SB Left 184' 55.1 E C (22.1) Thru 260' 17.0 B Right 20' 3.5 A TH 36 & Norell Ave/ Washington Ave EB Left 619' 121.4 F F (87.2) E (77.5) Thru 1298' 86.9 F Right 607' 64.0 E WB Left 607' 90.4 F E (61.7) Thru 1057' 62.7 E Right 567' 27.0 C NB Left 543' 123.8 F F (89.2) Thru 391' 69.6 E Right 364' 62.1 E SB Left 322' 81.5 F F (81.0) Thru 345' 81.0 F Right 8' 20.8 C APPENDIX B AERIAL MAPS - INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Traffic Model Level -of -Service Results Washington County, Minnesota Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study Existing Conditions (2017 PM Peak) Date: 07/28/2020 CS) Stantec Traffic Model Level -of -Service Results Washington County, Minnesota Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study Scenario 1, With Frontage Road (2040 PM Peak) Date: 07/28/2020 CS) Stantec Traffic Model Level -of -Service Results -Scenario 2, Without Frontage Road (2040 PM Peak) Washington County, Minnesota Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study Date: 07/28/2020 CS) Stantec Traffic Model Level -of -Service Results Washington County, Minnesota Manning Avenue Interchange Traffic Study Forecast No -Build (2040 PM Peak, No Development) Date: 07/28/2020 CS) Stantec Stantec July 28, 2020 File: 193801828-500.022 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 733 Marquette Avenue Suite 1000, Minneapolis MN 55402-2309 Attention: Oak Park Heights City Council c/o Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Boulevard Oak Park Heights MN 55082 Reference: Business Impact Analysis — Highway 36 and Manning Interchange Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: The attached report represents Stantec's analysis of the potential impact on existing grocery stores from a prospective new Hy-Vee grocery store at the Highway 36 and Manning Avenue interchange. Our methodology included research on the market context for grocery stores in this area. We interviewed real estate professionals who have a specialization in the grocery store market and are familiar with this location —as well as executive personnel from Cub Foods and Kowalski's Market. And we did a sales analysis that looked at the impact on existing store sales from the introduction of a new Hy-Vee store. Our chief findings are the following. • The introduction of a new Hy-Vee grocery store at the proposed location would have a significant negative impact on the sales of existing stores in the area. The estimated impact is such that it could result in the closure of Cub Foods and/or Kowalski's Market. • The proposed service road linking Manning Avenue to Stillwater Boulevard would make a meaningful difference to Hy-Vee in the amount of grocery sales the store would make. It would have a corresponding negative effect on the sales of the existing grocery stores. In other words, a new Hy-Vee with a new service road would result in a greater decline in sales at existing stores than a new Hy-Vee without the new service road. An additional consideration that goes beyond the scope of this analysis is the question of how much aggregate retail the area can support. It is a strong retail area in general, with lots of offerings for the surrounding community and destination shoppers. But there is some existing retail vacancy, even prior to the pandemic. And if the retail area is stretched further by the Hy-Vee store being built, and retail stores or strip malls filling in the space between the Hy-Vee store and Stillwater Boulevard, the retail area might be getting overbuilt. The consequence of retail development that gets ahead of overall customer demand is that it results in additional vacant retail spaces somewhere, as the weakest stores in previously developed areas go out of business. Again, this was not studied in the current analysis, but is a relevant consideration. Design with community in mind July 28, 2020 Oak Park Heights City Councilc/o Mr. Eric Johnson, City Administrator Page 2 of 2 Reference: Business Impact Analysis — Highway 36 and Manning Interchange If you have any questions, need additional information, or wish to discuss this analysis further, please contact me. Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Thomas Leighton, AICP, EDFP Senior Urban Planner, Economic Development Specialist Phone: 612-712-2154 Tom.Leighton@stantec.com Attachment: Business Impact Analysis — Highway 36 and Manning Interchange c. file Lee Mann, City Engineer Design with community in mind 5 Stantec BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS HIGHWAY 36 AND MANNING INTERCHANGE July 2020 BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS - STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE National Retailers In and Near Oak Park Heights 0 a •, r n TV r TV • few ,0c s t(`r`lC .,.�.•.. z,•••,y- y-rd • W • h poem �w A Source: Costar Stantec SECTION 1: COMPETITIVE CONTEXT Destination Retail In and Near Oak Park Heights A Hy-Vee store at the southeast quadrant of the future STH 36/Manning Avenue interchange would represent a significant new grocery store addition to the existing large- scale destination retail area to the east of Manning Avenue on the north and south sides of Highway 36. The map at left gives a sense of the existing concentration of retailers by showing the logos of national retail businesses in the area. The area encompasses multiple shopping centers such as Stillwater Market Place, Oak Park Commons, Oak Park Heights, Oak Park Ponds, and Valley Ridge Center. Anchor businesses include Target, Walmart, Menards, Lowe's, Cub Foods, Kohl's, and T.J. Maxx. Taken together, the retail businesses in the area comprise over 2.1 million square feet of retail floor area. Overarching demand metrics for the area indicate a strong retail market. For the 131 retail properties in the area that are tracked by Costar, the average market rent peaked at $17.33 in recent months. The occupancy rate was 97%. Those metrics have weakened since March, due to the pandemic, but they signal a strong market for the retail area relative to many Twin Cities retail centers. Retail businesses have been particularly hard hit in recent months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many have closed temporarily, and some have and will go out of business. The high level of uncertainty concerning how long it will take for conditions to recover adds an additional challenge for businesses. Costar forecasts a decline in market rents in the Oak Park Heights area to around $15.30 over the next six months, and a decline in occupancy to 95%. It anticipates a reestablishment of baseline conditions over a period of one to two years. This may be quicker or take longer dependent on the course of the pandemic and associated economic shocks to the economy. On resumption of relative normalcy, some changes to the retail market are anticipated. The mix of retail businesses in destination retail areas like this one is likely to be somewhat modified because of COVID-related shifts in consumer preferences, and the staging of store reopenings. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE Stantec Grocery Store Competitive Context Grocery stores have fared better than most retail businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic because groceries are an essential commodity, and because families are eating at home more and going to restaurants less due to public health and financial considerations. Grocery Store Competitive Context Proposed Hy -Yee I r Kowalski's MarkelQ Q ' clr.uosso, a'v Qarine 5 Market 8 Deli Cut/foods rarael Q Menarecv '6" Q 0 wdaral rupaslae a , Q.ammin HII Ic PV Y ALDI v�mywemnm Hirrnwoad Village Willem e Festival Foods entury CobIeye IP Cinema 9 Pine Springs St Paul 1 � QHy-Vee Oakdale © QCahela's Woodbury U v Lake Elmo Park Reserve �Va i Hi Dri.e In/9 n $am Club Lens Family Foods Hagberg s Country Markel Walmort Superstore HOultOn 5 ci River Market Community Co-op Nu't-� iiu P. Hudson C:7 Lakeland Source: Stantec, Google Maps In and near Oak Park Heights, there are a number of grocery stores situated near the location of the proposed Hy-Vee store. They include Kowalski's Market, Cub Foods, and Aldi, as well as the local Brine's Market & Deli, and the grocery sales areas within the Target and Walmart stores. The lower map at left shows a broader competitive context for the grocery stores in and near Oak Park Heights —encompassing the grocery stores in downtown Stillwater, as well as grocery store destinations in retail areas that extend past Interstate 694 to the west and Interstate 94 to the south. The proposed Hy-Vee would be expected to attract customers primarily from the existing stores in and near Oak Park Heights. It would secondarily draw new customers to the area who are currently shopping elsewhere in the northeast quadrant of the metropolitan area or from across the St. Croix river in Wisconsin. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE Stantec The introduction of the proposed Hy-Vee store would impact the existing grocery stores in and near Oak Park Heights by reducing their customer numbers, sale volumes and gross revenues. The relative impact for the grocery stores would vary by store and is dependent on how directly they compete with the Hy-Vee store for the same customer demographic within the same relative trade area. The table below provides information relative to store sizes and target markets for the national grocery store chains in and near Oak Park Heights. Cub Foods Target Walmart ALDI Kowalski's Market Hy-Vee Store 90,000 s.f. 117,000 s.f. 220,000 s.f. 16,000 s.f. 20,000 s.f. 97,000 s.f. Size (14,000 s.f. groceries) (50,000 s.f. groceries) (proposed) Targeted Cub Foods is a Target caters Compared with ALDI targets Kowalski's Hy-Vee is a Customer conventional to middle Target, Walmart both men and targets more traditional Market supermarket that appeals to all age class family and single has more shoppers who women in low to middle- educated, higher grocer that appeals to a groups looking for households. earn $50,000 or income income similar a traditional grocery store at Shoppers are 60% female. less, including many who earn households, positioning shoppers. It provides high demographic as Cub, but it competitive 60% of less than 25K itself as the quality provides more prices. shoppers are per year. most service and ready -to -eat between 18 Walmart's economical products, with and other and 44 years old, with shoppers are older, female grocery store, offering numerous specialty options than Cub, and store average household income of $65,000. and white. products 30% cheaper than most grocery stores items formats and options can be tailored to the demographics of the area. Source: Internet trade sources such as US Grocery Shopper Trends 2019, Numberator Insights, PYMNTS, Business Pundit, Star Tribune BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE Cil Stantec SECTION 2: STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS The market dynamics relative to introducing a Hy-Vee store at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue were explored through four structured interviews. The conversations focused on the competitive aspects of the six national chains in terms of their trade areas and target customer markets, what share of Hy-Vee customers would be new customers to the area versus customers that previously shopped at the existing stores in the area, and the impact that construction of the service road would have on these dynamics. The interviewees were four commercial real estate professionals who focus on the retail sector and have a special expertise in the grocery store subsector, as well as representatives from Cub Foods and Kowalski's Markets, as noted below. • Deb Carlson, Cushman & Wakefield. Ms. Carlson is a commercial real estate broker, with special expertise in grocery stores. • David Daly, CBRE. Mr. Daly is a commercial real estate broker, with special expertise in grocery stores. • David Livingston, DJL Research. Mr. Livingston is a market researcher and analyst, with special expertise in grocery stores. • Curt Hoffman, M & H Properties. Mr. Hoffman is a retail property owner. He owns Oak Park Ponds, the neighborhood shopping center that includes the Kowalski's grocery store in Oak Park Heights. • Darren Cardell. Mr. Cardell is a Senior Vice President with Cub Foods. • Michael Oase, Kowalski's Markets. Mr. Oase is Chief Operating Officer of Kowalski's Markets. There was a dominant perspective among the interviewees on most aspects of Hy-Vee's impact on local grocery stores. The following key observations and opinions were largely shared. A more complete set of observations and perspectives can be found in the report appendix. Existing conditions. The area is currently well served by a set of complementary grocery stores, and the grocery sections of Target and Walmart. These grocery offerings meet the needs of a broad range of households. Hy-Vee. A new Hy-Vee store in this location would have a large trade area encompassing residents in a three to five mile radius. The majority of store sales will derive from existing area customers, and thus equate to a reduction in sales at the competing grocery stores. Less than half of store sales will be from new customers to the area. Cub Foods. The Cub Foods store in Stillwater is one of the most successful stores in the Cub Foods network. It has great customer loyalty, and is highly supported by the surrounding community. Cub Foods is a direct competitor with Hy-Vee. They have similar trade areas. They market to the same customer demographic, and employ the same BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE Cil Stantec pricing strategies. The impact on Cub may be in the neighborhood of 30% of sales. With a financial impact on that scale, the eventual closure of the store can't be ruled out. Kowalski's. Although Kowalski's targets a different customer demographic than Hy-Vee, it would nevertheless be impacted by a Hy-Vee store coming to the area. The Kowalski's store is close to the prospective Hy-Vee site. Hy-Vee has some options that are more upscale than what Cub Foods offers, such as better perishables, more ready -to -eat options, and in-store dining. Those features may appeal to Kowalski's shoppers. The impact on Kowalski's may be in the neighborhood of 15% of sales. With a financial impact on that scale, the eventual closure of the store can't be ruled out. Other grocery stores. Target and Walmart will be less impacted by the Hy-Vee store. Aldi will be minimally impacted. New service road. A service road connecting from Manning Avenue to Stillwater Boulevard is beneficial to Hy-Vee because it improves the ease of access for customers coming from the north and south on Stillwater Boulevard. It also improves its ability to attract customers who are in the area to shop at other stores, such as the Walmart or Lowe's stores to the East. From the perspective of the existing grocery stores, construction of the service road would increase Hy-Vee's impact on their existing sales. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE Retail Floor Area (s.f.) Grocery - Related Floor Area (s.f.) Annual Sales Cub 90,000 90,000 $51,120,000 Target 117,000 14,000 $7,952,000 Walmart 220,000 50,000 $28,400,000 Aldi 16,000 16,000 $9,088,000 Kowalski's 20,000 20,000 $11,360,000 Total 463,000 190,000 $107,920,000 5 Stantec SECTION 3: SALES ANALYSIS A detailed analysis is not possible within the scope of this high-level study. However, an initial rough analysis of the potential impact on existing grocery store sales provides relevant information. If we start with an assumption that one-third of Hy-Vee sales will derive from new customers to the area, and two-thirds will be from customers who would otherwise have shopped at the existing grocery stores in the area, we can estimate the loss of sales at the existing grocery stores. Several broad assumptions are made for this initial analysis, are as follows. • Sales volumes correspond to store floor area. This is clearly true in general terms as bigger stores do a greater volume of sales than smaller sales. Having said that, gross sales per square feet of floor area does differ to some degree between different grocery store chains, and between individual stores. • The impact on each of the existing stores is the same. In reality, some stores will lose greater market share than others, and a more detailed analysis would attempt a closer estimate of the differential impacts for different stores. • Annual sales at existing grocery stores are $568 per square foot of floor area. That's the median sales per square foot for US grocery stores in 2018, per the USDA Economic Research Service. Given these assumptions, the table at left shows that the five national grocery store chains in the area offer an aggregate 190,000 square feet of grocery -related floor area, and have an estimated $108 million in total annual sales. Retail Floor Area (s.f.) Grocery- Related Floor Area (s.f.) Annual Sales Reduction in Annual Sales, Original Stores Cub 90,000 90,000 $38,139,267 Target 117,000 14,000 $5,932,775 Walmart 220,000 50,000 $21,188,482 Aldi 16,000 16,000 $6,780,314 Kowalski's 20,000 20,000 $8,475,393 Hy-Vee 64,667 64,667 $27,403,770 Total 527,667 254,667 $107,920,000 Original Stores $80,516,230 25% The second table shows the impact of the new Hy- Vee store. It includes two-thirds of Hy-Vee's anticipated 97,000 square feet of floor area —representing the share of store sales to customers that are already shopping in the area at one of the other five grocery stores. The current $108 million in area sales has been BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE ] 7 Cil Stantec reallocated between Hy-Vee store and the pre-existing grocery stores. The analysis shows that the addition of the Hy-Vee store results in an overall reduction in sales at existing stores of around 25%. This quick exercise suggests that the impact of a new Hy-Vee store on sales at existing grocery stores in Oak Park Heights and Stillwater may be greater than the 15% that was estimated by one of the interviewees. The overall reduction in sales may plausibly be 25% or greater. Note that the overall loss in sales to existing stores will be experienced differently by individual stores. Based on this research, the Cub Foods and Kowalski's stores are likely to bear a disproportionate share of the impact on sales, since those are the grocery stores that are most directly competitive with the new Hy-Vee store. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE Stantec APPENDIX The following represents a consolidated set of observations and opinions from the six individuals who were interviewed as part of this study. Each is a statement or close paraphrase from one of the interviewees. Note that in some instances interviewee comments may reflect differing or contradictory perspectives from one another. Competitive Impacts on Specific Stores Cub Foods • The Cub in Stillwater is a real anomaly. It does more business than you would ever imagine. It has great customer loyalty. It draws from all over. • Cub Foods has its corporate headquarters in Stillwater and really works to be a good community citizen, contributing to local causes, etc. • This Cub Foods was renovated relatively recently. It's a high volume store. But the chain is struggling. • Cub Foods was bought by United Natural Foods. It's probably not going to last. They took on too much debt. • Of the grocery stores in the area, Hy-Vee competes the most directly against Cub Foods. They compete for the same demographic. • Cub Foods and Hy-Vee use similar marketing strategies, provides a similarly broad product mix, and targets an almost identical demographic. Cub and Kowalski's are more complementary. • Hy-Vee at this location would have a little broader trade area only because they have fewer stores in the region. • The Hy-Vee will impact Cub Foods the hardest. • Hy-Vee will appeal to Wisconsin customers over Cub because it's different. There aren't any Hy-Vee stores in Wisconsin. • Hy-Vee is competitive with both Cub and Kowalski's. Hy-Vee is very price competitive, like Cub. And big. They have better perishables than Cub, in store dining, etc. But Hy-Vee will offer a lot of things Cub doesn't and can't. In those regards it is more like Kowalski's, which is more upscale. It will impact both. • Might take a 30% to 35% hit in sales. • If a store closes, it will be the Cub. Kowalski's • Kowalski's trade area is two to three miles, drawing heavily from Oak Park Heights, Lake Elmo and Stillwater. • This Kowalski's struggled to establish itself initially, but has stabilized in recent years. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE Stantec • Hy-Vee offers some of the same things as Kowalski's. But Kowalski's has tremendous service and quality, and if customers want that kind of environment they won't find it at Hy-Vee. • Hy-Vee is competitive with both Cub and Kowalski's. Hy-Vee is very price competitive, like Cub. And big. They have better perishables than Cub, in store dining, etc. But Hy-Vee will offer a lot of things Cub doesn't and can't. In those regards it is more like Kowalski's, which is more upscale. It will impact both. • Kowalski's could lose around 15% in sales • Kowalski's will lose sales. • The Hy-Vee will have an impact on Kowalski's but to a lesser extent than Cub, because Kowalski's is an upscale store. • Kowalski's will be significantly damaged. It's not a strong Kowalski's to begin with. • Despite the new competition, I think Kowalski's will be all right. • Kowalski's, they do pretty well. They're a survivor. Target • Target is a bit weak in their grocery business. They can be impacted pretty well. They never do very well with the perishables. They have very low sales per square foot on the grocery end. They're not a very strong competitor —although they do better in the Mpls area than in the rest of the country. • Target and Walmart will get hit less than Cub and Kowalski's. A lot of their customers are shopping there because they are also doing retail shopping. • Hy-Vee will have twice the impact on Cub and Kowalski's and Target than it will on Walmart. • Hy-Vee will impact all of the existing stores, including Target and Walmart. Walmart • The only store that won't be impacted is Walmart. Hy-Vee will have twice the impact on Cub and Kowalski's and Target than it will on Walmart. Aldi • This Aldi has never been a strong Aldi. It did a little better when the bridge was built. • There will be no impact on Aldi. • Aldi won't be hit at all. • All of the grocery stores in the area will see an impact. Other Hy-Vee Stores • A new Hy-Vee in this location will take some business from Hy-Vee stores in other locations. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE 10 Stantec Customer Attraction and Impact on Sales • 75% of customers of the customers of the new Hy-Vee will come from the existing stores in the area. 25% will be from new customers to the area. • Two-thirds to three-quarters of Hy-Vee sales will come from customers of the nearby stores. One-third to one -quarter will be new customers to the area. • The Hy-Vee will reduce sales at the competing stores in the area by as much as 15%. Service Road • If the service road helps Hy-Vee, it hurts the competing grocery stores. • The service road makes a difference. If it's built, it increases the impact on the existing grocery stores. • I would assume that it would make a difference. If you're driving north on Stillwater Blvd, and you're on the fence about the Hy-Vee vs Kowalski's, the lack of a service road may be a decider. • The impact on Kowalski's is a little less if the service road isn't built because shoppers from the south would have to get on the highway to get to Kowalski's • Shoppers from Stillwater will find it easier to cross Highway 36 on Stillwater Boulevard and take the service road to Hy-Vee. So Hy-Vee really wants that service road. • If I'm Hy-Vee and the service road isn't built, I'm not going to go there. It makes me disconnected from all of the retail synergies. • The service road connection would be beneficial to the non -grocery store retailers, because they can benefit from the customers that are drawn to the Hy-Vee store. • The service road will carry less than 5,000 cars a day. I don't know if it has any impact on Hy-Vee if the service road is built. If people are going to Hy-Vee, they're comfortable getting on the highway. [In actuality, traffic volumes are estimated to be over 10,000 cars per day on the proposed service road.] Other Comments • A Hy-Vee at this location has the disadvantage of having no adjacent complementary retail • Adding a Hy-Vee to the area would be awesome for the consumer • All of the non -grocery retailers in the area including the restaurants would like having the Hy-Vee come to the area, because it would draw additional customers to the area. The service road connection would be beneficial to them as well because that increases the spin-off benefit to them. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE 11 Stantec • Because of the emphasis of the Hy-Vee store on ready -to -eat offerings, it may have a detrimental impact on the existing restaurants in the area as well as grocery stores. • Retail is generally overbuilt in the area. The market is not big enough to support it. That's causing a lot of empty retail space. The old Herbergers building is still vacant on the Stillwater side. • Hy-Vee doesn't need a subsidy. They have lots of cash compared to other grocery chains, and very little debt. If the site stands on its own two feet, and it probably will, they'll go in anyway. But they'll fight for the subsidy anyway. • Local governments have a responsibility to not facilitate new grocery store development in areas that are already saturated with grocery stores, so they don't put existing stores out of business. BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS — STH 36 AND MANNING AVENUE 12 1 Beth Wolf ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Robin Anthony <director@greaterstillwaterchamber.com> Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:02 AM Subject: Zephyr Theatre To: Ted Kozlowski <tkozlowski@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, Mike Polehna <mpolehna@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, <lodebrecht@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, David Junker <djunker@ci.stillwater.mn.us>, Ryan Collins <rcollins@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Hello Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, we are in full support of the Theatre's outdoor concert series. We believe this brings locals to downtown Stillwater during the summer months to enjoy their community theatre while patronizing our local economy. Thank you for all your support over the years while this organization has continued to grow and add value to our community. Best, Robin Robin Anthony, IOM Executive Director Greater Stillwater Chamber of Commerce director@greaterstillwaterchamber.com www.greaterstillwaterchamber.com Office: (651) 439-4001 Cell: (612) 860-0947 Check out our Leadership Program. Leadership in the Valley 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us PLEASE NOTE: City Council meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can visit City Hall in person or online at www.ZoomGov.com/join or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 161 843 8759. Public comments can be emailed to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us REVISED AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Washington County Hwy 36 Transit Study Presentation 2. Stillwater Library Events Task Force Update 3. Parking Mitigation Policy Discussion – Resolution 4. Self-Propelled Devices Ordinance Draft IV. STAFF REPORTS 5. Public Works Director 6. Police Chief 7. Fire Chief 8. Finance Director 9. Community Development Director 10. City Clerk 11. City Attorney 12. City Administrator 13. Library Director V. RECESS RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. VI. CALL TO ORDER VII. ROLL CALL VIII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IX. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS 14. Proclamation - Julie Kink 15. Proclamation - Wally Abrahamson 16. Proclamation - Len Nelson 17. Letter of Appreciation for Officers Crist, McBroom, and Tennessen for their assistance in rendering medical aid to a Sheriff’s Deputy X. OPEN FORUM – the open forum allows the public to address council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting. Council may take action, reply or give direction to staff. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. XI. CONSENT AGENDA – these items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion with no discussion. A council member or citizen may request an item to be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 18. May 4, 2021 Regular and Recessed meeting minutes 19. May 18, 2021 Regular meeting minutes 20. Payment of Bills Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Agenda June 1, 2021 21. 304 Hazel Street East Demolition Permit – Resolution 22. Advanced Disposal Solid Waste, Recycling and Roll-off Hauler License 23. Financial Audit Contract with CliftonLarsonAllen 24. Lloyd Construction Services, Recycling and Roll-off Hauler License 25. Market Place Lift Station Improvement Project 26. Possible Purchase 2022 Ford 550 – Public Works 27. Raingardens Maintenance Agreement with Washington Conservation District - Resolution 28. Settlement Agreement for 2019-08 Neal Avenue Improvement Project 29. Sustainable Stillwater MN's Green Business Directory – Resolution 30. Temporary Liquor License Mamma Mia Event 31. Zephyr Theatre's Broadway by the Bridge: Mamma Mia! Event 32. Certified Crime Fighter Agreement PUBLIC HEARINGS – when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less. 33. CPC Case No. 2021-28 to consider a request by Mr. Jan Niemiec, applicant and Susan Eskierka, property owner. Request is for the consideration of a Rezoning and Resubdivision for a new development Property located at 7959 Neal Ave N. Notices mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on May 14, 2021. 34. On the request of Central Commons, LLC, in connection with the development of property as a mixed use Planned Unit Development project over several phases located in the City, and to grant an abatement to property taxes to be levied by the City. Notices published in the Stillwater Gazette on May 21, 2021. XII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 35. 4th of July Event Update XIII. NEW BUSINESS 36. Certified Crime Fighter Agreement – moved to consent agenda 37. Zephyr Theatre 2021 Summer Event Series Permit 38. Self-propelled Device Ordinance – 1st Reading XIV. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XV. CLOSED SESSION 39. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §13D.05, subd. 3(d), for the Council to discuss emergency response procedures and recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure and facilities. It is determined by the Council that such disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses. XVI. ADJOURNMENT City of Stillwater, Minnesota Mayor Proclamation WHEREAS, Julie Kink has worked as the recording secretary for the City of Stillwater City Council, Planning Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission; Downtown Parking Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, Human Rights Commission; Charter Commission since 2012; and WHEREAS, At age 8 , Julie lost her brother, a young soldier in Vietnam, but later found her calling as an advocate and resource for Gold Star families, like hers, whose fallen service member died while serving in a time of conflict; and WHEREAS, She is a founding member of the Family Contacts Committee, a volunteer group that helps veterans and families of the fallen connect with each other to share their memories; and WHEREAS, Over two decades, she helped more than 500 other Vietnam Gold Star families learn about their loved ones; and WHEREAS, She has been a speaker at numerous veterans events, and worked with the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association to erect a monument at Arlington National Cemetery to honor Vietnam helicopter pilots and crew members killed during the war; and WHEREAS, A trained journalist, Julie also served her local community as a newspaper reporter and Public Relations Coordinator at HOPE Adoption and Family Services; and WHEREAS, Julie has been selected as one of four 2021 Distinguished Stillwater High School Alumni, class of 1979, being honored for a lifetime of distinction. NOW THEREFORE, I, Ted Kozlowski, Mayor of the City of Stillwater, do hereby proclaim June 2nd, 2021 as ~ Julie Kink Day! ~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Stillwater to be affixed this this 1st day of June, 2021. Page 1 CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS Alnes Susan Park Fee Refund 50.00 Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris Lock installed 577.90 American Solutions for Business Eurofit Wall 1,292.39 AT&T Mobility Cell phone 67.88 Automatic Systems Co Well 9 upgrades 8,150.00 Batteries Plus Bulbs Batteries 57.45 Bentley Systems Inc.SignCAD subscription 771.30 BHE Community Solar Solar Energy 4,999.31 Bolton and Menk Inc.Sanitary manhole 3,964.50 CDI LaserFiche 648.12 CDW Government Inc.Computer equipment & software 4,994.29 Central Wood Products 2210 Premium Double Shredded Hardwood 1,520.00 Cintas Corporation Uniform & mat cleaning service 1,021.39 Clifton LarsonAllen LLP Audit 5,100.00 Cole Papers Janitorial supplies 163.79 Comcast TV Internet & Voice 483.86 Cook Law & ADR 2019 Street Project 2,000.00 Core & Main Equipment 1,340.13 Cub Foods Ice cubes - Rodeo 35.92 Cummins Sales & Service Onan Genset & Transfer Switch 3,542.79 Dakota County Technical College Training 2,500.00 David Hardware Inc Strikes 57.00 ECM Publishers Public hearing publications 199.50 Emergency Automotive Repair 844.20 Emergency Medical Products Supplies 44.88 Ess Brothers & Sons Inc.Aqua seal tubes & caulking 1,071.20 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 Supplies 227.67 Flexible Pipe Tool Co.Equipment repair charges & support 2,480.40 Frontier Ag & Turf Equipment repair supplies 78.10 Generate 360 Consulting Business strategy seminar 5,000.00 Golden Expert Services Janitor Service 3,700.00 Grainger Equipment repair supplies 145.16 Group Medicareblue RX Retiree Prescriptions Ins 3,211.00 Guardian Supply Uniform supplies 480.89 Hildi Inc Actuarial disclosures 990.00 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc Design guidelines 2,402.00 Hotsy Equipment of Minnesota Equipment wash 664.18 Instrumental Research Equipment repair supplies 200.00 Intoximeters Equipment 1,150.00 Jefferson Fire and Safety Inc.Uniforms 435.74 Jobs HQ/Forum Comm Building Inspector 58.90 Junker Brad Reimburse for Bike Safety Rodeo Expenses 299.42 Kirvida Fire Inc.Ford grass truck repair 374.98 Knippenberg Carla Reimburse for Planning Commissioner iPad 381.62 Lindstrom Solar LLC Solar Energy 6,270.00 Page 2 MacQueen Equipment Inc.Supplies 125.34 Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Labor Relations Services 90.00 Mansfield Oil Company Fuel 5,929.56 Marshall Electric Company Rutherford lift station repair 150.00 Menards Supplies 1,893.81 Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors Maintenance 896.50 MHSRC/Range Training 890.00 MK Mechanical Inc Parking shed AC 907.50 MN Dept of Health Hospitality Fee 40.00 MN Dept of Health Drinking Water Water Connection Fee 29,500.00 MN Dept of Transportation Traffic signal maint 590.38 MN Pollution Control Agency Wastewater certification renewal 23.00 MP Nexlevel LLC Locating 2,207.50 Office Depot Office supplies 173.03 Performance Plus LLC Drug screen 135.00 Pioneer Press St. Paul Subscription 147.72 Postmaster Newsletter Postage 1,760.40 Praxair Ditribution Cylinders 59.88 Progressive Microtechnology Inc Evidence tracker service support 695.00 Quadient Leasing Postage machine lease 455.01 Quill Corporation Office supplies 115.92 RG Construction Grading Escrow Refund 10,500.00 Riedell Shoes Inc.Skates 485.60 Reiter Darlene Refund Park Donation Memorial Bench 1,521.00 Reiter Deborah Refund Park Donation Memorial Bench 1,521.00 Safe Fast Inc Nitrile gloves & safety supplies 1,324.32 SEH Inc Maryknoll traffic study 2,776.12 Sentry Systems Inc.Alarm monitoring 140.85 Simplifile LC Filing fee 50.00 SiteOne Landscape Supply Supplies 129.52 Springbrook Software Springbrook upgrade 5,437.50 State of Minnesota Decals 24.00 Stillwater Motor Company Vehicle service 50.69 Stillwater MP I LLC SMP I LLC - Temp Constr Easement Fee 2,000.00 T.A. Schifsky and Sons Asphalt 2,333.61 Triple Valley Ironworks Bench with memorial plaque 4,563.00 Utility Logic Equipment 10,459.00 WSB & Associates Inc.MS4 Services 4,648.50 LIBRARY Amazon Business Programs - Juv SRP (SPLF HJA)178.20 Cintas Corporation Towels & Rugs 178.20 Demco Inc.Processing Supplies 185.80 Hedin Sue Staff Reimbursement 128.25 Menards Janitorial Supplies 65.95 Office of MN IT Services Phone - April 143.70 Page 3 Otis Elevator Company Elevator Maintenance Service 598.44 Pioneer Press St. Paul Materials - Periodicals (SPLF Heuer)627.00 Scholastic Inc Programs - JUV SRP (SPLF HJA)361.14 Tan Ni Programs - Adult June (SPLF)350.00 ADDENDUM Ace Hardware Supplies 358.57 Advance Auto Parts Equipment repair supplies 386.65 Century Power Equipment Police small generator 12.00 Guardian Supply Uniforms - Reserves 263.97 Lorton Data Mailing updates 35.00 Menards Supplies 53.50 My Alarm Center Alarm Monitoring Services 103.08 Performance Plus LLC Drug Screen 90.00 Pro-Tec Design Replace recording server at Lily Lake 76.50 Titan Machinery Shakopee Equipment repair supplies 158.52 Uline Inc Concession supplies 573.35 Valley Trophy Inc.Plaque 102.62 Xcel Energy Energy 42,963.78 Zahl Petroleum Maintenance Co.Dry-Tek 87.50 TOTAL 216,879.84 Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 1st day of June, 2021 Mayor Ted Kozlowski 633 SOUTH CONCORD STREET • SUITE 400 • SOUTH SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 • 651-451-1831 • FAX 651-450-7384 OFFICE ALSO LOCATED IN SPOONER, WISCONSIN TIMOTHY J. KUNTZ ANGELA M. LUTZ AMANN KORINE L. LAND DONALD L. HOEFT BRIDGET McCAULEY NASON PETER G. MIKHAIL SCOTT M. LUCAS DAVID L. SIENKO TONA T. DOVE AARON S. PRICE CASSANDRA C. WOLFGRAM CASSANDRA J. BAUTISTA AMANDA J. JOHNSON SEAN E. FROELICH CHRISTOPHER J. KRADLE MEMO TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Pete Mikhail DATE: June 1, 2021 RE: Neal Avenue Project – Parcel 1 Settlement City of Stillwater v. The Jon and Cheryl Ustipak Family Trust In November 2020, the City made a last written offer of $60,000 to acquire the easements needed from 8005 Neal Avenue North (Parcel 1) for the Neal Avenue Improvement Project. With no agreement at that time, the City condemned the needed easements. The owner of Parcel 1 has now agreed to settle the condemnation for the amount of the City’s last offer. The settlement also includes written confirmation that, under the existing code, the new trail easement does not impact the setback calculation. The settlement makes no representation about whether or how zoning ordinances might be amended in the future. Because the settlement was reached right before the holiday weekend, as of this writing, the owner has not yet signed the stipulation (it has been preliminarily reviewed by the owner’s lawyer). Therefore, the requested action seeks authority for the City Attorney to make minor, non-monetary modifications if needed to finalize the stipulation. Requested Action: Approve the attached Stipulation of Settlement, Parcel 1, subject to minor, non-monetary modifications approved by the City Attorney. 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Condemnation City of Stillwater, a Minnesota municipal corporation, Petitioner, vs. The Jon and Cheryl Ustipak Family Trust, dated February 16, 2021, et al., Respondents. Court File No. 82-CV-20-4747 Honorable Judge Ellen L. Maas STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Parcel 1 THIS STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT is made by and between Petitioner City of Stillwater (“City”) and Respondent Jon and Cheryl Ustipak Family Trust, dated February 16, 2021 (“Owner”). RECITALS 1. The following recitals are a part of the parties’ Stipulation. 2. The Owner is the fee owner of certain real property (“Property”) identified as Parcel 1 on Exhibit A to the Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting Petition, Authorizing Payment or Deposit, and Transfer of Title and Right of Possession, filed March 12, 2021 (“Condemnation Order”). A copy of Exhibit A is attached and incorporated herein. 3. The City commenced the Condemnation Action to acquire permanent and temporary easements over portions of the Property (“Easements”), as legally described in Exhibit A, for the 2019-08 Neal Avenue Improvement Project (“Project”). 4. In addition to the Owner, the City named as Respondents on Exhibit A: Xcel Energy Inc. (“Xcel”), Comcast of Minnesota, Inc. (“Comcast”), and Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a 2 CenturyLink (“Qwest”) as potential claimants of an interest in the Property based on the existence of overhead power/other lines of uncertain ownership that cross the Property. 5. By stipulation filed on February 16, 2021: Xcel identified its wholly owned subsidiary, Northern States Power Company (“NSP”), as the owner of certain overhead electric line facility(ies) that cross the Property; the City represented that the Project would not affect NSP’s existing overhead electric line facility; the City, Xcel, and NSP agreed to substitute NSP for Xcel as a named Respondent; and NSP disclaimed any interest the proceeding or award in the Condemnation Action. By order filed March 3, 2021, the Court adopted the stipulation and dismissed NSP from the Condemnation Action. 6. Based on NSP’s identification of overhead lines and the City’s representation that the Project will not affect overhead lines, the City subsequently dismissed Comcast and Qwest from the Condemnation Action. 7. On April 20, 2021, the City delivered to Owner’s counsel a check in the amount of $23,700,00, representing the City’s approved appraisal of value for the Easements pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 117.042 and the Condemnation Order (“Quick Take Payment”). 8. The City and Owner have reached a full and final settlement and compromise of the matters in dispute in this Condemnation Action. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises and other good and valuable consideration, the parties stipulate and agree as follows: 9. Settlement Consideration. The City will pay the Owner the sum of $60,000.00 (“Settlement Amount”) in full and final settlement of all claims for damages arising from the taking of the Easements that were or could have been made in the Condemnation Action. 3 10. Settlement Payment. The Quick Take Payment shall be credited against the Settlement Amount. The City will pay the balance of the Settlement Amount, $36,300.00, by delivering a check to counsel for the Owner, made payable to Owner, within 15 days of final execution of this Settlement Stipulation. 11. Other Considerations. a. The City represents that, under its current zoning ordinance, the trail easement taken in the Condemnation Action does not affect the setback calculation for building improvements. The City has no present plans or intentions to amend the pertinent zoning ordinance, but the City cannot and does not make any representation about whether or how its zoning ordinances might be amended in the future. b. The Owner acknowledges that he has not disclosed an appraisal in connection with this Condemnation Action. 12. Filing of Settlement. The City shall file this Stipulation of Settlement with the district court. Upon payment of the final Settlement Amount, the City will file a final certificate and record the final certificate and a discharge of lis pendens in the Office of the Washington County Recorder. 13. Full and Final Compromise. The terms and conditions of this Stipulation of Settlement constitute a full and final compromise of all matters in dispute that were or could have been raised in the Condemnation Action with respect to the Property, including claims for just compensation, statutory damage remedies, interest, fees, and costs. In consideration of the Settlement Amount and other terms and conditions of this Stipulation of Settlement, the Owner, waives and releases any and all claims it may have against the City in connection with the Condemnation Action. 14. Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs (including legal fees) incurred in connection with the Condemnation Action and the settlement thereof. The City will pay all filing, closing, and 4 recording fees for the Easements. 15. Entire Agreement. The undersigned state and represent that each has fully read this Stipulation of Settlement and that each knows and understands the consequences and legal effect thereof. This Stipulation of Settlement contains the entire agreement of the parties with regard to Parcel 1. 16. Execution. The parties agree that this Stipulation of Settlement may be executed in separate counterparts which, taken together, shall be and comprise one agreement. 17. Authority. The persons signing this Stipulation of Settlement in their representative capacities represent and warrant by signing this Agreement that it is their intent to bind their respective principals to the terms and conditions set forth herein, that the persons signing in their representative capacity have been authorized to bind their respective principals to such terms, and that it is the respective principals’ intent to be so bound. [Remainder of page intentionally blank.] 250673 6/1/2021 6 CITY SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF STILLWATER Dated: _____________________________________ Ted Kozlowski, Mayor _____________________________________ Beth Wolf, City Clerk LeVANDER, GILLEN & MILLER, P.A. Dated: _________________________________ Peter G. Mikhail, Lic. No. 0249907 Cassandra J. Bautista, Lic. No. 0397107 Amanda Johnson, Lic. No. 0400128 633 South Concord Street, Suite 400 South St. Paul, MN 55075 (651) 451-1831 pmikhail@levander.com cbautista@levander.com ajohnson@levander.com Attorneys for Petitioner City of Stillwater A-1 EXHIBIT A Parcel No. 1: 20.030.20.33.0028, Abstract Property Property Address: 8005 Neal Avenue N., Stillwater, MN 55082 Legal Description of Property: That part of the South 110 feet of the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 20, Township 30, Range 20, lying Westerly of Sunset Ridge Estates, Washington County, Minnesota. (“Property”) Legal Description of the Acquisition: Right of Way Easement A permanent easement for right of way purposes over, under and across the west 14.00 feet of the above described Property. Trail and Drainage Easement A permanent easement for trail and drainage purposes over, under and across the east 13.00 feet of the west 27.00 feet of the above described Property, except the south 24.00 feet thereof. Trail, Drainage and Utility Easement A permanent easement for trail, drainage and utility purposes over, under and across the south 24.00 feet of the east 13.00 feet of the west 27.00 feet of the above described Property. Utility Easement A permanent easement for utility purposes over, under and across the east 33.00 feet of the west 60.00 feet of the above described Property. The above acquisitions are subject to existing public easements, reservations, and restrictions of record, if any. A-2 Names and Description of Interests to be Acquired Name Nature of Interest Jon M. Ustipak, a single person Fee owner Xcel Energy Inc., a Minnesota corporation Potential Claimant of an Interest Comcast of Minnesota, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation Potential Claimant of an Interest Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a CenturyLink Potential Claimant of an Interest All other parties unknown, together with unknown heirs or devisees and spouses, if any Possible Unknown Real Property Interest Owners Notwithstanding the foregoing attempt to identify all interests held by a party named herein, it is Petitioner’s intention to encumber all interests owned by the named respondents in the above- described real estate. A-3 Sketch of the Acquisition GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS GENERAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is dated this 19th day of May 2021. Financial terms to commence on 19th day of May 2021 and will terminate as defined in the section TERM OF AGREEMENT. Client Stillwater Police Department 10801 Town Square Drive NE Stillwater, MN 55082 (the "Client") Vendor Certified Crime Fighter, Inc. 100 Lake St, Excelsior, MN 55331 (the "Vendor") BACKGROUND A. Client is of the opinion that the Vendor has the necessary qualifications, experience and abilities to provide services to the Client. B. The Vendor is agreeable to providing such services to the Client on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. IN CONSIDERATION OF the matters described above and of the mutual benefits and obligations set forth in this Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration is hereby acknowledged , the Client and the Vendor (individually the "Party" and collectively the "Parties" to this Agreement) agree as follows: SERVICES PROVIDED l. The Client hereby agrees to engage the Vendor to provide the Client with the following services (the "Services"): • Provide online access (99% uptime) to our Training Exchange Compliance Software (DBA - Certified Crime Fighter). 2. Services will also include any other tasks which the Parties may agree on. The Vendor hereby agrees to provide such Services to the Client. TERM OF AGREEMENT 3. Term of this Agreement (the "Term") will begin on the date of this Agreement and will remain in full force and effect indefinitely until terminated as provided in this Agreement. 4. In the event that either Party wishes to terminate this Agr eement, that Party will be required to provide 30 days' written notice to the other Party. 5. In the event that either Party breaches a material provision under this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party may terminate this Agreement immediately and require the defaulting Party to indemnify the non- defaulting Party against all reasonable damages. 6. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties. 7. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the obligations of the Vendor will end upon the termination of this Agreement. PERFORMANCE 8. Parties agree to do everything necessary to ensure that the terms of this Agreement take effect. CURRENCY 9. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all monetary am ounts referred to in this Agreement are in USD (US Dollars). COMPENSATION 10. The Vendor will charge the Client for the Services at the rate defined in the Vendor’s annual invoice (the "Compensation"). The Compensation is not refundable with any type of termination. 11. The Client will be invoiced annually, and the Compensation is subject to change with future invoices. 12. Invoices submitted by the Vendor to the Client are due upon receipt. 13. The Vendor will not be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in connection with providing the Services of this Agreement. 14. The Client will remit payment to Vendor at this address: CERTIFIED CRIME FIGHTER INC. 1OO Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 PENALTIES FOR LATE PAYMENT 15. Any payments not received by Vendor after 45 calendar days of invoice date will trigger a fee of 5.00% per month on the amount still owing. 16. If payments are not received in full after 60 calendar days of the invoice date, the Vend or will revoke the Client’s access to the Services. CONFIDENTIALITY 17. Confidential information (the "Confidential Information") refers to any data or information relating to the business of the Client which would reasonably be considered to be proprietary to the Client or classified as protected, not public, nonpublic, private, or confidential by law, including, but not limited to , accounting records, business processes, and client records and that is not generally known in the industry of the Client and wher e the release of that Confidential Information could reasonably be expected to cause harm to the Client. 18. The Vendor agrees that they will not disclose, divulge, reveal, report or use, for any purpose, any Confidential Information which the Vendor has obtained, except as authorized by the Client or as required by law. The obligations of confidentiality will apply during the Term and will survive indefinitely upon termination of this Agreement. 19. All written and oral information and material disclosed or provided by the Client to the Vendor under this Agreement is Confidential Information regardless of whether it was provided before or after the date of this Agreement or how it was provided to the Vendor. OWNERSHIP OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 20. All intellectual property and related material (the "Intellectual Property") that is developed or produced under this Agreement, will be the property of the Vendor. The Client is granted a non -exclusive limited- use of this Intellectual Property. 21. Title, copyright, intellectual property rights and distribution rights of the Intellectual Property remain exclusively with the Vendor. RETURN OF PROPERTY 22. Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Vendor will return to the Client any property, documentation, records, or Confidential Information which is the property of the Client. CAPACITY /INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 23. In providing the Services under this Agreement it is expressly agreed that the Vendor is acting as an independent contractor and not as an employee. Vendor and the Client acknowledge that this Agreement does not create a partnership or joint venture between them and is exclusively a contract for service. The Client is not required to pay, or make any contributions to, any social security, local, state or federal tax, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, insurance premium, profit-sharing, pension or any other employee benefit for the Vendor during the Term. The Vendor is responsible for paying, and complying with reporting requirements for, all local, state and federal taxes related to payments made to the Vendor under this Agreement. RIGHT OF SUBSTITUTION 24. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Vendor may, at the Vendor's absolute discretion, engage a third-party sub-contractor to perform some or all of the obligations of the Vendor under this Agreement and the Client will not hire or engage any third parties to assist with the provision of the Services. 25. If the Vendor hires a sub-contractor, the Vendor will pay the sub-contractor for its services and the Compensation will remain payable by the Client to the Vendor. 26. For the purposes of the indemnification clause of this Agreement, the sub-contractor is an agent of the Vendor. AUTONOMY 27. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Vendor will have full control over working time, methods, and decision making in relation to provision of the Services in accordance with the Agreement. Vendor will work autonomously and not at the direction of the Client. However, the Vendor will EQUIPMENT 28. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Vendor will provide at the Vendor's own expense, any and all tools, machinery, equipment, raw materials, supplies, work wear and any other items or parts necessary to deliver the Services in accordance with the Agreement. NO EXCLUSIVITY 29. Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is non -exclusive and that either Party will be free, during and after the Term, to engage or contract with third parties for the provision of services like the Services. NOTICE 30. All notices, requests, demands or other communications required or permitted by the terms of this Agreement will be given in writing and delivered to the Parties at the addresses listed at beginning of this document for “Client” and “Vendor”, or to such other address as either Party may from time to time notify the other, and will be deemed to be properly delivered (a) immediately upon being served personally, (b) two days after b eing deposited with the postal service if served by registered mail, or (c) the following day after being deposited. with an overnight courier. INDEMNIFICATION 31. Except to the extent paid in settlement from any applicable insurance policies, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, each Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other Party, and its respective directors, shareholders, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, and permitted. successors and assigns against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, penalties, punitive damages, expenses, reasonable legal fees and costs of any kind or amount whatsoever, which result from or arise out of any act or omission of the indemnifying party, its respective directors, shareholders, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, and permitted successors and assigns that occurs in connection with this Agreement. This indemnification will survive the termination of this Agreement. ADDITIONAL CLAUSES 32. Please see general SaaS Term of Services Agreement within the Certified Crime Fighter Application. By signing this document, you are agreeing to those in addition to the information contained within this section of the document: • NO ADDITIONAL CLAUSES. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT 33. Any amendment or modification of this Agreement or additional obligation assumed by either Party in connection with this Agreement will only be binding if evidenced in writing signed by each Party or an authorized representative of each Party. TIME OF THE ESSENCE 34. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. No extension or variation of this Agreement will operate as a waiver of this provision. ASSIGNMENT 35. The Vendor will not voluntarily, or by operation of law, assign or otherwise transfer its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Client. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 36.It is agreed that there is no representation, warranty, collateral agreement or condition affecting this Agreement except as expressly provided in this Agreement. ENUREMENT 37.This Agreement will to the benefit of and be binding on the Parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators and permitted successors and assigns. TITLES/HEADINGS 38.Headings are inserted for the convenience of the Parties only and are not to be considered when interpreting this Agreement. GENDER 39.Words in the singular mean and include the plural and vice versa. Words in the masculine mean and include the feminine and vice versa. GOVERNING LAW 40.This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. SEVERABILITY 41.In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part, all other provisions will nevertheless continue to be valid and enforceable with the invalid or unenforceable parts severed from the remainder of this Agreement. WAIVER 42.The waiver by either Party of a breach, default, delay or omission of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party will not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or other provisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have duly affixed their signatures under hand and seal on this 19th day of May 2021. City of Stillwater _____________________ Ted Kozlowski, Mayor June 1, 2021 ATTEST: ______________________ Beth Wolf, City Clerk June 1, 2021 Certified Crime Fighter Inc. ______________________ (sign & date) 5/19/2021 Certified Crime Fighter 100 Lake St DATE Excelsior, MN 55331 5/19/2021 Phone: (763) 439-3337 TERMS Due upon receipt Stillwater Police Department SUBSCRIPTION START END 10801 Town Square Drive NE 5/19/2021 5/18/2022 Blaine, MN 55449 DESCRIPTION QTY $ / User $ / Mo Total Annual subscription for licensed officers 22 6.00 132.00 1,584.00 Annual Subscription for civilians 4 - - - Annual Subscription for support and updates 1 - - - - - 1,584.00 0.000% TAX - 1,584.00$ * Note: Software as a Service is non-taxable in State of MN TAX RATE * TOTAL If you have any questions about this invoice, please contact Michelle Noel, (763) 439-3337, michelle.noel@certifiedcrimefighter.com INVOICE CUSTOMER ID BILL TO INVOICE # Stillwater-PD-44335 Stillwater-PD Thank you for your business!SUBTOTAL 1 Beth Wolf From:Cynthia Marie <cynthiamariearchitect@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:18 PM To:Stillwater Cc:Abbi Wittman Subject:City of Stillwater Zephyr Theatre - Event Series Permit [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. _______________________________________________________________________________ June 1, 2021 City of Stillwater 216 4th Street N Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: The Zephyr Theater Special Event Series Permit application Noise Nuisance Ordinance Monitoring and Enforcement Dear Stillwater City Council Members, As our special neighbor, The Zephyr Theatre continues its amazing strides towards creative and innovative solutions and offerings for our community. As a resident (and a board member at 650 Terra Springs), I remain a supporting member for the Arts and applaud the vitality this group has shared with so many locals and visitors. With the pandemic, the Zephyr Theatre has brought the arts to the streets like no one else in the state, an economic boost for City of Stillwater, absolutely! Now, as The Zephyr Theatre settles into the new normal, please consider these items during the Special Event Series Permit review. We understand from staff that they will not move forward with amending their conditional use permit, therefore this is an event series permit only application for summer 2021. 1.The Terra Springs community (277 units) was not notified of the permit application. At this scope of 250 attendees for one performance, we would appreciate the invitation/notification to be included in all future permit applications, amendments, discussions, etc. moving forward as it relates to outdoor programmed activities. 2.The Downtown Parking: Commission recently reviewed the proposed Mitigation Plan dated April 25, 2021. Terra Springs would like an update on how many spaces are used for residential parking with a purchased monthly permit. We must confirm that our residences are/not using these spaces therefore they must be available to residents too. It is noticeable that on the weekends that parking lot is full of trail riders/walkers. 3.Thinking Outside the Box: There might be a ‘missed opportunity’ where the actual outdoor theater/extension could be flipped to the north under the canopy of the vegetation, away from the open parking lot offering a more natural private (quiet) experience for theater goers. Wondering if The Zephyr Theatre group investigated this option. This arrangement also supports the future interior theater Master Plan design to the north. 4.The Noise Issues: Within the letter dated April 25, The Zephyr Theatre plans on contracting with an acoustician testing investigation. We would like to emphasize that the ongoing performance AND practice sound noise is an issue to Terra Springs. The consultant must include in their report an amplification of our natural amphitheater, the original Territorial Prison Walls here at Terra Springs, with readings from all significant housing locations as mentioned in the staff report. The City must enforce the Noise Ordinance as adopted in 2021. With review of these items and remedies we support our neighbor, the Zephyr Theater in their efforts for a successful 2021 season! Most Respectfully, Cynthia Marie AIA ARCHITECT > IDEOLOGIST > EXPLORER Be curious…adventure on. 1 Beth Wolf ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Penny Seeds <penseeds@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 8:17 PM To: Stillwater <stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Zephyr theater [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. _______________________________________________________________________________ I heard that there were complaints coming from the Terra Springs Condos. I want to state that I currently live right across from the Zephyr theater parking lot and at street level. I feel they do a very nice job with their outdoor activities and have not witnessed disruptive behavior or excess noise. The street noise from motor vehicles and motorcycles are more annoying and louder than anything happening at the Zephyr theater. This theater can only enhance activities in Stillwater Sent from my iPhone 1 Beth Wolf From: JoAnne Mrosak <jmrosak@mdcwall.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:22 AM To: Stillwater <stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Zephyr Event Permit. Issues ‐ Sound ‐ Parking ‐ Rubbish Trash being heard 6‐1‐2021 [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. _______________________________________________________________________________ Dear City Council Members I have been a resident on the north side of 650 Main St N ,#307, Terra Springs for ten years. I have not been in agreement, nor the short notice less than 30 days to only a few residents of the proposed large theatre and the location, and the allowed VARIANCES I found incredibility disrespectful to the owners of Terra Spring and in particular to the 650 Building. The city took consideration on the theatre’s needs versus the community and residents that paid high prices for their river views. The city proposed it would bring many more participants to the theatre, to the city, during winter months. Has the city ever done a survey regarding the condo residents and what percentage live out of state for 6 months? I think they would find more than 60% of the condo residents do not live in Stillwater during the winter months. TODAY BEFORE THE CITY’s ISSUES ZEPHYR PERMIT: Zephyr: NUMBER OF EVENTS per month: I see the interest in music events and some theatrical events throughout the summer Perhaps 2 events per weekend, would be acceptable, respecting noise ordinances of the city. This theatre was meant for performances indoors not outdoors -and there should not be practice sessions of theatrical events outdoors throughout the days prior to a performance. AMPLIFIED ACOUSTICS: The bluff and old prison walls created much amplification of sound. To have acoustical sound that disrupts the residents is unacceptable and disrespectful to the owners. PARKING : Is our city not about the bike trails/bridge trails and adequate parking for the recreational and casual visiting crowd? These walkers, shoppers, restaurant patrons, river viewers, and bikers bring in much more revenue to the city versus the theatre. There are plenty of other venues - the theatre should use their (Theatre’s) parking lot and the theatre’s back parking lot for parking for their events. Theatre’s expectation of PARTICIPANTS and audience: I find this to be a great exaggeration. Keep in mind this theatre MAYBE had attendance of 90-150 when they were working towards launching in the metro city’s rented facilities. This whole idea of 200 plus attendees is not reasonable. 2 TRASH/RUBBISH behind the THEATRE AREA: There is constant garbage, half structures, EYE SORES in the back of the Theatre. Again, residents, bikers, etc, visitors see this mess every day!! We did not buy property to look at garbage every day . HOW IS THIS AN ASSET TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER AND WHY IS THIS NOT BEING ADDRESSED? When those driving in to town, go for a walk, a bike ride, this is what they see as their welcome to the City of Stillwater. Thank you for reviewing this email. Please take into consideration residents, the beauty of our city, have regulations, and parking for visitors, bikers, restaurant participants, shoppers, river viewers, versus the minor theatre owner’s desires. Kindly, JoAnne Mrosak 763-218-7207 Jmrosak@mdcwall.com Www.mdcwall.com Check out our new Acoustic Timber and Sticks Look Book. Transform Your Space ZINTRA ACOUSTICAL TIMBER & STICKS https://indd.adobe.com/view/96997124-657b-40c5-bf65-beab2832e97a MDC ARCHITECTURAL METALS https://news.mdcwall.com/2020/10/go-beyond-the-ordinary-with-architectural-metals/ APRIL 2021 NEW WALLCOVERINGS https://www.mdcwall.com/product/newproducts MDC ZINTRA FUNC http://mdc.is/func MDC SINGLE SOURCE TOTAL SOLUTION 1 Beth Wolf From:JoAnne Mrosak <jmrosak@mdcwall.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 1, 2021 10:19 AM To:Beth Wolf Subject:Zephyr Theatre Permit Request before Council 6-1-2021. CONCERNS [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. _______________________________________________________________________________ Hello Beth, I was told I could share my concerns regarding the Zephry Theatre Permit Request with you in preparation for this meeting today. I am a resident of 650 Terra Springs - with a river view, presently view of this mess as my close neighbor. I would like to express my concerns, regarding the rubbish, and trash that sits outside the theatre area. This has been issue on or before spring/summer/fall of 2019, this is not a “temporary” issue. We that paid $400,000 plus for our condo river view units should not have to experience this view - nor should the bikers, walkers, or visitors- this is their first view and welcome to Stillwater. Photos below. The city should take some action, again this is not a construction issue this has been ongoing mess. Would a city council member want this as their neighbor view? Re: Parking: Theatre has a parking lot for their parking. We should not be denying the many other visitors that come to riverview, walk, bike, restaurant patrons, and shoppers parking. The theatre is a small part of the recreation and attraction of Stillwater. Re: Acoustics: The old prison walls and bluffs are applicators of everything, the sound reflection is enormous. Residents should not have to endure additional amplification. The theatre was for indoor performance. Outside performances should be reasonable and to a minimum - perhaps during the warm season 2 performances on the weekends. All rehearsals - should be indoors - not for the residents to endure practices throughout the summer. Re: Participants. The theatre states attendees being over 200, this is not the case, the theatre may have had listeners in the warm evenings that may be a crowd of 50 or more. People are not drawn to Stillwater because of the theatre events. Other venues have other music events and do not have expectations of special parking privileges. The theatre has a parking lot - and that is what I should be used for. This theatre has given the city the idea they will have many people that will come, all seasons. The city should keep in mind the number of condo owners that live somewhere else six months of the year. This large capacity theatre, venue, is not realistic. Prior to Stillwater, this small theatre, may have had performances for 50-150 at rented metro theatres. It would be good for the city to research/review Lakeshore Players, St Croix Theatre association, and Hudson Theatre group to determine what is a reasonable expectation of size and participation for a theatre in a town such as Stillwater. Thank you for reviewing my email. Kindly, JoAnne Mrosak 650 Terra Springs resident 1 Beth Wolf From: JoAnne Mrosak <jmrosak@mdcwall.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:50 AM To: Stillwater <stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: Terra Springs ‐ next door neighbor ‐ Zephyr Theatre concerns. Photos [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. _______________________________________________________________________________ Those that have spent close to $400,000 or more for their “river view” condo property - do not have expectations of this being their neighbor and view. This is not been a “temporary“ situation, this has been ongoing and for certain started in 2019 spring/summer/fall or before. Would you want this view from your neighbor daily? 2 JoAnne Mrosak 763-218-7207 Jmrosak@mdcwall.com Www.mdcwall.com NI 1 1\7 ter The Sirlhplaca of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us PLEASE NOTE: City Council meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can visit City Hall in person or online at www.ZoomGov.com/join or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 161 843 8759. Public comments can be emailed to stillwater@ci.stillwater.mn.us AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Washington County Hwy 36 Transit Study Presentation 2. Stillwater Library Events Task Force Update 3. Parking Mitigation Policy Discussion - Resolution 4. Self -Propelled Devices Ordinance draft IV. STAFF REPORTS 5. Public Works Director 6. Police Chief 7. Fire Chief 8. Finance Director 9. Community Development Director 10. City Clerk 11. City Attorney 12. City Administrator 13. Library Director V. RECESS RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. VI. CALL TO ORDER VII. ROLL CALL VIII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IX. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS 14. Proclamation - Julie Kink 15. Proclamation - Wally Abrahamson 16. Proclamation - Len Nelson 17. Letter of Appreciation for Officers Crist, McBroom, and Tennessen for their assistance in rendering medical aid to a Sheriffs Deputy X. OPEN FORUM - the open forum allows the public to address council on subjects which are not a part of the meeting. Council may take action, reply or give direction to staff Please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. XI. CONSENT AGENDA - these items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion with no discussion. A council member or citizen may request an item to be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 18. May 4, 2021 Regular and Recessed meeting minutes 19. May 18, 2021 Regular meeting minutes 20. Payment of Bills 21. 304 Hazel Street East Demolition Permit - Resolution 22. Advanced Disposal Solid Waste, Recycling and Roll -off Hauler License 23. Financial Audit Contract with CliftonLarsonAllen 24. Lloyd Construction Services, Recycling and Roll -off Hauler License 25. Market Place Lift Station Improvement Project 26. Possible Purchase 2022 Ford 550 - Public Works 27. Raingardens Maintenance Agreement with Washington Conservation District - Resolution 28. Settlement Agreement for 2019-08 Neal Avenue Improvement Project (available Tuesday) 29. Sustainable Stillwater MN's Green Business Directory - Resolution 30. Temporary Liquor License Mamma Mia Event 31. Zephyr Theatre's Broadway by the Bridge: Mamma Mia! Event PUBLIC HEARINGS - when addressing Council please limit your comments to 10 minutes or less. 32. CPC Case No. 2021-28 to consider a request by Mr. Jan Niemiec, applicant and Susan Eskierka, property owner. Request is for the consideration of a Rezoning and Resubdivision for a new development Property located at 7959 Neal Ave N. Notices mailed to affected property owners and published in the Stillwater Gazette on May 14, 2021. 33. On the request of Central Commons, LLC, in connection with the development of property as a mixed use Planned Unit Development project over several phases located in the City, and to grant an abatement to property taxes to be levied by the City. Notices published in the Stillwater Gazette on May 21, 2021. XII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 34. 4th of July Event Update XIII. NEW BUSINESS 35. Certified Crime Fighter Agreement (available Tuesday) 36. Zephyr Theatre 2021 Summer Event Series Permit 37. Self-propelled Device Ordinance - 1st Reading XIV. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS XV. CLOSED SESSION 38. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §13D.05, subd. 3(d), for the Council to discuss emergency response procedures and recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure and facilities. It is determined by the Council that such disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses. XVI. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 2 City Council Meeting Agenda June 1, 2021 HIGHWAY 36 TRANSIT STUDY Washington County, in collaboration with Ramsey County, Hennepin County, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), and the Metropolitan Council, studied the potential for transit improvements in the Highway 36 corridor, which extends about 27 miles between Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport area, and downtown Minneapolis. Previous transit and highway studies have consistently shown that Highway 36 is a critical connection between Washington County and other parts of the Twin Cities region. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY WAS TO: • Identify transit service needs and recommendations that are reflective of the Highway 36 corridor's existing and anticipated future travel demands and patterns • Consider transit and complementary facilities to improve travel options and provide alternatives to highway congestion for Washington, Ramsey, and Hennepin County residents, businesses, and visitors PURPOSE STATEMENT The purpose statement developed for transit improvements in the Highway 36 corridor was as follows: The purpose of the Highway 36 Transit Feasibility Project is to expand multimodal travel options, improve mobility for people who rely on transit or have less access to a vehicle, and to improve access to jobs and opportunities. Improved transit service that satisfies the long-term regional mobility and accessibility needs for residents and businesses supports sustainable development within the study area. PROJECT NEEDS The existing conditions analysis for the Highway 36 corridor suggested that the issues that support the need for improved transit in the corridor include the following: Limited existing transit service span and coverage Limited transit options for people who rely on transit ► Traffic congestion ► Gaps in active & accessible connections ► Planned growth of population, jobs, and density ENGAGEMENT PROCESS AND FINDINGS During fall 2020, the project team conducted focus groups and collected surveys. The over 1,200 questionnaires collected from people living, working, or going to school in the Highway 36 corridor showed the following results: Barriers to currently riding transit in the Highway 36 corridor included: The convenience of driving an automobile Travel time on transit Challenges of getting to/from the bus stop Top destinations to which respondents are interested in taking transit in Highway 36 corridor ► University of Minnesota ► Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport ► Downtown ► Highway 36 & Minneapolis Snelling of respondents are interested in taking transit of respondents are interested in taking transit in the Highway 36 corridor multiple times per week HIGHWAY 36 TRANS! RECOMMENDATIONS Transit improvement recommendations were developed for the Highway 36 corridor with an equity lens with the intention of expanding multimodal travel options, improving mobility for people who rely on transit or have less access to a vehicle, improving access to jobs and opportunities, satisfying the longterm regional mobility and accessibility needs for residents and businesses, and supporting sustainable development within the study area. Recommendations were based on technical evaluation and the feedback received from the public and corridor stakeholders. Technical recommendations are grouped based on their suggested implementation timeframe and include the need and implementation recommendations. 0-2 YEARS 3-5 YEARS 5-8 YEARS IMMEDIATE TERM RECOMMENDATIONS ► Continue to prioritize, maintain, and invest in mobility management ► Study and consider pilot on -demand public transit service ► Continue to engage residents, employees, businesses, and community organizations in corridor transit planning, especially underrepresented populations, and the hospitality industry Continue planning and constructing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure connecting to the highway 36 corridor Collaborate with state, regional, and local agencies to show a Highway 36 transitway in planning documents as they are updated (SMTP, TPP, Metropolitan Area Comprehensive Transit Finance Report) NEAR TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Develop a higher frequency (10-15 minute) limited stop service between downtown Minneapolis and Maplewood Mall Transit Center via University of Minnesota Develop a lower frequency (30 minute) limited stop service between Maplewood Mall Transit Center and Stillwater/Oak Park Heights/Bayport Continue to monitor the need for peak -period, peak -direction express service between Stillwater and downtown Minneapolis Form a corridor commission, including city and county policymakers, to: • Identify funding sources for corridor improvements • Develop multi -jurisdictional agreement • Scope out the projects (transit service and infrastructure, including mobility management) • Monitor need for peak period express bus service to report to the corridor commission MEDIUM TERM IMPROVEMENTS ► ► Strategically develop a network of mobility hubs in the Highway 36 corridor Encourage transit -supportive development near potential transit access areas, especially uses that balance out parking demand for shared parking opportunities Protect and enhance the existing bus -only shoulders on Highway 36 and explore/designate and enhance bus -only shoulders on Highway 36 east of 694 Explore/designate and enhance bus -only shoulders on Highway 280 QUESTIONS? CONTACT: EMILY JORGENSEN, Project Manager, Washington County Public Works ® amity.jorgensen@co.washington.mn.us , 651-430-4338 i11water THE B RTH PLAT. E CT M1NNEOIA Memo To: Mayor & City Council Members From: Mark Troendle, Director, Stillwater Public Library Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Re: Library Events Task Force Update The Stillwater Public Library Board of Trustees created an Events Task Force in 2020 to examine the future of private and community events on the terrace and in the meeting room wing —collectively referred to as the Event Wing space. The purpose of this report is to bring the City Council up to date on the work the Events Task Force has completed so far, provide survey results, share what has been learned through research and analyses, and gather input from the Mayor and City Council Members. The Task Force has met monthly, and often twice monthly, since September 2020. It has gathered information, created a survey, developed documents to guide decision -making processes, and continued discussion around the three questions below, which are believed essential to meeting the charge of the Task Force. (The charge itself is documented on the next page.) 1. How does the Library's mission inform use of the Event Wing? 2. What should be the basis for prioritizing use of the Event Wing space? 3. Should event rentals be allowed? If so, at what level of sustainability/priority based on existing staff and resources? Significant progress has been made to address those three questions and the many issues involved in holding events at the Library. The next steps for the Task Force are: • Present Events Task Force findings to City Council on June 1 to keep Council informed. • Incorporate feedback from Library Board and City Council presentations into existing body of work and continue to discuss the three questions to achieve the goal of presenting two draft proposals to the Board in August for review and discussion. • Present final proposals for Board action in October 2021. Library Director Troendle will present a brief verbal report to City Council on June 1 structured around the organization of the written report that follows, including these topics: • Introduction and Brief Historical Synopsis • Review of Survey Results • True Cost of Event Rentals • Sustainability Factors and Prioritization of Events • Time for Questions/Comments Stillwater Public Library LIBRARY EVENTS TASK FORCE CHARGE 1. Review and recommend for board consideration at least two options on the purpose and rationale for providing space for events, both public and private, at the Stillwater Public Library. 2. Assure that recommended options align with the library's goals, mission, and strategic plan. 3. Identify policies that may need to be developed, as opposed to developing the policy at this point. (Note: Concerns about budget, large group gatherings, staff capacity, and cancellation of the One23 contract prompted this review. While the board voted to terminate the One23 contract, it has not addressed the question of if/how to provide library space for events.) Considerations • Study and define the purpose of providing library space for events. • Is the intention to raise revenue? To provide a community service? To be revenue neutral? • Assess benefits and risks of providing space for events. • Should the library provide space for both private and public events? • Limit use of library space to non-profit community groups only? • Provide space for weddings and other private events? Consider: • Event policies of other public libraries and nonprofit organizations. • Community input, including from the library's neighbors. • Relationship of events to the SUP granted by the city to the library. • Costs of managing event space, especially in a period of budget restrictions. • Staff capacity. • Custodial needs, COVID concerns, wear and tear on the building. • Fee structure. Timeline Complete work with a final presentation within 12 months. Provide brief quarterly interim updates. Members Paula Hemer, Pat Lockyear, Ryan Mathre, Keri Goeltl, Sandy Ellis Stillwater Public Library SYNOPSIS OF SPECIAL EVENT HISTORY BUILDING & TERRACE MAINTENAN EVENT MANAGEMENT NUMBER OF EVENTS HELD BOARD ACTIVI 2006-2008 2008 - Winter 2017 Summer 2017- December 2018 June 2019 - July 2020 July 2020 - present 2006 Library renovation completed and terrace opens Library staff managed events Number of events not available H 2015 Shade awning installed Anne Young Sandy Ellis (provided interim management thru June 2019) 36 (average of 2017 - 26 ten year span) 2018 - 46 Initial pricing structure established 2015: Some board members met with neighbors regarding complaints due to parking and noise issues. Despite improvements, complaints continued. August 2017: Task Force appointed to update event policies and address neighbors' concerns at request of City February 2018: New policies adopted April 2018: SUP process begun, completed September 2018 Early spring, 2019 pergola reconstruction completed One23 2019 - 40 * 2020 - 8 ** One23 (managing events at set fee ($500) per event) 2021-5*** No new events booked due to COVID January 2019: New pricing structure established June 2019: Third new pricing structure set November 2019: Fourth pricing structure established April 2020: Voted to terminate contract with One23 effective July 2020 July 2020: Special Events Task Force charge established September 2020: First meeting of Special Events Task Force May 2021: Initial presentation by task force * Of the 40 events held in 2019, 40 were booked by Sandy Ellis. 0 were booked by One23. ** 2020: 15 weddings were originally booked (3 were booked by Sandy). 2 of the events were canceled by clients prior to COVID. 2 canceled by wedding party due to COVID. 1 rescheduled to later in 2020. 3 rescheduled to 2021. ***2021: 3 weddings originally booked. 1 of the events was canceled by client. 3 events were rescheduled from 2020 to 2021. Stillwater Public Library EVENT WING SURVEY SUMMARY & RESULTS Summary of Survey Results This summary provides a snapshot of the survey results. The full results follow this summary. Questions one and two gathered information about respondents' use of the library and event wing. Most respondents said they visit the library once a week or every few weeks. The majority of respondents said they used the Event Wing to attend a program or meeting and to read, eat or study. Question three asked what the Library's usage priority should be for the Event Wing. All groups ranked library programming as the number one priority followed by meeting space for community/non-profit groups and unscheduled space for patrons. Staff and community response rankings were nearly identical. Trustees did not rank usage as a priority but listed their three top choices which were meeting space for community groups, library programs and unscheduled space for patrons. Space for social events and for-profit/private groups ranked lowest at 5 and 6 respectively for both community and staff respondents. And, space for social events received the fewest responses from trustees. Question four asked community respondents and staff to provide other purposes for the event wing. The majority of comments from the community fell into categories related to arts and educational programming. There were five comments between staff and trustee respondents, most of which did not fall into categories similar to community respondent comments. Question five asked respondents to decide whether or not to allow events to be held that are not open to the public. In all groups, a strong majority answered yes, to allow non-public events to be held at the library (87% community responses, 83% staff responses and 78% trustee responses). Most of the community comments for this question dealt with generating revenue and limiting the non-public events based on availability of space, type of event and recurrence of event. Question six dealt with whether or not community organizations and non -profits should be charged a fee for use of the Event Wing space. Again, a majority of all groups responded that fees should not be charged to non -profits or community organizations (63% community, 58% staff, 55% trustees). There were many community comments for this question with most of the comments suggesting a nominal fee or a sliding fee if necessary. Question seven asked if for-profit/private groups should be charged a fee and here a very strong majority of respondents said yes. 97% of community respondents, 100% of staff trustee respondents feel fees should be charged to private or for -profit groups. Question eight asked respondents to indicate when events should be scheduled, when the library is open, when the library is closed or no restrictions. The majority of respondents in all groups felt no restrictions should be placed on when events are held. Two categories of community comments stood out among the many comments: Events should be scheduled in a way that doesn't interfere with public use and if events are held when the library is closed, there should be a fee charged. Stillwater Public Library Survey Background In the fall of 2020, a Special Event Task Force was formed and charged to: 1. Review and recommend for board consideration at least two options on the purpose and rationale for providing space for events, both public and private, at the Stillwater Public Library. 2. Assure that recommended options align with the library's goals, mission, and strategic plan. 3. Identify policies that may need to be developed, as opposed to developing the policy at this point. As part of this process, the task force created and implemented a community survey as a tool for receiving feedback on the public and private use of the library's event wing by individuals and organizations. Surveys were distributed as follows: • Trustee Survey: An online survey was distributed via email to trustees in January 2021. This survey was a draft version of the proposed community survey. Feedback from the trustees was used to shape the final survey that was sent to the public and staff. • Community Survey: An online, 8-question survey was available to the community during February and March 2021. The survey was distributed via the ShelfLife e-newsletter, posts on social media and the library's website, publication in the Chamber's March e-newsletter, and direct emails to past users of the library's meeting room spaces and local social service organizations. Paper surveys were distributed in February and March through curbside pick-up and were made available at the library. During the open survey period, 232 survey responses were received. • Staff Survey: An online survey, with the same questions as the community survey, was distributed to staff during February and March 2021. During the survey period, 12 survey responses were received. Full Survey Results The following pages provide the results of the surveys. With the exception of minor spelling corrections, written comments appear as they were submitted. Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 1: PRIOR TO COIVD, HOW OFTEN DID YOU UTILIZE SERVICES OF STILLWATER PUBLIC LIBRARY? Community: 232 Responses ➢ Multiple times per week: 39 (16.81%) ➢ Once per week: 66 (28.45%) ➢ Once very few weeks: 46 (19.83%) ➢ Once per month: 32(13.79%) ➢ A few times per year: 47 (20.26%) ➢ I never use the services of the library: 2 (0.86%) Multiple Lrne_ per weep Once per week Once every few weeks Once per month A few times per year never use services of ___ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9045100913 Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 2: WHAT ACTIVITIES HAVE YOU EVER ATTENDED OR DONE IN THE EVENT WING? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY. Community: 216 Responses; 16 Skipped ➢ Attended a program: 159 (73.61%) ➢ Attended exercise/wellness classes: 7 (3.24%) ➢ Attended wedding or social events: 60 (27.78%) ➢ Attended meetings: 157 (72.69%) ➢ Attended a fundraiser, awards ceremony, annual celebration or other special activities: 72 (33.33%) ➢ Studied, worked, read or brought food to eat on the terrace or in the gallery: 110 (50.93%) Attended a program Attended exerciselwel.__ Attended weddings or... Attended meetings Attended a fundraise ,_._ Studied, worked, read... 0% 10% 404S3 30% 40% 50% 609 70% 80% SO% 100% Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 3: WHAT SHOULD BE THE LIBRARY'S USAGE PRIORITIES FOR THE EVENT WING SPACE? PLEASE RANK IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE WHERE 1 = HIGHEST PRIORITY AND 6 = LOWEST PRIORITY. Community: 232 Responses Staff: 12 Responses 10 S 6 4 0 70 S 6 4 0 library unscheduled meeting activity space for space for programs space for space for space for for -profits social use by community comm and private EWEnts patrons orgsinp orgsinp groups m_t library unscheduled meeting activity space for space for programs space for space for spar, for for -profits social USE by community comm and private Events patrons orgsinp s-gs±np groups Trustee: 9 Responses (Note: Different question asked and different choice order) What should be the library's usage priorities for the event wing space. Please select up to 3. 60% 40% Library convening meeting space space unschedul Other programs space For space for for for edspace (Please orgsinp community for -profs social for use specify) orgsinp is and_- events by-.- Stillwater Public Library Community: Following is a table of results that shows the overall rank for each priority, as well as the number and percentage of community responses that labeled the priority as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Priority Overall Rank 1 (Highest) 2 3 4 5 6 (Lowest) Providing space for library -sponsored programs 5.33 65.52% 152 19.83% 46 4.74% 11 4.31% 10 3.45% 8 2.16% 5 Providing unscheduled space for use by library patrons (e.g., enjoying view, reading, working, eating food in gallery or on terrace) 3.93 16.38% 38 28.45% 66 15.95% 37 19.40% 45 10.78% 25 9.05% 21 Providing meeting space for community organizations and non -profits (e.g., meetings of a youth service organization or neighborhood group) 4.25 8.19% 19 33.19% 77 41.81% 97 10.34% 24 5.17% 12 1.29% 3 Providing special activity space for community organizations and non -profits (e.g., fundraisers, annual celebrations, awards ceremonies) 3.45 3.45% 8 10.78% 25 27.59% 64 46.55% 108 8.62% 20 3.02% 7 Providing space for use by for -profit businesses and private groups 1.90 3.45% 8 4.31% 10 2.59% 6 7.33% 17 33.19% 77 49.14% 114 Providing space for social events (e.g., weddings, showers, parties) 2.14 3.02% 7 3.45% 8 7.33% 17 12.07% 28 38.79% 90 35.34% 82 Staff: Following is a table of results that shows the overall rank for each priority, as well as the number and percentage of staff responses that labeled the priority as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Priority Overall Rank 1 (Highest) 2 3 4 5 6 (Lowest) Providing space for library -sponsored programs 5.17 66.67% 8 8.33% 1 16.67% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 8.33% 1 Providing unscheduled space for use by library patrons (e.g., enjoying view, reading, working, eating food in gallery or on terrace) 3.67 16.67% 2 16.67% 2 25.00% 3 8.33% 1 25.00% 3 8.33% 1 Providing meeting space for community organizations and non -profits (e.g., meetings of a youth service organization or neighborhood group) 4.00 0% 0 33.33% 4 33.33% 4 33.33% 4 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Providing special activity space for community organizations and non -profits (e.g., fundraisers, annual celebrations, awards ceremonies) 3.50 8.33% 1 16.67% 2 16.67% 2 33.33% 4 25.00% 3 0.00% 0 Providing space for use by for -profit businesses and private groups 2.08 8.33% 1 0.00% 0 8.33% 1 8.33% 1 25.00% 3 50.00% 6 Providing space for social events (e.g., weddings, showers, parties) 2.58 0.00% 0 25.00% 3 0.00% 0 16.67% 2 25.00% 3 33.33% 4 Stillwater Public Library Trustees: Following is a table of results of the trustee responses to the question asking to select up to three library usage priorities for the event wing. Priority Responses Providing space for library -sponsored programs 88.89% 8 Providing unscheduled space for use by library patrons (e.g., enjoying view, reading, working, eating food in gallery or on terrace) 33.33% 3 Providing meeting space for community organizations and non -profits (e.g., meetings of a youth service organization or neighborhood group) 100.00% 9 Providing convening space for community organizations and non -profits (e.g., fundraisers, annual celebrations, awards ceremonies) 66.67% 6 Providing space for use by for -profit businesses and private groups 0.00% 0 Providing space for social events (e.g., weddings, showers, parties) 11.11% 1 Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 4: FOR WHAT OTHER PURPOSES DO YOU ENVISION THE EVENT WING BEING UTILIZED? Community: 58 Responses, 174 Skipped For this open-ended question, the 58 responses received were reviewed and categorized. Some comments contained multiple suggestions and were tagged to more than one category. Following are the number and percentage of comments by category: ➢ Art Gallery: 11 (18.97%) ➢ Classes/Programs: 12 (22.41%) ➢ Concerts/Performances: 6 (10.34%) ➢ Field Trips: 2 (3.45%) ➢ Food/Drinks: 7 (12.07%) ➢ Fundraisers: 2 (3.45%) ➢ Meetings: 2 (3.45%) ➢ Public Events: 4 (6.90%) ➢ Reading/Studying: 4 (6.90%) ➢ Unsure: 5 (8.62%) ➢ Untagged/ Not Categorized: 11 (18.97%) Specific Comments: • Artist gallery open house events open to the public • A better gallery would be a plus. • Art exhibition/show by artist • Love the art being shown. • I love the gallery! • Painting/art classes on terrace • I haven't been to an exercise or wellness class at the library, but I would be interested in attending them. I think it would be fun if there were dance classes open to the public since it can often be hard to find a class and a way to get to it. The library has such a central location downtown and is well connected in the community. • "Classes, seminars, poetry, writing, literacy • NOT Religious • The library is an ""accessible"" space. More people or groups with disabilities should be encouraged to use the library. Speaker amplification systems should be available. If an ASL interpreter is requester or needed, that is the responsibility of the group. This should be in the contract." • To hold community ed classes • "Author presentations • A writing class" • Movie scenes, art classes, anything utilizing the great space and beautiful view. • summertime outdoor yoga and meditation • Children's programs • Container gardens/demos • A speaker series famous people of Minnesota • I really like the art gallery. A story time where kids could ear while attending would be nice. • Friends of the library book sale! Other library fundraisers, Stillwater events, WA cty events - maybe master gardener classes? Stillwater schools art performances/exhibits? Stillwater Public Library • Would love to see programming for low income children. Have you offered language classes? I also love to read on the patio. • Concerts • Live music - community special events - make it profitable to have weddings and events • City sponsored events? Community smaller performance, music or dance. • Music • Theater! Performing artists should be able to use this space for rehearsal and performance :) • Stillwater Area school field trips would be nice for students in elementary and middle school(s) • Would love to see some kind of cafe. I know it's been tried, but maybe some more thinking about it. It is such a beautiful space. Should be use for locals. • I would really love to see a coffee shop or small restaurant take over this space again. I believe there was space for something like that early on but hasn't been occupied for some time. Perhaps rooftop grill or "food truck"/vendors? • Coffee shop / snack bar? • LOVE the art exhibits ---try never to miss one. Brilliant. Maybe activities akin to MPLS's open book --maybe a bit of self -serve. Credit cards/coin-op fancy drinks machine? • Love the artwork displayed and showings learn, pretty, all good! Wish it had coffee shop. • Pop up restaurants, art installations, stores, field trips for school children or seniors living in senior residential communities or group home residents etc. to introduce them to the beauty and resources of the library. • Library fundraisers like concerts or fancy dinners. • I am a member of nonprofit organizations and so appreciate being able house the meeting rooms. • book club meetings • "Public ""open house" events, i.e. City planning for streets, public spaces • Public health awareness, COVID vaccination" • Political debates --non partisan • Winter farmers market. • Art shows/community events • N/A just a good study place for non-scheduled events! • "Ice cream socials • Musical programs outside • A place for ind. to relax, read, and enjoy the view :)" • Please make the terrace more patron friendly for reading chatting etc. Provide comfortable seating and tables. • not sure • Not sure • ? • ? • not sure • For people to use • i think you have covered them all. • Provide space for social events if it pays, same for 4/5/6. • Possibly as a temporary shelter for displaced families in times of natural disaster • My ranking were somewhat dictated by revenue raising uses unless library specific. • All of the above • N/A Stillwater Public Library • I can't think of anything that wasn't mentioned. • Those above cover the purposes that I can think of • Whatever the needs of the community are. • NA • I do not think the public library should be rented fir private events such as weddings, parties etc. Unless the public is invited to attend without charge. No event should be allowed with a ticket purchase as the public library is supported with public funds. • Community conversations Staff Responses: 2 Responses, 10 Skipped • It's likely already part of the plan but added small group seating on the terrace during warmer months when there isn't an event would encourage the use of that space. • It was very difficult ranking the usage of the rooms in question 3. I think that library programs come first, but all the rest are on equal footing. Trustee Responses: 3 Responses, 6 Skipped • Place to promote the arts of all types: visual, performance, literary and culinary arts through activities and performance events • None • Anytime the space is not scheduled, it should be available for library patrons to use and enjoy the view. Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 5: SHOULD INDIVIDUALS AND/OR ORGANIZATIONS BE PERMITTED TO HOLD EVENTS IN THE EVENT WING THAT ARE NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? Community: 232 Responses, Yes: 202 (87.07 %), No: 30 (12.93%), Comments: 76 No 0% 10SG 20% 30%. 403% 50% GO% 70% EO% 304610o% Staff: 12 Responses, Yes: 10 (83.33%), No: 2 (16.67%), Comments: 4 No 0% 1O3 20% 30% 40% v0% €0 u 70% SC9 50% 100_ Trustee: 9 Responses, Yes: 7 (77.78%), No: 2 (22.22%), Comments: 2 Na 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%. 50% GO% 70% 30% 90SG 100% Stillwater Public Library Community Comments: 76 comments were received regarding the question of permitting events in the event wing that were not open to the public. The responses were reviewed and categorized. Some comments contained multiple suggestions and were tagged to more than one category. Following are the number and percentage of comments by category: ➢ To generate revenue or for a fee: 23 (30.26%) ➢ With limits (availability, size, type, recurrence, etc.): 18 (23.68%) ➢ For meetings and/or nonprofits: 11 (14.47%) ➢ During closed hours: 8 (10.53%) ➢ For privacy/safety: 5 (6.58%) ➢ For social events: 4 (5.26%) ➢ No, library is a public space: 4 (5.25%) ➢ Untagged/ not categorized: 10 (13.16%) During Closed Hr9 Far wreetglitunpn t For Privacy/Safety For Scdal Events Library is a pubLic space Ta Hake "(Far a Fee With Limits Untagged • 10-53% S 14.47% 11 6.53% 5 5.26% 4 5.26% 4 30.26% 23 23.6E% 13 17.11% 13 Specific Comments: • But not during library open hours • Evening when library is closed to public; Saturday and Sunday • But not during regular library open hours • If held at times when the library is not open to the public • After library hours • With a caveat- outside of library hours unless it is a Saturday or Sunday wedding and that rental funds received be made available to the library's budget. • When library is closed to the public • Yes, but after/before library hours. Depends on the group/activity. If it is not open to the public, it would be nice to schedule it after/before hours, particularly for-profit/private events. • For example, for non -profits in the community that want to gather in a meeting room • Our homeschool group has really appreciated having this meeting space available! • Nonprofits should as there are very few places for them to meet. • There are few to no areas available to non -profits for most meeting and activity needs. • HOA meetings are a good example of community need, so definitely yes! Stillwater Public Library • There is a lack of available meeting spaces in Stillwater. The library is one of the best places for groups to gather! • The valley is fortunate to have so many nonprofits, they should have access to its spaces for their meeting/social purposes; among others. • Nonprofit groups occasionally need space for internal meetings that they do not have at their office/building. • For example NAMI meetings where privacy is needed. • Scheduling open to all events if no conflict. Need for "closed meetings" that serve community --survivors groups. I appreciate the library (all libraries that are public) belong to all of us. • Many events are invite -only, such as meetings or wedding receptions • For safety reasons not all groups should be open to the public • Especially if kids are involved • It would very disruptive to have non group people at a meeting, wedding, etc. • Yes, celebrations and no political events • Weddings/private events • If there is a wedding or shower, that shouldn't be open to anyone. • When space is available - receptions, etc. • As long as meeting times are not conflicting with other events. • Not as a priority but if available • It's a library • The library is a public space and should be open to the public. • the library is a public space • See question 4 • With rent paid to the library to help cover library needed moneys. • There should be a charge if not open to public • If it brings good revenue to the library • Fora fee • I think private events should pay a rental fee • On fee basis • Only if it benefits the library • The private events provide a source of revenue for the library • If they are paying, yes • Private events should be charged appropriate fees. • For a significant fee to support the library • If referencing outdoors- yes - make it profitable but also allowing for community socialization • Fee should be charged • If it raises funds for the library • Yes, if event fees help with the library budget • Depending on the nature of the event, a charge for the use of the space might be appropriate • If the rental fee goes toward benefiting the library • For a fee to the library. Earned income can help support the mission • However, if the library is short on revenue, that is another matter. In that situation, I think, the library should open up to private events. • If it brings in funds, yes; presumably these are evening or weekend events, not when the library is full of patrons • Yes, but not all the time because there should still be time allowed for non-scheduled study, etc. • I think it's ok as long as these events are not dominating the use of facilities. Stillwater Public Library • Yes, if it doesn't interfere too much with public use and library programs. • But this should be limited • This certainly could be limited • St. Croix valley • It should be very limited so as not to impede access by the public • As a community resource, private events are great, though I would limit how many days that is or you risk moving away from your mission. • Public events should have priority. • As long as these do not infringe on library programs and community events, AND as long as events that are not open to the public are charged at the same rate as the other options that would have been available to the individual and organization. I really lean toward No more than yes on this one. • Not necessarily for free though and limit how often events can be scheduled by an individual group - especially if no or low fees are involved - or if an open call time limited has passed and no one else is interested in utilizing the space so not to let the opportunity to use the rooms to go to waste. Perhaps a minimum cleaning or set up fee might be required for various events or have a free will donation box available for each event. • It's a GORGEOUS space. Why not share it/use it? • Those events are mainly weddings and parties. They are noisy and disruptive to the neighborhood. • Need more info • Not enough information to form an opinion. • Not for use by individuals personal/family. • Except for obvious things --weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, memorials, etc. • Unsure • Not sure about this question. Examples? • I would have loved to have our wedding here but it wasn't available for our dates. • It's a lovely spot & a big draw for the community at large. • There are plenty of other options in the City of Stillwater and Washington County that offer private event space for events and gatherings • I would like to host a family reunion at the event wing but the rental is too expensive for our group. • Lectures in magazine reading area when public rooms are unavailable. Staff Comments: • But on a limited basis...one per week for example • As long as they meet the criteria for use • With the understanding that library staff are unable to ensure a member of the public will not attempt to walk- in not realizing, even if there's signage, that there is a closed event happening. • My preference is that since the library is a public space, programs and events should generally be free and open to the public. To privatize public space, even if only temporarily, feels as if the library is creating a two -tiered, gated community, especially during hours when the library is open to the general public. I particularly don't like restricting access to the terrace during regular hours. Trustee Comments: • If they are paying a fee, then yes • Library policy should address this question. Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 6: SHOULD COMMUNITY AND NON-PROFIT GROUPS BE CHARGED A FEE FOR USING THE EVENT WING? Community: 232 Responses, Yes: 86 (37.07%), No: 146 (62.93%), Comments: 92 Na 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% aoq 9D% 100% Staff: 12 Responses, Yes: 5 (41.67%), No: 7 (58.33%), Comments: 6 Na O% 10% 20% 30% 4-0% 50% 60% 70% 8{1.13k 9D3fi 100% Trustee: 9 Responses, Yes: 4 (44.44%), No: 5 (55.56%), Comments: 1 Na 0% 1046 20% 30% 4-09= :v°= 60% 70% DD% 90% 100% Community Comments: Stillwater Public Library 92 comments were received regarding the question of should nonprofit and community groups be charged a fee for using the event wing. The responses were reviewed and categorized. Some comments contained multiple suggestions and were tagged to more than one category. Following are the number and percentage of comments by category: ➢ Encourage/suggest donation instead of fee: 7 (7.61%) ➢ Charge fee to cover costs: 10 (10.87%) ➢ Do not charge a fee: 16 (17.39%) ➢ Charge a nominal fee: 29 (31.52%) ➢ Charge a sliding fee (based on group type, use, etc.): 27 (29.35%) ➢ Untagged/not categorized: 16 (17.39%) Donation Fee - carer caB Na Fee Nominal Fee Sli lin_ Fee Un ■ 7.61% 10.87% 10 17.39% 16 31.52% 29 25.3.5% 27 17.39% 16 Specific Comments: • A contribution amount could be suggested, not required. • A possible donation could be suggested to the group • Make it possible to make a donation if able/choose to. • They should be asked to make a donation • Ask for a donation of a certain $$ amount set by the library. • I think that donations can be requested, but should not be required. • It would be fine to allow donations for use of room but not charge all organizations. • Helps cover expenses • If it costs the library money to do • cost of having space open • Only to cover costs • Only if library staff have to provide work time to make such meetings happen. Otherwise I believe the library does serve the community. • Perhaps a low fee that helps cover overhead. • Due to COVID, the library will still have stringent guidelines to follow for the foreseeable future. A nominal charge, less than for other groups, should be considered. • A nominal fee, and any expenses • Yes, but a smaller amount that groups for profit. The money can be used for upkeep of the space, etc. • Maybe a sliding scale fee or lower fee than for -profit businesses, but the library should be able to at least recoup staffing, cleaning, maintenance expenses so that these spaces are able to remain available • To at least cover the cost of general maintenance, "wear and tear", any staff time that might expand/shift to accommodate the time of event. Some groups could be an exception to that policy. Stillwater Public Library • Lower fee than for profit groups or events. Takes staff time to set up and clean up!! • Market price for amenities • If we need the money! • If held during open hours. • (No ideally) It would be nice if not charged...as long as given group didn't monopolize it and all took good care of this community asset! • Girl Scouts and parent education groups are on a tight budget, free is best!! • Other than our library, Stillwater really doesn't have a "hub" where community groups can gather. Let's not discourage this with a fee when these groups are vital to our sense of community. • Library should be welcoming to community meetings and social community events • If possible, no fee, or if required then nominal • the library is a public space • No, non -profits should never be charged. Nor should individuals or (small) groups that are not a for -profit purpose. • They are all part of the public community. • I work for public schools and would be unable to use the space if we had to pay for it. Our first preference is to use our own conference spaces, but during high use professional development times (workshop days, school set up weeks), those spaces are at a premium and it's very difficult for all the staff groups that need meeting space to get it. • This is some of the only spaces available for non -profits, like girl scouts and it really helps to have space like this available at no charge. • This is what our tax dollars should provide • I'm more of a maybe on this; a modest fee is not out of line; but if the fee is small, it may be more work to collect it than just have this be free • Either no fee, or a very modest fee ($25 or less) • Nominal fee • A small fee/maybe have scholarship for any that cannot pay • Keep it minimal. • Small fee • Nominal fee • But minimal • A small maintenance fee to cover electricity, cleaning, setup, etc. • A nominal fee would help with expenses. • Yes, but a small fee, mostly to cover extra costs the library will incur by use of the space • Minimal fee, but one that at least covers expenses. • Perhaps a minimal fee to help prioritize use. Or allow a minimum number of hours per week for such use. • Limited use per year and minimal fee for security and damage/clean up • Minimal $5 for meetings now • I do think a small fee would be ok • A reasonable fee would be appropriate, although this might not be the feeling of all nonprofits. • A small fee for maintaining the spaces, such as $5 per meeting. • A modest fee • A minimal fee makes sure that they are committed to using the space • Perhaps a nominal fee suggested Stillwater Public Library • Small fee to cover cleaning cost • Not too large of a fee, but a fee. • It could be a minimal amount. • A nominal fee would not be out -of -line, but it should not be along the lines of the fees charged by Stillwater's for -profit event venues. • Should pay what they can at the discretion of the library. • Though less than private individuals and corporations • Yes, but for big events using the terrace but maybe not for using a small meeting room not on a regular basis. Limit # of time you can use it. • Perhaps on a sliding fee scale • I think it depends on what kind of event they are putting on and how much it will be asking of the library. • This may vary depending on the group, availability... • Fees should be less than for -profit • Depends on size of gathering. if it's a large fundraiser, it makes sense to charge a fee vs a small meeting • Unless there are additional costs associated with how they use the space. The current nominal reservation fee seems reasonable. • If they are well funded • I think a small fee is appropriate for non-profit events and fundraisers, but perhaps no charge for meeting space (on a weeknight, for example). The alternative for our non-profit is spending $$$ for event space at JX or similar event venue and the library would be a lovely alternative and a way we could "give back" to a partner organization by directing our event funds there. • The space costs money to maintain and operate and the fee should reflect that. The pricing should reflect the demand for the space on a given day/time. That way the price can help allocate the resource in the most efficient way to benefit the library and therefor the community. • But consider a sliding scale for fees approach. • some should be free some charged • Our nonprofits have no budget. If the nonprofit has fundraising then perhaps yes. • A reduced rate for non-profit or community groups. • Depending on the nature of the event, a charge for the use of the space might be appropriate • Depends on the size of the event, which part of the event wing, when, how much exclusivity they want, etc. • Non -profits should be charged less or nothing • No, to non -profits, not sure about all community groups. • Yes for community, no for non-profit • If the members or organization have a connection to this library. • Private events should be charged. Events open to the public should be charged. If it is a non-profit organization or someone putting on a free program - they should not be charged. • On a sliding scale or low fee. Still, $20-$100 is an easy choice even for a relatively small org • It would be great if they could. I know funding is an issue, but I'd like the library to control noisy events if possible. • Anyone should be able to use it • If possible. • Unless it extends into hours that the library is open. A security person is usually not necessary and is contribution to small non -profits. We want this public place to be used. On the other hand, if a speaker is for instance racist or likely to attract racists and extremists, some security may be advised. Explore what other libraries do. Stillwater Public Library • As long as those fees are for the same purposes that events like weddings • ? • They may apply for grants if needed • But the library should not incur costs (set-up, clean up etc.) • But a reduced fee might be nice! • This type of use is special --it's hard to find meeting spaces for such groups elsewhere! Staff Comments: • Community and non-profit groups should not be charged a fee for meetings that require minimal set-up or supervision and occur during library hours. Fees should be considered for activities that require extra staffing, i.e. outside of library hours or extra coordination or set-up time. • Yes. There is always the cost of clean-up • It can be a small amount to cover cleaning and utilities • No, but it's helpful if groups aren't able to reserve space repeatedly too far in advance, thereby creating a challenge for library programming staff. • Depending on the event and scope. Example, if a nonprofit want to hold a meeting during the week that should be free. If that meeting occurs regularly, it might be a good idea to assess a fee. For a large fundraiser, a fee should be charged. • Yes, a fee schedule should at least be considered. The fee should be substantial enough to warrant collecting and processing payment, which can take considerable staff time. If it's too low, it may cost more in staff time than it's worth. Clear parameters should exist as to what type of group is charged what fee. Trustee Comments: • Should be a minimal fee, but room needs to be cleaned before and after. Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 7: SHOULD FOR -PROFIT AND PRIVATE GROUPS BE CHARGED A FEE FOR USING THE EVENT WING? Community: 232 Responses, Yes: 224 (96.55%), No: 8 (3.45%), Comments: 52 Na ' 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%. 50% G04G 70% 30% 90% "0::: Staff: 12 Responses, Yes: 12 (100%), No: 0 (0.00%), Comments: 5 Na. 0% 10% 20% 3O% 40% 50% 60% 70% 30% 90% 10C. Trustee: 8 Responses, 1 Skipped, Yes: 8 (100.00%), No: 0 (0.00%), Comments: 0 Na 0% 10% 20 30% 40% 50%. 60 70% 30% 90% 100% Stillwater Public Library Community Comments: 52 comments were received regarding the question of should for -profit and private groups be charged a fee for using the event wing. The responses were reviewed and categorized. Some comments contained multiple suggestions and were tagged to more than one category. Following are the number and percentage of comments by category: ➢ Encourage/suggest donation instead of fee or in addition to fee: 3 (5.77%) ➢ Charge to generate revenue for library: 4 (7.69%) ➢ Charge market rate to these groups: 9 (17.31%) ➢ Charge a sliding fee (based on group type, use, etc.): 20 (38.46%) ➢ Charge a small or reasonable fee: 6 (11.54%) ➢ Untagged/not categorized: 12 (23.08%) Donation Generate Revenue Market Rate Sliding Fee SRea9onetle Fee Urttaag_d ■ 5.77% 7.69% 17.31% 9 38.46% 20 11.54% 23.O 12 Specific Comments: • I think that donations can be requested, but should not be required. • A maintenance fee plus ask for a donation. • They would pay for any other space --they can help support the library • Yes and charge a lot only when library is closed • For a significant fee to support the library • This is a makes -sense revenue generator for the library. • At a competitive rate so that the use of the library wouldn't be based on the low price • Market rate • Perhaps comparable to what other local meeting spaces change. • Commensurate w/rates elsewhere --it's a nice space! • Charge the going rate for private groups. • This is standard and how hotel meeting spaces and conventions places were created. • Market rate • Market rate fee • This fee should be at the going rate. • Higher rate than non -profits • For -profit groups yes. Maybe no charge for families. • High fees and limited priority for these groups. • There may be variability as well. No fee or reduced fees for individuals who live in Stillwater. Stillwater Public Library • When the wing is closed to other woes (i.e. wedding) and additional staffing/cleaning is needed, a fee should be charged • No discount for them • SPL Friends and Foundation should not be charged • Slightly higher fees for private groups could help subsidize community groups. • Again, it depends upon the nature of the group & the cost of set-up & maintenance required of library personnel. • Yes. For profit groups should be required to pay a fee possibly based on their typical annual revenue on a sliding scale or offer perhaps one free slot per month with a one free slot per year per company. • For -profit groups should definitely have to pay a rental fee. If I held a get together I would expect to pay a rental feel. • Limited use per year and fee for security and damage/clean up • A different fee structure is common for for -profits and nonprofits. • A larger fee that would support the resources available. • For -profit groups should definitely be charged! But private groups that are not meeting for a "for -profit" purpose/business should not. • Ideally, it would be great to see the space offered free to all when available. But if you had to charge, I think better to charge for -profit and private groups than non-profit or public sector. • Due to COVID, the library will still have stringent guidelines to follow. A fee should be charged to for -profit and private groups on a higher scale than charged for non-profit/community groups. • Could be less expensive, but in line with other event spaces. Private groups (weddings) can have restrictions that keep their use from interrupting regular library hours. For example, no activity before 4pm (or whatever) Saturday night. • However, groups who are not profit based should be allowed to use the space free of charge also. i.e. homeschool groups • Yes, again to cover the libraries overhead, but could be more than the non-profit, even potentially as a donation to the library • Makes reasonable sense to me, at a reasonable fee. With more distance business doing, expect demand for library space may increase once COVUD frees us from our abodes. A fee would help keep this fair and to maintain the spaces. • Small fee, not exorbitant seems ok • A nominal fee would help with expenses. • Yes, a higher amount, but not exorbitant • Not a huge fee • Absolutely! • n/a • Definitely • Absolutely • the library is a public space • I found using the conference rooms too expensive for my for profit business. Which is a shame because I think they're often empty. • They can share their profits on the expense line. • Charges for rental fees should preclude charging a fee to attend. Rental fees should be the financial burden of their event. • Absolutely Stillwater Public Library • Same fee. • Absolutely. • I am not sure how much of the public is aware that the City Council expects the library to generate funds. It is a fine line to walk. The library is not a business per say yet at times the City expects it to operate as such. What is good for the common good is not always what is valued by the City's budget process. It is important to protect the library and its ever increasing demands. Staff Comments: • These groups should be charged more than the nonprofits • They can be charged more • Or, a minimum amount of bookings for private groups for free but for -profit should pay. It's part of the cost of running a business. • A book club, home school group, or other club should be allowed to use space for free. • My comments from question #6 apply here as well. Trustee Comments: None Stillwater Public Library QUESTION 8: IF NON -LIBRARY SPONSORED EVENTS ARE HELD IN THE EVENT WING, WHEN SHOULD THEY BE SCHEDULED? Community: 232 Responses, When the library is open to the public: 28 (12.07%), When the library is closed to the public: 62 (26.72%), No restrictions: 142 (61.21%), Comments: 65 restrictions 0% 10% 20% 30SG 40% 50% 604G 70% 80% am,.100SG Staff: 12 Responses, When the library is open to the public: 3 (25.99%), When the library is closed to the public: 3 (25.00%), No restrictions: 6 (50.00%), Comments: 6 When Library is open When Library is cLosed Fk restrictions 0% 10% 20% 3MG 40% 50% & 70% 27..S 50% 100% Trustee: 9 Responses, When the library is open to the public: 3 (33.33%), When the library is closed to the public: 1 (11.11%), No restrictions: 5 (55.56%), Comments: 2 When Library is open When Library is cLosed Coirrtif liii/ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 30% 90% 100SG Stillwater Public Library 65 comments were received regarding the question of when non -library sponsored events should be held in the event wing. The responses were reviewed and categorized. Some comments contained multiple suggestions and were tagged to more than one category. Following are the number and percentage of comments by category: ➢ Permit during open and closed hours: 6 (9.23%) ➢ Community and open events can be held during open hours: 6 (9.23%) ➢ Events should be scheduled when or in a way that they won't interfere with public use: 15 (23.08%) ➢ If scheduled when closed/need extra staffing, charge a fee: 14 (21.54%) ➢ Prioritize use if space is available: 5 (7.69%) ➢ Social or private events should be held when library is closed: 10 (15.38%) ➢ Untagged/not categorized: 16 (25.62%) Both open and closed Comm/Pub-Open fioesnti intefere Fees fcover 00919 If avail,fpriorilize SociaUPriv-Cb ed Untagged • • ■ 9.23% 6 9.23% 23.0 15 21.54% 14 7.69% 5 15.33% 10 24.62% 16 Specific Comments: • Whenever works! • both/either • depends on the size of the gathering; larger groups s/b after hours • I believe there is room for both unscheduled space and events that serve as a revenue source. • I support mixed use. Occasional public events do not deter from library users that often. • If library staff need to be involved in any way, events should be during open hours. If someone else is fully responsible for the building at closed times, then it seems fine to do when the library is closed. • Except to make sure there is some time for library patron use each day • I have been a visitor to the library gallery, using the space to snack with my children, and been asked to leave because a private event was being held in a meeting room. Because this is the only approved area for eating and drinking, there is conflicting usage when meetings and events take place during library hours. • I have been at the library when a wedding took place and it was loud and people are rude • I think it would be best if non -library sponsored events that are not for the public were scheduled when they won't interfere with public use of the library or library programs. • As long as the group is respectful of library rules and patrons. • Unless it interferes w/other special library functions • They could be held when the library is open if parking was determined for event participants so library patrons can still get to the library. Stillwater Public Library • Caveat: lithe event will be loud and disruptive to library patrons, it should not be held when library is open to the public. • Or have certain hours that are always open to patrons. • The exception would be weddings that used the Terrace. I do not believe access should be cut off to the public during regular library hours. • I like to visit the beautiful terrace and it's sad when it's closed on Saturday's to private event • You need to weigh the use of library patrons in relation to the time of the event. A mix is probably best. • Meetings seem fine; but larger events/gatherings may need to work around peak library hours • I often go to the gallery while there is a meeting being held in Margaret Rivers room. No problem. It is only a problem if the use means that it is off limits during regular library hours. • When the event does not interfere with public use. • After hour use OK if fee is charged to cover all expenses • Probably higher cost to user when library is closed. • Perhaps adjust fees to reflect any cost differences between open and closed • Again, if it pays for the library to do it. • The library could host events to provide revenue in both open and closed hours • Night time events during the summer are an ideal use of the space. A book reading under the stars could be magical. I would prioritize the most sought after timeslots like weekend nights for private and for profit events where the library can collect a premium to offset the costs of operating and maintaining the spaces. • If after library hours, fee should cover cost of Staff • If a group is paying the costs of keeping the library open after hours, then after hours is fine. Otherwise, during library hours only if no cost to the library. • Any events held during non -library hours should always be charged at least a minimum - as the library must pay staff / security / utilities / etc., to keep the building open. And any event that is not a non-profit should also be charged a usage fee. • No restrictions but with a fee to cover operating expenses. • If outside of normal hours, the event should fund any additional costs such as security. • If it is when the library is closed to the public, then I think a fee is reasonable if there are reals costs for staff. • Within reason ---some overlap fine • Scheduled according to library activity • If it's available then let them use it • Depends on the size of the group! The patio is so beautiful and you have to pay for staffing. So you should charge. • priority to other events, but still put on schedule • I don't think this is the issue. And they should never take precedence over library events and uses. • Should be scheduled only after library sponsored events are filled. • Unless they make sense due to excessive traffic/noise/mess that would be disruptive to the library's primary mission(s). I would probably not schedule a wedding or concert during open library hours. • Larger social events, like weddings are perhaps best scheduled outside of open hours. Overall I'd like the Board to balance accessibility and sustainability by charging those that have means to help support community and library sponsored events/use. • Except for rentals. • When library is closed to the public ----> for private/for profit, and no restrictions ----> non-profit and community • Depends --a wedding --no, library closes. A workshop --library could be open. Stillwater Public Library • Both of the first two options. Closed door meeting rooms --->no restrictions, Terrace --->when library is closed • This question is a bit confusing to me. If we're talking about a community group having a meeting that should be when the library is open. If we're talking about a wedding for example that should be done when the library is closed. • For the most part, I would say small meetings and events should happen while the library is open to the public. A wedding or large event, that could potentially bring in income to the library, beyond staffing and cleaning costs, could be scheduled based on availability of the space and outside of open hours. • Public events - anytime; Private events - when the library is closed • As long as events that take place when the library is open to the public do not restrict patrons moving through the gallery space. • Wow, this is a tough one not knowing how the library is doing financially • Your decision. Thank you and good luck! • I love our library! • Just please ensure users sign an agreement to care for the space. • I'm satisfied with the past usage rules. I don't think library hours should be shortened to accommodate private parties and I don't think a "non -fee" event group should expect to use the space outside normal hours • Note: I thoroughly enjoy the art displays in the gallery. • When the library is closed to the public/no restrictions • Library should be available to community during regular hours. Thanks for the opportunity to give feedback. Thanks for keeping the library available in safe ways during the plague. • Restrictions should be implemented by the library personnel because they know what the issues are. • Clear boundaries are always a good idea. • I don't feel qualified to answer this. • not sure • depending on the type of event, some common sense would have to be used • Balance is needed here • The library's expertise would have to weigh in on this one. Some events have little or no impact on library users, others do. Wish there were another comment box to mention how well the library has responded to community needs during the pandemic. We have a remarkable library, remarkable staff and remarkable leadership. Staff Comments: • Community meetings with minimal set-up and supervision should be available primarily when the library is open to the public as staff are already present in the building. If events are scheduled when the library is closed to the public, appropriate fees and staffing would need to be considered for managing these events. • When the library is closed to public when at all possible • When the library is open to the public except for weddings • No restrictions assuming library programs continue to have priority over non -library events and access to the library is controlled as necessary to avoid added burden on staff. There should be an event manager available during all non -library events. This would be someone responsible to act immediately, so preferably on site checking with staff upon arrival and exit. • It depends on the event • There is not an easy answer. If you take the position that the library is a public space and events should be free and open to the public, then private events with restricted access to the terrace or other areas should occur when the library is closed so as to not impede public access. However, by doing so, you add an additional burden to staff (and our budget) who have to provide oversight, tech support, custodial support, etc., during closed Stillwater Public Library hours. In some ways, it's easier for staff to provide support during regular hours only, but then the general public may have reduced access. There are variables that could change my answer. Also, by limiting such events to closed hours, then demand for the space will likely be much more limited. If the event wing didn't include the terrace, then I might change my vote to "When the library is open to the public" because then the general public could still enjoy the terrace and the burden on staff could be less. The terrace is such a unique attribute, and I truly want the general public to be able to access it during our regular business hours as much as possible. Trustee Comments: • When the library is open to the public with exceptions permitted, discretion of director • No restrictions within reasonable guidelines, i.e. no more than 1 or 2 Hours on a given day Stillwater Public Library TRUE COSTS OF SPECIAL EVENTS AT LIBRARY Summary of True Costs This summary provides an overview of the true costs of holding special events at Stillwater Public Library. A true costs table for 2016 through 2020, detailing revenues and expenditures, follows the summary. Revenues: The library has generated revenues by charging rental fees for holding ceremonies, receptions, and other special events at the library. When the library used an in-house coordinator to manage special events, all income received was revenue for the library. The library received approximately $59K, $63K and $85K in 2016 through 2019 respectively, for an annual average of almost $70K. In 2019, the library contracted with One23 to manage events. With this structure, the library and One23 split revenue 50/50 for any new bookings generated by One23. For events booked prior to the One23 agreement, the library retained funds already received and equally split new funds received from clients. In 2019, a total of approximately $75K in revenue was generated with $52K going to the library and $22K going to One23. Known Expenditures: Known costs for managing events have been an event coordinator, seasonal event prep staff to set up and take down furniture, and social media marketing fees. In 2016 through 2018, the in-house coordinator was paid approximately $24K annually. In addition, between $4K and $6K was spent annually on marketing and event preparation. In total, the library paid out about $29K annually for event expenses. Under the One23 contract in 2019, the costs of administration, marketing and event preparation were included as part of the agreement for a total of $32.5K. In addition, One23 retained $22K as their portion of the revenue. In total, One23 received almost $55K from library events in 2019. The difference in costs for an in-house coordinator compared to contracted services with One23 is significant. A review of the in-house coordinator position provides further insights. Per Sandy Ellis, a past in-house coordinator, the pay of $24K was understood to be for 1,040 hours of work per year or 20 hours per week on average. For 1,040 hours, this would be an hourly rate of $23. The actual time worked, however, far exceeded 1,040 hours per year. Ellis worked between 40-60 hours per week during the event season and 10-20 hours per week during the off season. Her average actual per hour wage was closer to minimum wage. Both in-house coordinators resigned from their positions managing events at the library, due in part to the imbalance between wages and hours worked. This was a contract employee position with no benefits or tax withholdings. Estimated Expenditures: Special events directly impact the maintenance of the facility and administration of the library. While past revenue and expenditure analyses have been primarily limited to the coordinator, event prep and marketing costs, this true costs review includes additional personnel and facility costs associated with special events. On a per event basis, costs were incurred for extra custodial cleaning, maintenance/repairs, and energy usage. The estimated total costs ranged from about $5K to $8K annually in 2016 to 2019, depending on the number of events. Each special event held was also an expenditure in time for the library's administrative staff. Administrative staff time was estimated at 1 hour per event in 2016 through 2018, when in-house coordinators were used, for an average annual cost of $1.5K. When One23 was hired, library administrative staff time increased to about 3 hours per event for an estimated cost of $4.8K in 2019. Stillwater Public Library In addition to the per event costs, additional administrative time is also spent on an annual basis to facilitate any special event at the library. It is estimated that at least $1.5K is spent annually to manage hiring, contracts, policies, and exceptions. Time spent on special use permits and neighborhood meetings adds to these costs, conservatively estimated between $1.5K and $2K for 2017 and 2018. In total, expenditures for cleaning, facility maintenance, energy, and administration are estimated to have cost the library an average of almost $12K annually. Net Revenues: When looking at the years of 2016 through 2018, the library netted $20K, $25K and $41K from events respectively. This income was generated in the years where an in-house coordinator was used and compensated at a rate below comparable private -sector positions in the area. It is unlikely that an in-house coordinator could be hired and retained at a similar rate going forward. To be competitive with current market rates, compensation would need to be substantially increased. The last in-house coordinator estimated pay would need to increase by a factor of at least two to recruit and retain a person with the requisite expertise. For 2019, net income generated from events was actually -$5K, with expenses exceeding revenues. In 2020, which did face unusual challenges due to COVID-19, net income was -$12K. The revenue sharing model with One23 was envisioned to be self-supporting. Unfortunately, with the fixed costs and the volume of business generated, it was not. It still required the injection of funds from the Library Foundation, which was not sustainable over the long term. Stillwater Public Library SPECIAL EVENT TRUE COSTS TABLE # Events 2016 39 2017 26 2018 46 2019 40 2020 8 Revenue Library's Share One23's Share $59,392 $63,209 $85,445 $52,850 $12,496 $22,292 $14,120 Known Expenditures In -House Coordinator Contract (Anne/Sandy) $24,673 $24,000 $24,000 $12,000 $0 One23 Contract Admin Costs Planning Marketing/Services Per Event Fee Venue & Liquor Sales Event Prep Marketing $16,000 $10,500 $14,000 $6,000 $2,500 $4,000 $22,292 $14,120 $2,167 $2,490 $4,308 $0 $518 $2,201 $2,000 $2,149 $0 $0 Estimated Expenditures Per Event Costs Estimated Cleaning Costs $100/event $3,900 $2,600 $4,600 $4,000 $800 Estimated Maintenance/Facility Costs $70/event - maintenance time & repairs $2,730 $1,820 $3,220 $2,800 $560 Estimated Energy Costs 50% of events * 5 hrs * 6.75/hr $658 $438 $776 $675 $135 Estimated Library Admin Staff Time Costs 1 hr/event with in-house coordinator and 3 hrs/event with one23; $40/hr $1,660 $1,040 $1,840 $4,800 $960 One -Time or Annual Costs Estimated Admin Costs Hiring, contract renewals, rate/policy changes, exceptions; $50/hr SUP Permit Admin Costs $50/hr $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $2,000 $50 $0 NET INCOME $20,003 $25,821 $41,052 Stillwater Public Library EVENT SUSTAINABILITY AND PRIORITIZATION Summary of Sustainability and Prioritization Analysis This section provides a snapshot of the task force's review of events at the library in terms of two components — sustainability and prioritization. Sustainability addresses the impact of events on the library's building, staff and financial resources both now and continuing into the future. Prioritization assesses which events should be held at the library, based on the library's vision and mission, community needs and preferences, and sustainability. To examine the components of sustainability and prioritization, the task force first defined possible sustainability considerations. These are the event factors that influence the costs associated with use of space at the library. Sixteen factors that affect the complexity, scope and management of events were identified, including specific space used, length of use, group size, and set-up needs. The task force then developed a sustainability matrix to categorize these factors into different event tiers and to assess each event tier for their impact on staffing, the facility, the neighborhood, and the community. Based on the sustainability matrix, providing unscheduled use for library patrons was the most sustainable and had the lowest impact on resources. On the other end, providing space for social events was the least sustainable and had the highest impact on resources. Finally, a prioritization grid was created to rank each event type in the areas of vision/mission, community preference, community impact, and sustainability. From this assessment, the task force determined that: • Providing space for library programs, meetings of community organizations, and unscheduled patron use best meets the vision and mission of the library, the needs of the largest patron population, and has the lowest impact and cost on resources. • Providing space for special activities, for -profit business and private groups, and social events fits within the vision and mission of the library but benefits specific individuals or groups more than the overall patron population and has the highest negative impact and cost on library resources. Following are the sustainability considerations, sustainability matrix, and prioritization grid used by the task force. Stillwater Public Library Sustainability Considerations When assessing library space use, multiple factors influence the scope and impact of events. Space/Room • Single indoor meeting room • Indoor event wing • Terrace only • Event wing and terrace Type of Event • Library program • Meeting • Special activity • Social event Length of Use • Under 4 hours • 4-8 hours • 10 hours+ Timing of Event • During library hours • Library closed to public Group Size • At or below the capacity for a single meeting room • 60-100 attendees (combined meeting space) • > 100 attendees (full event wing) Set -Up • Standard set • Custom set Technology • None • Basic/In-room equipment • Custom Booking Method • Online • Through a staff person • Through an event coordinator Catering • No food • Limited food • Full catering allowed Alcohol Outdoor Music Other Vendors Photography Decorations Contracts/Fees/Insurance Tours & Rehearsals Stillwater Public Library Sustainability Matrix The task force then used the sustainability considerations to develop a sustainability matrix using a three -tiered system for identifying the costs associated with: 1. Staffing and management 2. Facility and custodial 3. Neighborhood impact 4. Community and access Space usage was grouped into the following categories: • Unscheduled use of library space • Library programs • Tier 1 events (standard meetings) • Tier 2 events (custom meetings) • Tier 3 events (special activities/social events) SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX Rating Key: 1=Low - No Cost, 2=Low - Marginal Cost, 3=Low - Moderate Cost, 4=Medium Cost, 5=High Cost N. Staffing/Mgmt Co is Facility & Custodial Costs Unscheduled Use of Gallery & Terrace Space Timing of Event Length of Event Group Size Space Set Up Tech Entertainment Food Alcohol Decorations Other Vendors Booking Fees During library hours Undetermined Fits capacity Gallery/Terrace None None None Allowed (no catering); Bring own Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed None 1 (Low - No Impact) Minimal or no change in staffing: *No coordination needed of public open space in gallery or on terrace 1 (Low - No Impact) Minimal or no change in facility costs: * No set up costs or increased facility costs; part of daily operations 1 (Low - No Impact) Minimal or no increase in impact on neighbors: * No changes in terms of traffic, parking and noise; part of daily operations 1 (Low - No Impact) Minimal reduction in access to space: * No changes in access to space; Terrace and gallery open space part of regular operations Stillwater Public Library Staffi Facility & Custodial Costs Neighb• Library Sponsored Program 2 (Low - Marginal) to 4 (Medium) 2 (Low - Marginal) to 3 (Low - 2 (Low - Marginal) to 4 (Medium) 2 (Low - Marginal Impact) Depending On Program Moderate) Depending on Depending on Program Timing of Event During library hours Program Minimal reduction in access to Length of Event 1.5 hours or less Some programs have minimal or Some programs have minimal or space: no change in staffing. They fit Most programs have minimal or no increase in impact on * Library program may provide Group Size Fits room capacity within budget, staff no change in facility costs for neighbors with few changes in more public access to space by Space Meeting room or responsibilities and workload. most programs. They fit in traffic, parking and noise as part encouraging patrons to attend; outdoor space already in budgeted plant costs of regular public service offerings. All library programs are free and Set Up Custom Other programs may impact for energy usage, custodial open to public although Tech None or basic or custom staffing due to size, scope and supplies, replacement costs, and Other programs may increase programs may be capped at complexity. A larger event may custodial staffing. impact due to size of group or certain numbers or limited to Entertainment Library -coordinated Food Minimal affect staffing in reference, circulation, and youth services. Some programs may have location of event. There may be more traffic and less parking. If certain ages Prep time, implementation, and moderate additional costs for set outdoor program, there may be * May reduce parking depending Alcohol Not allowed follow-up also could contribute to up and take down, additional more noise. on size/timing of program Decorations Allowed Other Vendors Allowed Booking Online Fees Free to public staffing costs. wear and tear from moving furnishings, additional paper product/custodial supply costs due to more people, and additional custodial cleaning. Tier 1 Event (ex: standard meeting) 2 (Low - Marginal Impact) 2 (Low - Marginal Impact) 2 (Low - Marginal Impact) 2 (Low - Marginal Impact) Timing of Event During library hours Minimal or no change in staffing: Minimal or no change in facility Minimal or no increase in impact Minimal reduction in access to Length of Event 4 hrs or less *Already in budgeted operating costs: on neighbors: space: Group Size Under 60; fits capacity costs * Already in budgeted plant costs for energy usage, custodial * No changes in terms of traffic, parking and noise * Public would have ability to book meeting room space Space Individual meeting room *Staff responsibilities are part of supplies, replacement costs Set Up Standard current workload * Part of regular public service * No reduced use of gallery space Tech None or basic * Part of regular library operations & custodial duties offerings or outdoor terrace space Entertainment Basic speaker/presenter Food No vendors Alcohol Not allowed Decorations Not allowed Other Vendors Not allowed Booking Online Fees TBD Stillwater Public Library Staffing/Mgmt Costs Facility & Custodial Costs Neighborhood Costs Community Costs/Access Tier 2 Event (ex: custom meeting) 3 (Low - Moderate Impact) 3 (Low - Moderate Impact) 3 (Low - Moderate Impact) 3 (Low - Moderate Impact) Timing of Event During library hours Possible increase in costs due to Possible additional plant costs Slight increase in impact on Decrease in access to space: additional time needed of staff anticipated: neighbors: * Potential decrease in ability to Length of Event 8 hrs or less for: * Coordination of larger/longer * Take down existing set-up, implement custom set, take * Due to size of group or length of visit, there may be more traffic book room as either multiple spaces are reserved by one group Group Size 60-100 meetings down custom set, and return at start/end of event and less or single space reserved for a Space MR A&B or Conference standard set parking available longer time Room + Margaret Rivers * Coordination of custom (NOT Gallery) meeting set up * Additional wear and tear on * As indoor event, noise should * Reduced parking around library Set Up Custom furnishings and flooring from not be a major factor and in ramp due to number of Tech None or basic Entertainment Basic speaker/presenter *If fees charged, administrative time for generating invoices, receiving and processing moving * Additional paper product attendees and length of event * No reduced use of gallery space only payment, collecting on costs/custodial supply costs due or outdoor terrace space Food No vendors serving; outstanding invoices more people and longer event Boxed lunch catering allowed * Additional custodial cleaning Alcohol Not allowed Decorations Not allowed Other Vendors Not allowed Booking Online with follow-up Fees TBD Stillwater Public Library Tier 3 Event (ex: special activity, social event, fundraiser) Timing of Event During or outside of library hours Length of Event Group Size Space Set Up Tech Entertainment Food Alcohol Decorations Other Vendors Booking Fees 10 hrs or less Up to 250 Indoor Event Wing and/or Terrace Custom None, Basic or Custom Allowed Catering allowed Allowed w/ licensed caterer Allowed Allowed Through Coordinator TBD Staffing/Mgmt Costs Facility & Custodial Costs Neighborhood Costs 5 (High Impact) Significant increase in costs due to additional time needed of staff to: * Meet with client in advance of event to tour space, plan logistics. etc.; May require multiple meetings and phone calls * Manage vendors, deliveries and custom space set * Provide onsite coordination for duration of event plus time before and after * Administer and respond to contracts, legal questions, insurance, security, invoicing, SUP adherence, neighbors * Hiring security if needed * If decide to promote, add in promotion/marketing time and costs (staffing, printing, social media channels, etc.) 5 (High Impact) Significant increase in plant costs due to: *Staffing to set up and take down space *Custodial cleaning costs of space * Additional wear and tear on building, furnishings and floorings * Additional energy costs associated with lighting after hours and heating/cooling if people are moving frequently between spaces * If tent, increased damage risk to building (walls, windows, pavers) and significant time to monitor set up and take down (- 8 hours) 5 (High Impact) Significant increase in impact on neighbors, including: *More activity outside of library hours * More traffic and less parking available around library * More noise coming from terrace * Increased number of vendors and thus increased possibility of driveway being blocked * More calls from neighbors to library with concerns * Rules of SUP go into effect with any outside event Community Costs/Access 2 (Low) or 5 (High) Dependent on when space is used LOW: If used when library is closed to public, little impact on public access. In fact, public may consider access increased if library is available for reservation after hours. However, others consider fees for use - if charged - a barrier and impact may still be high. HIGH: If used when library is open to public, significant decrease in access to space: * No ability to book meeting space during this timeframe * Limited or no access to public space in gallery or on terrace * Reduced parking around library and in ramp * Disruption of traffic flow inside and outside of library at time of guest arrival/departure Stillwater Public Library Prioritization Grid Using information from the event wing survey and factors from the sustainability matrix, the events task force then reviewed and prioritized the primary event types in accordance with their ability to further the library's mission, align with community preferences, have a positive impact on the community, and be economically sustainable. Event Wing Space Prioritization Grid Rating: Events ranked on a scale of 1 to 6 where 1 best meets the established priority Event Type Furthering Library's Mission Connect members of our community with the power of knowledge, the possibility of new ideas, and the opportunity to engage with one another Community Preference Ranking on survey Positive Impact on Community Providing and enhancing resources and accessibility that benefit community Sustainability Market Situation & Library Resources Total Library -sponsored programs 1 1 1 2 5 Providing unscheduled space for use by library patrons (e.g. enjoying view, reading, working, eating food in gallery or on terrace) 2 3 2 1 8 Providing meeting space for community organizations (e.g. meetings of a youth service organization or neighborhood group) 3 2 3 3 11 Providing special activity space for community organizations and nonprofits (e.g. fundraisers, annual celebrations, award ceremonies) 4 4 4 5 17 Providing space for use by for -profit businesses and private groups 6 6 6 4 22 Providing Space for Social Events (e.g. weddings, showers, parties) 5 5 5 6 21 ijlwater THE B I R T H P L A C E CF MINNESOTA DATE: May 21, 2021 TO: Mayor & Council Members SUBJECT: Parking Mitigation Policy REPORT BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Over the last few months the Downtown Parking Commission has been re -considering its policy for reviewing projects that have parking deficits. Since 1999 the Commission has been operating under an informal policy, and with the recent apartment building proposal on Chestnut Street there has been a desire to formalize the policy. POLICY POINTS The Downtown Parking Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing the following policy details for various project types. 1. New construction residential. This applies to residential units that are being developed as new construction, either as an addition to an existing building, or as a new building. This does not apply to residential units being constructed from existing non-residential space. a. 100% of the parking required for the residents must be accommodated on -site. b. Guest parking should also be accommodated on -site, but if there is a deficit for guest parking, the deficit spaces could be mitigated through the use of the public parking system if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is a public parking in reasonable proximity to the residential units that allows residential parking permits to be used; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to residential parking permits to accommodate the guest parking deficit; iv. For each deficit space, the developer must pay the equivalent of the cost to construct a parking space in a parking ramp. That cost at present in Stillwater is about $20,000. This amount would be deposited in the parking enterprise fund dedicated solely to the downtown parking system. The payment would be made by the developer prior to the issuance of the building permit. To help off -set the developer's up -front cost of the deficit parking, this cost would be considered a TIF eligible expense. Parking mitigation policy Page 2 v. The individual guests will need to buy residential permits from City Hall. Or, building management will need to buy these residential permits and distribute to guests as needed. The cost of these residential permits would be twice the cost of a business parking permit. Currently that would mean the guest residential parking permit would be $40 per month. 2. Conversion of non-residential space to residential units. This applies to residential units that are being developed through the conversion of existing non-residential space on 2nd and 3rd floors of existing downtown buildings. (Note: this does not apply to additions, which are considered new construction.) a. Parking should be accommodated on -site, but if there is a deficit, the deficit spaces could be mitigated through the use of the public parking system if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is public parking in reasonable proximity to the new residential units that allows residential parking permits to be used; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to residential parking permits to accommodate the deficit parking; iv. The individual residents and guests will need to buy residential permits from City Hall. Or, building management will need to buy these residential permits and distribute to guests as needed. The cost of these residential permits would be twice the cost of a business parking permit. Currently that would mean the guest residential parking permit would be $40 per month. 3. New construction of commercial space. This applies to non-residential space that is being developed as new construction either as an addition to an existing building, or a new building. This does not apply to conversion of space in an existing structure to a new use. a. All parking should be accommodated on -site, but if there is a deficit, the deficit spaces could be mitigated through the use of the public parking system if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is a public parking in reasonable proximity that allows business parking permits to be used; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to business parking permits to accommodate the employee parking deficit; iv. There is sufficient capacity in the parking system to accommodate customers; v. For each deficit space, the developer must pay the equivalent of the cost to construct a parking space in a parking ramp. That cost at present in Stillwater is about $20,000. This amount would be deposited in the parking enterprise fund dedicated solely to the downtown parking system. The payment would be made by the developer prior to the issuance of the building permit. To help off -set the developer's up -front cost of the deficit parking, this cost would be considered a TIF eligible expense. Parking mitigation policy Page 3 vi. The City will invoice the business or property owner quarterly for the number of deficit spaces. And when payment is received, the City will mail the business or property owner parking permits for the number of deficit spaces. 4. Expansion of commercial space. This applies to additions or conversion of existing building space to a use demanding more parking. a. An increase in parking demand of more than 4 spaces that cannot be accommodated on -site requires parking mitigation. b. The parking mitigation could include use of public parking spaces if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to business parking permits to accommodate the employee parking deficit; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the parking system to accommodate customers; iv. The City will invoice the business or property owner quarterly for the number of deficit spaces. Currently the rate is $10/month/deficit space. When payment is received, the City will mail the business or property owner parking permits for the number of deficit spaces. REQUEST Consider whether the suggested mitigation policy is acceptable or should be revised. If it is acceptable, adopt the attached Resolution. Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION REVISING POLICY FOR PARKING MITIGATION REQUESTS IN THE DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT WHEREAS, Section 31-510 1 (b) of the City Code states that generally, for any building constructed or modified, parking must be provided on the same site; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 31-510 1 (d)(1) makes allowances for alternative provisions on properties within duly formed parking districts; and WHEREAS, on February 16,1993 the City Council authorized the formation of a Downtown Parking Commission and charged it with creating a Downtown Parking District; and WHEREAS, March 18, 1997 the City Council adopted a downtown parking improvement plan within the boundaries of a Downtown Parking District; and WHEREAS, since 1999 newly constructed and modified buildings in the Downtown Parking District have as an alternative been permitted by informal policy to use the public parking system to augment deficit parking spaces by using the public parking system when the public parking system was deemed to have sufficient parking in the immediate area of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Parking Commission desires to formalize the parking mitigation policy in the Downtown Parking District and has developed a recommended set of guidelines for City Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following guidelines for requests to use the public parking system to mitigate parking deficits for projects in the Downtown Parking District: 1. New construction residential. This applies to residential units that are being developed as new construction, either as an addition to an existing building, or as a new building. This does not apply to residential units being constructed from existing non-residential space. a. 100% of the parking required for the residents must be accommodated on - site. Page 2 of 4 b. Guest parking should also be accommodated on -site, but if there is a deficit for guest parking, the deficit spaces could be mitigated through the use of the public parking system if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is a public parking in reasonable proximity to the residential units that allows residential parking permits to be used; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to residential parking permits to accommodate the guest parking deficit; iv. For each deficit space, the developer must pay the equivalent of the cost to construct a parking space in a parking ramp. That cost at present in Stillwater is about $20,000. This amount would be deposited in the parking enterprise fund dedicated solely to the downtown parking system. The payment would be made by the developer prior to the issuance of the building permit. To help off- set the developer's up -front cost of the deficit parking, this cost would be considered a TIF eligible expense. v. The individual guests will need to buy residential permits from City Hall. Or, building management will need to buy these residential permits and distribute to guests as needed. 2. Conversion of non-residential space to residential units. This applies to residential units that are being developed through the conversion of existing non-residential space on 2nd and 3rd floors of existing downtown buildings. (Note: this does not apply to additions, which are considered new construction.) a. Resident and guest parking should be accommodated on -site, but if there is a deficit, the deficit spaces could be mitigated through the use of the public parking system if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is public parking in reasonable proximity to the new residential units that allows residential parking permits to be used; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to residential parking permits to accommodate the deficit parking; iv. The individual residents and guests will need to buy residential permits from City Hall. Or, building management will need to buy these residential permits and distribute to guests as needed. The cost of these residential permits would be twice the cost of a business parking permit. Currently that would mean the guest residential parking permit would be $40 per month. 3. New construction of commercial space. This applies to non-residential space that is being developed as new construction either as an addition to an existing Page 3 of 4 building, or a new building. This does not apply to conversion of space in an existing structure to a new use. a. All parking should be accommodated on -site, but if there is a deficit, the deficit spaces could be mitigated through the use of the public parking system if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is a public parking in reasonable proximity that allows business parking permits to be used; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to business parking permits to accommodate the employee parking deficit; iv. There is sufficient capacity in the parking system to accommodate customers; v. For each deficit space, the developer must pay the equivalent of the cost to construct a parking space in a parking ramp. That cost at present in Stillwater is about $20,000. This amount would be deposited in the parking enterprise fund dedicated solely to the downtown parking system. The payment would be made by the developer prior to the issuance of the building permit. To help off- set the developer's up -front cost of the deficit parking, this cost would be considered a TIF eligible expense. vi. The City will invoice the business or property owner quarterly for the number of deficit spaces. And when payment is received, the City will mail the business or property owner parking permits for the number of deficit spaces. 4. Expansion of commercial space or conversion of existing space to a use demanding more parking. a. An increase in parking demand of more than 4 spaces that cannot be accommodated on -site requires parking mitigation. b. The parking mitigation could include use of public parking spaces if: i. The total of all parking mitigation approvals to date in the Downtown Parking District do not exceed 20% of the total public parking spaces available; ii. There is sufficient capacity in the lots available to business parking permits to accommodate the employee parking deficit; iii. There is sufficient capacity in the parking system to accommodate customers; iv. The City will invoice the business or property owner quarterly for the number of deficit spaces. Currently the rate is $10/month/deficit space. When payment is received, the City will mail the business or property owner parking permits for the number of deficit spaces. Page 4 of 4 Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this day of 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Ward, City Clerk ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 51, SECTION 8 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1. REPEAL AND REPLACE. Chapter 51, Section 8 of the City Code, Definitions, is hereby repealed and replaced as follows: Sec. 51-8. —Self-Propelled Devices. (a) Self-propelled devices. The term "self-propelled device" means a non -motorized platform, footboard, ski -like device, shoe, boot, or similar object mounted on wheels and designed and intended to propel the rider by human power or force or by gravity, including, but not limited to: skateboards, roller skis, scooters, roller skates and in -line skates. The definition does not include wheelchairs, bicycles, wagons or strollers. (b) Regulations. (i) Persons shall ride self-propelled devices upon a public street, highway or sidewalk in such a manner that does not endanger or would be likely to endanger other persons or property, or wherever it is prohibited by signs, whether on public or private property. All riders must slow to a speed that is reasonable for conditions of traffic, be able to stop if necessary and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrians. Riders must yield to motor vehicles when crossing roadways. (ii) No person may attach a self-propelled device to any motor vehicle. (iii)Persons using self-propelled devices may not obstruct any public property by placing any building materials, carriages, carts, boxes, lumber, firewood, posts or rails or any other materials or substances whatsoever to be used as ramps or guides for other skateboards or other self-propelled devices. (iv)Use of a self-propelled device is prohibited on private property of another without the written permission of the property owner, which shall be provided to law enforcement upon request. (v) The city council may prohibit the operation of self-propelled devices within certain areas of the city by resolution, if recommended by the police chief in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens. SECTION 2. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: Chapter 51, Section 8 was amended to allow the use of self-propelled devices in the City in a manner that does not endanger persons or property. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective after its passage and publication according to law. Approved this day of , 2021. Publish: Stillwater Gazette — Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Cite of titttuater, Aturte5ota PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Julie Xink has worked as the recording secretary for the City of Stillwater City Council, Planning Commission, Heritage Preservation Commission; Downtown Parking Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, Human Rights Commission; Charter Commission since 2012; and WHEREAS, .At age 8 , Julie lost her brother, a young soldier in -Vietnam, but later found her calling as an advocate and resource for Gold Star families, like hers, whose fallen service member died while serving in a time of conflict; and WHEREAS, She is a founding member of the Family Contacts Committee, a volunteer group that helps veterans and families of the fallen connect with each other to share their memories; and WHEREAS, Over two decades, she helped more than 500 other 'Vietnam Gold Star families learn about their loved ones; and WHEREAS, She has been a speaker at numerous veterans events, and worked with the 'Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association to erect a monument at .Arlington National Cemetery to honor 'Vietnam helicopter pilots and crew members killed during the war; and WHEREAS, .A trained journalist, Julie also served her local community as a newspaper reporter and Public Relations Coordinator at HOPE .Adoption and Family Services. NOW THEREFORE, I, Ted Xozlowski, 3vlayor of the City of Stillwater, do hereby proclaim June 2ncd 2021 as Julie Xink Day! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Stillwater to he affixed this this ist day of June, 2021. �ott++�em„,_ , eSTILL * •.,,�� ' �4111111111►0%- _Mayor City of ttffuater, fEinne5ota Acclamation WHEREAS, Wally Abrahamson, was elected to the 'Washington County Board in 1992, was Mayor of Stillwater for 6 years, from 1987 to 1992 and Police Chief for 18 years, from 1967 to 1985. 3-Ce served as a St. Louis County deputy sheriff from 196o to 1967. He died 3vlay 17th at the age of 91; and WHEREAS, Wally grew up a rebel in Duluth where he attended different high schools, and got kicked out of every one. So at 17, his parents signedfor him to go into the Navy after he graduatedfrom Denfe[dHigh School in 1948. He served in the 'U.S. Navy unt1C1953, where he served on the USS Iowa and the USS Rochester during the 3Corean 1War. The military gave his life purpose and much neededpositive focus; and WHEREAS, .Abrahamson, married Carolyn Schroeder, and the couple had 4 children; and WHEREAS, Because of his own brushes with the law as a teen, Abrahamson looked at Caw enforcement from both sides. He treated the people he arrested with dignity, respect, and a lot of empathy; and WHEREAS, .after retiring from the Stillwater Police Department in 1985, Abrahamson found himself at a loss, and decided to run for 3vlayor. 3-Le found local politics as a way he could participate, contribute and get some satisfaction. He contributed to a better community; and WHEREAS, although there wasn't much money, Abrahamson secretly bought holiday meals, winter coats and boots for families in need, before there were so many other charitable organizations. He was always a big contributor to the Salvation .army. He always found a way to give to others." NOW THEREFORE, I, wed 3Cozlowski, Mayor of the City of Stillwater, do hereby proclaim June 3, 2021 as WALLY ABRAHAMSON DAY! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Stillwater to be affixed this this ist day of June, 2021. . gT1LL4, * ,,V►, PINES ►►, I1I11111111►►► ,1 • � .* Mayor Cite of titttuater, Aturte5ota J i WHEREAS, Len Nelson was the owner of Len's gamily ,Foods, the grocery store at the corner of Myrtle and Owens Streets, known for its bright blue mural and its motto of being "the biggest little store in the `Valley;" and WHEREAS, Nelson, 88, of Hudson, Wisconsin, died.May 5 just a few days after working his usualio-hour shift at the neighborhood grocery store; and WHEREAS, Nelson worked as a grocer for 73 years, starting as a bagger at a National Tea grocery store in Minneapolis, working his way up to assistant manager. Then he was hired as a manager at 3-(oofey s in downtown Stillwater; Cater co -owned Dick and Len's Red Owl grocery store in Hudson; and then Lens Family ,Foods since 1995; and WHEREAS, Nelson grew up in Minneapolis and graduatedfrom Patrick Henry High School in 195o. 3-Le served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, andwhen the war ended he attended the 'University of Minnesota for 3 years. In 1956, he married Barbara "Welch, whom he hadmet on a blind date. The couple hadfour children; and WHEREAS, Nelson' believed, "The customer comes first and is always right," "you give them what they want, and they will come." He treatedpeople the way he wanted to be treated. He cut back to working 3 days a week when he turned 78. 3-Le would arrive at 3 or 4 a.m. and be there until or 2 p.m. The grocery business was his passion. He just really Coved it. 3-re tried retirement a few times, but it just wasn't for him. He was the soul of the store; and WHEREAS, Nelson would handwrite notes of encouragment on the employees paycheck envelopes they received every Thursday, so they wouldfindmore than just their earnings for the week. The notes to the employees have become treasured keepsakes. Nelson was a `grandpa" figure for all of the young employees at the store, He was always so approachable. The employees could go to him for anything issue. He always had good advice. He had seen it aCC NOW THEREFORE, I, Ted Xozfowski, Mayor of the City of Stillwater, do hereby proclaim I June 4, 2021 as LEN NELSON DAY! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Stillwater to be affixed this this 1st day of June, 2021. ▪ '• 11 -Z-C//7 �■■■■rim►►►►►►. P IS yor * = 4 wia * •�▪ 41. i ti1Iwater The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 4, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 4:30 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 4:30 p.m. Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Odebrecht, Polehna Absent: None Staff present: City Administrator McCarty City Attorney Land Administrative Assistant Manos Community Development Director Turnblad City Planner Wittman Finance Director Provos Deputy Fire Chief Ballis Police Chief Mueller Public Works Director Sanders Library Director Troendle OTHER BUSINESS 3rd and Myrtle Street Landucci Apartment Project Request Community Development Director Turnblad explained the request that Nathan Landucci is planning to construct an apartment building at the corner of Myrtle and 3rd Streets. At the Council work session in April Mr. Landucci asked if the City Council would sell him a portion of City land to facilitate the project. The Council denied the request. Mr. Landucci is now asking the Council to: consider selling less City property for an apartment building with a smaller footprint; or reconsider the sale of the originally requested amount of City property, stating that it would likely create a safer and more efficient traffic pattern on Myrtle Street. Mr. Turnblad reviewed each option in detail. Mayor Kozlowski requested clarification on Trinity Church's past agreement for use of the surface parking adjacent to this site; and Mr. Turnblad responded that the development agreement with Trinity, when the City acquired the land for the parking ramp, included a commitment entitling Trinity to 40 spaces in the parking ramp, no matter how the site is developed. That entitlement was transferred to Jon Whitcomb when he bought the site, which is now the site of Mr. Landucci's proposed project. Councilmember Junker stated he is not interested in selling any City land right now. He feels there is a huge difference between using 40 spaces for church parking and using 40 spaces for resident parking 365/24/7. He would like to research that stipulation further. City Attorney Land stated she was unaware of the stipulation and will look into it. City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Mayor Kozlowski remarked he would not oppose selling the piece of City property to facilitate a project that has safe entrances, appropriate massing, and does not require a lot of variances. He is unsure if the proposal fits those parameters at this point. Nathan Landucci, Landucci Homes, Inc., stated his goal is to determine whether the Council would favor the proposal at all before going further. He looked into acquiring the adjacent Balay property so its driveway could be used as the apartment's entrance and right turn out of the garage, approximately where the garage was in the previous Whitcomb proposal. He has had the Balay property under contract for 5-6 months and does not want to keep that parcel tied up if the project is not going to proceed. He also asked if the Council likely will never allow any units on the 4th floor, but only common space. If he cannot buy any City land, the Balay piece is divided by a strip of land that does not work. He would like to build something here either way. The numbers work with a smaller building, too. Councilmember Junker remarked that even with the smaller project, the developer shows only 25 parking spaces available for a 36 unit building, so the project would absolutely need that 40 spaces. Councilmember Odebrecht advised the applicant to avoid a fourth floor and to talk to the Heritage Preservation Commission, Downtown Parking Commission and Planning Commission before proceeding further. Mayor Kozlowski complimented the developer on the draft design, but advised that he work with staff to reduce the number of variances needed. Mr. Landucci stated the larger building would need a parking variance. The smaller building would have a surplus of two parking spaces, considering that the use of those 40 spaces is grandfathered in, as he has been told. He asked if a separate exit and entrance are important to the Council. Councilmember Collins stated having traffic go in one way and out the other may look out of place. He would be more comfortable discussing a more developed concept plan. He appreciates the developer trying to deal with traffic because that is one of the worst intersections downtown. Mayor Kozlowski suggested something be done to soften the visual aspect of the house against the huge apartment building. Councilmember Polehna voiced concern about compromising the structural integrity of the parking ramp. Mr. Landucci replied there was an extensive study done by Herzog, stating there would be no structural impact from this project. The City hired Herzog and Mr. Landucci paid for the study. Councilmember Polehna stated he would like to make sure City staff concurs with the statement about no structural impact. Central Commons Tax Abatement Community Development Turnblad led discussion of a possible tax abatement scenario proposed for Central Commons to facilitate the development of a number of public infrastructure improvements including: the grade separated interchange at Manning Page 2 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Avenue and State Highway 36; the frontage road connecting St Croix Trail with Manning Avenue; an oversized stormwater treatment pond; and the extension of trunk sewer and water from their current terminus at Curve Crest Boulevard to the perimeter of Central Commons Addition. Based on the developer's estimates and assumptions, a committee of two council members, several staff members and consultants believes that the project presents value to the City both in the short and long term and would therefore recommend: 1) Charge the full standard $945,027 in City development fees.; 2) Enter into a tax abatement agreement for up to an estimated $3.5 million of City real estate tax abatement over 15 years with a not -to -exceed actual amount of City tax generated during term of abatement. Using the development assumptions provided by the developer and based upon calculations performed by Mikaela Huot of Baker Tilly, it is reasonable to expect this project to generate sufficient real estate tax revenue to cover up to $3.8 million in City tax abatement; 3) County may abate $750,000 of their portion of the real estate tax. Based on provided assumptions, calculations show sufficient revenues would be generated to support this; 4) Total abatement assistance may be up to $4,277,235, including City and County; 5) City tax abatement will exclude $66,600 from annual abatement to cover City service costs (this is offset by including existing land value in abatement calculation). The developer has asked that he be allowed to abate the assessment interest as well. The committee did not agree with that, which is the major difference between the committee and the developer; 6) City tax abatement includes land and new building value (base value effectively $0); 7) County tax abatement calculations include only new building value (land calculated as `base'); 8) City tax abatement is not reduced for fiscal disparities, therefore generating maximum revenues possible; 9) County tax abatement is reduced for fiscal disparities, consistent with County Tax Abatement Policy application; 10) Maximum 15-year term; and 11) Taxes for Outlots A & B (future development lots) not to be abated with this tax abatement agreement. Mr. Turnblad added that as of today, due to lower street project costs, the City real estate tax abatement is reduced to $3.14 million and the total abatement from $4.2 million to $3.9 million. Mikaela Huot, Baker Tilly, provided an overview of the proposal. The property owners are still responsible for paying all taxes due on their property, but the taxing entities are able to redirect a portion of those property tax revenues for identified eligible project expenses. Mark Lambert, developer, stated he agrees with the numbers in the original staff report, $4.2 million. The project costs went down significantly, so there is no need to raise new money, but he would like interest to be considered and use the $4.2 figure to pay actual costs. Councilmember Polehna pointed out the goal is basically for public utilities to get to the Central Commons site and to the future hospital site. He thinks there is a public misconception that this is a subsidy to a business coming into town. Mr. Turnblad summarized the developer's request to allow interest to be abated. Councilmember Junker noted that if City money were to be used, the City would charge 1.5% interest. So he feels the interest should not be waived on abatement. Council consensus was to include the interest charges at 1.5% and not allow that to be abated. Page 3 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Mr. Lambert again requested that the Council support the estimates in the original staff report. Every day the costs are going down, but he cannot obtain more money than what the utilities actually cost. Public Works Director Sanders stated that the cost for trunk utilities could be higher because that estimate was done a year or two ago. The other estimates were given to the City by the developer. Ms. Huot stated the Council may elect never to modify the agreement or let it be modified every other year. A not to exceed dollar amount can be established with some flexibility to build into what is allowed. Mayor Kozlowski summarized that Council consensus is to build some flexibility into what is allowed. City Administrator McCarty indicated that the next step will be to hold a public hearing on the tax abatement request. Lowell Park Pavilion & Levee Wall Historic Structure Report City Planner Wittman reviewed a Historic Structure Report done by Collaborative Design Group on the Lowell Park Pavilion and Levee Wall. The report found that overall, the 98- year old Pavilion is in relatively good condition, although component conditions vary. If temporary and permanent rehabilitation efforts are implemented, the total project cost would be approximately $350,000; it is recommended to conduct this work in the next two years. While some routine maintenance could be done in partnership with the local Rotary groups, the foundation and roof are in poor condition and need replacement. The foundation replacement cost is estimated at $135,000. Additionally, temporary shoring of the foundation wall is estimated at $34,000. Other repairs, including roof replacement and wood and metal repairs are estimated at $167,000. Staff recommends the Council use the $6,500 budgeted in 2021 for the development of footing and foundation plans; and commit $35,000 in lease reserves for the stabilization of the foundation. If the Council agrees, staff will work toward submission of a September, 2021 Minnesota Historical Society grant application submission, and explore private foundation options for a grant match. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to authorize staff to proceed with emergency repairs, and develop a plan for all recommended repairs for the Lowell Park Pavilion (Gazebo). All in favor. Predatory Offender Ordinance Review City Attorney Land reviewed a proposed ordinance that prohibits Level II and III convicted predatory offenders from residing within 1200 feet of a school or daycare. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt first reading of an Ordinance Enacting Chapter 52, Section 52-19 Regarding Predatory Offenders of the City Code of the City of Stillwater. All in favor. Terra Springs Easement Discussion City Attorney Land stated that the City's Redevelopment Agreement with Territorial Springs, LLC included the requirement that the developer provide future public easements for sidewalks, park and trail features to recognize the historical significance of the property. Page 4 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 The easements were never prepared, but the Park Maintenance Fund was established and has a fund balance of $132,621. The original agreement stated that the City would administer the funds, which were not to be used for ongoing maintenance. For the City's maintenance obligations of the wall, the City will require several easements in order to access the wall. The City can use the Park Maintenance Fund for the improvements, however the current balance of the funds will not be sufficient. The estimated cost of the improvement project is $400,000. The City has $577,210 in its park dedication funds which can be used for new projects such as this one (park dedication funds cannot be used for ongoing maintenance), but the funding source is ultimately up to the Council. For the public access to the sidewalk, trails and reflective pond, additional easements will be required. While the easement for the wall repair is necessary, the sidewalk/trail easement is a requirement the City could reconsider, given the close proximity of a portion of the sidewalks to the buildings. If the City were to modify the public easement condition, perhaps a combination of easement plus park dedication fees could be required. In 2003 the Council chose to waive park dedication fees in exchange for this public access. The current monetary value of park dedication fees for 227 residential units would be $454,000, but that does not include the commercial component of the development. Staff recommends that the Council engage a surveyor to define a permanent access for wall maintenance and determine funding sources, and consider whether the sidewalk/trail easement is still desired. Mayor Kozlowski remarked that the last time this issue was discussed, the Homeowners' Association (HOA) asked that the City remove the public access easement, and the Council responded that they would consider that if the HOA would pay the park dedication fees that were previously waived. The HOA chose not to do that. He realizes that the trail gets very close to private patios, but there are some important historic features on the site that should be publicly accessible. At present, all the City's taxpayers are paying the cost of wall maintenance. Councilmember Junker stated back in 2003 there were a lot of good intentions for this property. Almost 20 years later there have been a number of blunders. He suggested convening a group of residents from Terra Springs, himself, the City Attorney and Public Works Director to discuss several items including easements, park dedication and parking of boats, and come back more prepared from all sides to put the right agreements in place. Mayor Kozlowski stated he is concerned that the taxpayers are forever responsible for the maintenance of the massive 150-year old wall, under a major concession made by the City to the developer. He would like to make sure there is a clear list outlining responsibilities. Councilmember Odebrecht added that the territorial prison is very important historically. He would oppose anything that would block public access to the site. Councilmember Junker added there is a lot of water runoff that comes onto Terra Springs property from City streets and eventually runs to the river. He would like to hear more from the ownership group and present a package that satisfies everyone. Mayor Kozlowski stated he would also like an update on condition of the wall. STAFF REPORTS Public Works Director Sanders reported that the 2021 street improvement project started yesterday. The Rec Center parking rehabilitation will start May 17. The Neal Avenue project Page 5 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 should be finished this month. Staff is working with a consultant to develop traffic calming measures for Maryknoll, and will have a neighborhood meeting soon. Police Chief Mueller informed the Council that this week there have been many significant mental health crisis issues. Despite a lot of activity downtown with the nice weather, there have not been any significant issues, just increased traffic. Tomorrow is the second round of police officer interviews. The youth bike safety rodeo is May 15. He thanked City Attorney Land for her ongoing assistance. He discussed protest activity and stated every exercise of first amendment rights has been peaceful. Personnel have handled themselves with compassion and restraint, and feedback from residents has been good. Councilmembers Polehna and Odebrecht complimented Police Chief Mueller, Councilmember Junker and Mayor Kozlowski who went door to door talking to residents. Community Development Director Turnblad stated outdoor seating areas opened Saturday. City Administrator McCarty told the Council that the American Recovery Act funding for local governments is on hold until distribution guidance is available. The City's allocation will be about $2.25 million. Recruitment for the Community Development Director position is moving along. Library Director Troendle reported the library is hosting a webinar about anxiety and stress. In collaboration with ArtReach, the library's lawn will feature stories from two children's books May 17-23. Registration for the summer reading program opens May 17. RECESS Mayor Kozlowski recessed the meeting at 6:21 p.m. RECESSED MEETING 7:00 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Odebrecht, Polehna Absent: None Staff present: City Administrator McCarty City Attorney Land Administrative Assistant Manos Community Development Director Turnblad City Planner Wittman Finance Director Provos Deputy Fire Chief Ballis Police Chief Mueller Public Works Director Sanders PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kozlowski led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Page 6 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Council Service Awards to Jeff Johnson (Downtown Parking Commission); Reggie Krakowski (Heritage Preservation Commission); Larry Panciera (Human Rights Commission); Sandy Snellman (Parks & Recreation Commission); Mike Kocon and Chris Lauer (Planning Commission); and Stan Miller (Traffic Safety Review Committee) Mayor Kozlowski presented Council Service Awards to outgoing Commissioners Johnson (12 years on Downtown Parking Commission), Krakowski (12 years on Heritage Preservation Commission), Panciera (31/2 years on Human Rights Commission), Snellman (20+ years on Parks Commission), Kocon (121/2 years on Planning Commission), Lauer (9+ years on Planning Commission) and Miller (5 years on Traffic Safety Review Committee). Oath of Duty Presentation for Officer Brandon Gunderson and Officer Brian Tennessen Police Chief Mueller gave the oath of duty to Officers Gunderson and Tennessen who were hired last year. Their family members pinned on their badges. Proclamation - Stillwater Area High School Team that competed in the NASA Human Exploration Rover Challenge Mayor Kozlowski read a Proclamation recognizing the accomplishments of the Stillwater Rover Team: Ben Abbott, Addie Foote, Vincent Ramirez, Jocelyn McBride, James Daum and Ethan Foote, and Coach Tina Walski. Presentation by New Heights School on future playground Tom Kearney, New Heights Principal, presented a proposal for a partnership between the City and Hew Heights School, 614 Mulberry Street West, to co -renovate the playground area. New Heights and the City partnered on a similar project about 20 years ago. He stated that the school has recently formed a relationship with the Madison Claire Foundation and Flagship Recreation for the purpose of renovating the space to create an all-inclusive play space that will allow children with disabilities to play alongside their peers. They feel the partnership would demonstrate the City's belief in equal access to safe play areas and will save the taxpayers and the school by cost -sharing. It could be phased over several years. Mayor Kozlowski asked about the approximate cost; and Mr. Kearney answered that the cost would be in the $1 million range. Councilmember Junker inquired about potential neighborhood impacts such as parking; and Mr. Kearney pointed out the New Heights parking lot has 20-25 spaces, plus there is parking on Everett and Mulberry Streets. Councilmembers Collins and Odebrecht and Mayor Kozlowski voiced support. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA April 20, 2021 regular meeting minutes Payment of Bills Annual Boards and Commissions Appointments Page 7of15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Community Active Living SHIP Grant Service Contract with Washington County Cruisin on the Croix 2021 Car Show Event Contract Diversion Tributary Stabilization Project BCWD Cooperative Agreement Resolution 2021-060, Resolution Approving the Addition of Additional License Premises Owned by La Carreta, LLC Resolution 2021-061, A Resolution Approving the Lot Line Adjustment Between 12950 75th Street North and & 12960 75th Street North (Case No. 2021-21) Resolution 2021-062, Resolution for Temporary Outdoor Dining Permit Northland Park New Playground Equipment Pro Utility Locator Purchase Approval Server Room Replacement Cooling System Subscription Agreement with Lexipol Washington County Municipal 2021 Recycling Grant Agreement Water Department SCADA Upgrade Bid Award Councilmember Junker pointed out that for Cruisin' on the Croix car show this year, the City will not close off Lot 8b until 3 p.m., but will close the other lots used for the car show at 6 a.m. Parker Shook, Cruisin' on the Croix asked permission to close the other lots at midnight; and Councilmember Junker replied to go ahead and do it at midnight and see if it generates complaints. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS CPC Case No. 2021-13 to vacate portion of public drainage and utility easements located upon, Lot 1, Block 1, of Rivard Addition. City Planner Wittman stated that on April 6, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing to consider a preliminary plat request from Jeff and Missy Hause to develop 8483 Marylane Avenue North into Marylane Gateway Addition, a six lot residential subdivision. A part of the request was for consideration of the vacation of drainage and utility easements associated with the existing property, as the developer is proposing new drainage and utility easements to be associated with the new plat. There were errors in the noticing of the hearing specific to the easement vacation. Thus, the City has conducted a new legal noticing process to be compliant with statutory requirements. Both the Planning Commission and City staff recommend approval. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Collins, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt Resolution 2021-063, A Resolution Vacating a Public Drainage and Utility Easement Located Within the City of Stillwater, Minnesota (Case No. 2021-23). All in favor. Page 8 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 CPC Case No. 2021-18, request by Jon Whitcomb, property owner, for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property to RA. Property located at 12950 75th St N. Ms. Wittman stated that Jon and Ann Whitcomb had submitted an application (Case 2020- 54) for rezoning, preliminary plat and associated variance approval of a 14-lot single family development to be known as White Pine Ridge. Originally the rezoning for this lot was from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to TR, Traditional Residential. After embarking on this project the developer has noticed that a majority of the houses they intend to build would need variances. In lieu of granting each property a variance, changing the district to RA will bring the proposed houses into conformity and no longer needing multiple variances. The applicant has requested the Council consider rescinding their TR, Traditional Residential Zoning District approval, and rezoning the AP district to the RA, single-family district. Staff recommends approval. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt first reading of an Ordinance amending the Stillwater City Code Section 31-300 entitled Establishment of Districts by rescinding Ordinance No. 1158 and rezoning approximately nine acres to RA, One -Family Residential, Case No. 2020-54. All in favor. CPC Case No. 2021-15, request by Linda Countryman, representing Sustainable Stillwater and Chair of the Green Steps Committee, applicant, for a Zoning Text Amendment to allow Accessory Dwelling Units within the RA zoning District. Mayor Kozlowski tabled Case No. 2021-15 to May 18, 2021. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CPC Case 2020-60, request by Joel Hauck and 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit, associated variances and an appeal to HPC's decision to not permit a 4th story on a proposed residential building in the Central Business Height Overlay Historic District at 200 Chestnut St E. (Tabled from April 20, 2021 Council meeting.) City Planner Wittman reviewed the case that 200 Chestnut Street Partners, LLC has purchased the 200 East Chestnut block and are developing a plan to demolish the block and construct a market rate apartment building with 61 apartments and 73 underground parking spaces. To develop the property as proposed, the Council would need to approve: 1) a Conditional Use Permit; 2) a variance to the maximum allowable height; 3) either a variance from the required parking, or a mitigation plan for the deficit parking spaces; and 4) appeal of Design Permit conditions imposed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The City Council tabled the case on March 2 for further work on the parking request. Subsequently, the Downtown Parking Commission revisited the parking deficit mitigation policies. Staff has worked with the development team to reach a parking solution. At this time, the applicant is requesting consideration of: 1) Conditional Use Permit for 61-unit multi -family structure in the CBD Zoning District; 2) Conditional Use Permit for Short Term Rental Units on the property; 3) Variance from the required on -site parking; 4) One-story variance to the three-story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 5) 11.5' variance to the 37' maximum allowable height in the Central Page 9 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Business District Historic Height Overlay District; 6) Variances to the 20' (Combined) Side Yard and 20' Rear Yard Setback in the Central Business District; and 7) Appeal to conditional approval of Design Permit 2020-32. Staff recommends approval of the following, with 15 conditions: a Conditional Use Permit for 61-unit apartment building project in the CBD Zoning District; an 11.5'variance to the 37' maximum allowable height as measured from the average elevation of Chestnut Street East to the top edge of the parapet; a one-story variance to the three-story maximum height in the Central Business District Historic Height Overlay District; variances to the combined Side and Rear Yard to accommodate the building setbacks as designed and proposed; the Design Permit appeal; and mitigation for a 17-space parking deficit, with revised conditions. Councilmembers asked Ms. Wittman to clarify what staff and the City Commissions are recommending; and she explained that the Heritage Preservation Commission is recommending approval of the design proposal, which does not include a fourth story. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of a 3.5' height variance, but not an 11.5' height variance. The Downtown Parking Commission is recommending denial of the parking variance, but approval of the proposed mitigation plan. She reviewed the parking mitigation plan as follows: In exchange for use of the public parking system for the deficit spaces, the developer would pay the fee of $20,000 per deficit space and building management or guests would buy residential permits to use in the permissible public parking lots. $40,000 of the fee for deficit spaces would be deposited in the City's Downtown Parking Enterprise Fund prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the remainder according to the schedule established in the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Agreement for the project. Conceptually the payment of the balance would be in fifteen $20,000 annual increments beginning in year 5 of the TIF Agreement. Each of the one bedroom and larger units must have at least one parking space reserved for it in the building's garage, and half of the alcove units must have a reserved parking space in the garage. If there are no available parking spaces in the building's garage for guests, then guests would pay standard fees to park either in the City parking ramp or purchase a residential permit from the City to park in a public lot in which overnight residential parking is allowed. Councilmember Odebrecht asked City Attorney Land to compare this proposal with the "Woodbury Decision;" and she replied that the Woodbury Decision revolved around requiring the developer to pay for infrastructure in the general vicinity. This is a different formula in that the City is requiring the developer to provide for specific parking arrangements. It is specific to the project and meets the elements of the development agreement as opposed to the Woodbury Decision. Councilmember Junker pointed out that, as the Downtown Parking Commission worked on the mitigation plan, it acknowledged that if 100% of the resident parking requirement were met on site, then mitigation would be for guest parking, not for the standard 4 -41.5 parking spaces per residential unit. Guest parking is 1 for every three units. The DTPC agreed that mitigation could be used based on the City's current parking ratio requirements. The 17 number is coming from an independent parking study based on the peak parking demand for urban, rather than suburban parking needs. Under the City's current parking ratio parameters, the project could be considered to be short by 39 parking spaces rather than 17. Page 10 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Councilmember Odebrecht stated the design is great for downtown and he appreciates all the revisions. However he is concerned about the parking challenge. Councilmember Junker stated that the last 5 downtown residential developments have provided 761 parking spaces on site for 346 units, equaling a ratio of 2.122.2 spaces per unit. If that ratio had been 1.2 per unit, there would be 346 cars parked on downtown streets right now due to those residential developments. There would have been a dramatic parking mess had those residential developments not provided for all the needed parking on site. Therefore he feels this 61-unit development with 73 on -site parking spaces has a deficit of 39, which places a great parking burden on the downtown. Also, one-third of the 73 on -site parking spaces are compact. Using a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per unit, there should be 92 parking spaces on site for residents (73 proposed) and so the proposal is short 19 spaces for residents and 12 short for guests. Councilmember Polehna commented the Council has never discussed tax increment financing for this development, yet it is written into the proposed mitigation agreement; and Mr. Turnblad explained that any approvals the Council makes tonight need to be contingent on approval of TIF. The developers have applied for TIF and the project is eligible for TIF due to code compliance issues. There is progress toward a TIF agreement, but it has not yet come to the City Council because it is not ready for review. It is not unusual to approve portions of the project before approving a TIF agreement. This application has been extended once and may not be extended again. Councilmember Junker reiterated his opinion that the parking deficit is 39 spaces, so at $20,000 per space the total should be $780,000. He did some number crunching and found that another ramp replicating the present ramp with 250 parking stalls would cost about $6-8 million. $340,000 of that (the parking mitigation cost for 17 spaces as indicated in the staff recommendation) equates to about 4%, essentially very little of the total needed to build a parking ramp. Plus it would put a 39 space deficit burden on the City for the next ten years because he does not see a parking ramp being built for at least ten years. Mayor Kozlowski inquired if the parking mitigation plan guarantees the use of those spaces in the ramp; and Mr. Turnblad replied no, it just pays for use of the system. The users would still have to come to City Hall and buy a monthly pass. Mayor Kozlowski stated he loves how the building looks and the idea of having this housing in downtown Stillwater. The developer is very well respected. However the City works very hard to accommodate parking demands downtown and he would really hate to take a step in the wrong direction. He does not think the parking variance is an option and he is not certain the parking deficit is truly 17 spaces. Councilmember Polehna voiced concern about setting a precedent by granting the height variance. Councilmember Junker agreed that Stillwater is a three story city. There are higher structures, but that is due to building elements, not a fourth story. Mayor Kozlowski stated he wants to see this project work, but he too struggles with the top story. If parking were not an issue the fourth story would not be so difficult. Councilmember Junker stated his other issue is the six short term rentals (10%). Page 11 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Councilmember Odebrecht remarked the short term rental regulations would be enforced through the short term rental ordinance. There is high incentive to abide by the rules or the City will revoke the short term rental permit. Nick Walton, developer, commented that the last time the proposal was before the Council, there seemed to be consensus that the height was OK, so the focus shifted to parking. The City came up with a plan for $20,000 per stall. He agreed to that, even though it was mid application. He thought the conversation tonight would be about whether mitigation would be for 17 stalls or some other number. The number 39, referenced at the DTPC in February, was based on a 50-60 year old parking policy. The current study, done independently, says the project will have a 17 space deficit. He feels like this is being derailed. Councilmember Odebrecht noted that he made the motion to table last time because he felt the Council was not close to approval. He can get past the height, but is struggling to get past the parking issue. The mitigation plan really helps and is a big asset but he recognizes that the City is going to be floating those spaces for a few years till a parking ramp is built. Mayor Kozlowski pointed out there is no public transportation in Stillwater. He does not feel the proposal includes enough parking for the residents. He thinks they will have more cars than what the study is saying. Mr. Turnblad stated he feels that this is a different project than the previous 5 condo projects, and that the residents in a rental unit have a different profile than condo owners. He believes the International Transportation Engineers study is accurate because its formulas are based on thousands of case studies. Councilmember Junker pointed out the project rents are on the higher end so if two people are living there, they are very likely to have two cars. Mayor Kozlowski asked if any Councilmembers are willing to apply the parking mitigation payments over the course of the TIF agreement or should they be paid up front? Mr. Walton stated if the payments are charged up front, they cannot start the project. Since the parking ramp will not be built for a number of years, he would prefer to pay the parking mitigation fees around the time when the City would be spending it to build a ramp. The idea of starting payments in year five was that the project would be stabilized then and would be in a position to pay. Councilmember Junker remarked he would not even consider a 17 space deficit. Mayor Kozlowski asked if mitigating anything above 17 spaces kills the project; and Mr. Walton replied it depends on the timing. If there is time, he could look at increasing the number. Redevelopment TIF is allowed 26 years. He did not plan to ask for 26 years but if there is time to work with it, he would consider a bigger number. Mayor Kozlowski commented he does not know how the City will ever build this ramp unless it enters partnerships with developers like this. Stillwater gets 10,000 visitors for the fourth of July and they all somehow find a place to park. It is clear the City must build a ramp at some point and the way to do that is by working with developers. If the City does not look for ways to creatively finance that ramp with help from private developers, it will never get built. The Armory is another example of a building that will never have the parking needed on site. Page 12 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Councilmember Junker stated it is clear the City needs another parking garage. But he would like a parking garage to support a growing downtown and not have the parking garage be one-fourth filled up with permits for residents. Councilmember Polehna noted that a number of businesses contribute nothing to parking mitigation because they were in business prior to the mitigation policy going into effect. He views this project as an opportunity to start to build up the funds for a parking ramp. He asked if the developers considered using TIF to try to mitigate some of the site problems and put more parking on site; and Mr. Walton responded that it is physically impossible to add more parking on site without getting into the water table. Councilmember Junker pointed out that 73 parking stalls would accommodate 36-37 units. The City's 50 year old formula is roughly 1.8 stalls per unit. If this were a 50 unit building based on the current policy, it would require 75 stalls on site plus 16 guest parking spaces. Under that scenario, he would support the proposed 73 on -site parking spaces that would fit the City's current parameters of 1.5 spaces per unit, along with mitigating the guest parking deficit as recommended by staff. Mr. Walton pointed out that the parking needs study was done by engineering experts using solid data, versus Councilmember Junker's gut feeling. As a developer, he followed the process and would like to know why the City would prefer to use the 50 year old parking policy over the engineering study. Councilmember Odebrecht stated he understands the City will have to be in debt for a while to get a parking garage built. He can support the staff recommendation but still cannot shake the feeling that the project is being shoehorned into a space. Councilmember Collins stated he would be more comfortable using the 39 space deficit. Councilmember Polehna agreed with using the 39 space deficit and eliminating the top floor. Mayor Kozlowski stated he agrees but he thinks that effectively kills the project. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to deny the parking variance and approve mitigation for the 39 space deficit per option 3 in the staff parking mitigation options (for a portion of mitigation charges up front and the balance over 15 years). Motion passed 4-1 with Councilmember Junker voting nay. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt Resolution 2021-065, Resolution Approving Setback Variances Associated with a 61-Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (Case No. 2020-60). All in favor. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt Resolution 2021-066, Resolution Approving Height Variances of 3' 5" Associated with a 61- Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (Case No. 2020-60). All in favor. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt Resolution 2021-067, A Resolution Denying a Design Permit Appeal for the Proposed 61-Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (HPC Case No. 2020-32). Motion passed 3-2 with Councilmembers Junker and Polehna voting nay. Page 13 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 Ms. Wittman summarized that, with the passing of the 11.5' variance, the design permit appeal was upheld. So the Council may now vote on the CUP for the 61 unit apartment complex with 10% short term home rental and parking mitigation. Motion by Mayor Kozlowski, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt Resolution 2021- 064, Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 61-Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (Case No. 2020-60), removing the short term rental language. Motion passed 3-2 with Councilmembers Junker and Polehna voting nay. NEW BUSINESS Final Plat and Development Agreement for White Pine Ridge City Planner Wittman explained that Jon Whitcomb, Metro East Commercial Real Estate, Inc. is requesting Final Plat approval and Development Agreement approval for White Pine Ridge, a 14-lot residential subdivision at 12950 75th Street North. The Council approved the Preliminary Plat in January of 2021. Staff finds the Final Plat to be acceptable and recommends approval, however the Development Agreement is still being fine-tuned so staff recommends tabling the Development Agreement. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adopt Resolution 2021-068, A Resolution Approving Final Plat for White Pine Ridge (Case No. 2021- 14), and to table the Development Agreement. All in favor. Great River Greening Partnership Ms. Wittman explained that part of the North Aiple (Lumberjack Landing) Plan is a 10-year vegetation management plan. Great River Greening (GRG), a nonprofit organization, has expressed interest in assisting the City in vegetation management for the first five years. GRG would like to contract with the City to conduct all Year 1 action items to include inventorying all management unit flora and groundwater seeps, assessing riverbank stability, and preparing species removal and site restoration plans. GRG would then apply on behalf of the City for a Minnesota Legacy Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF) grant to implement future phases. The City's cost in Year 1 would be $13,500 and $3,800 per year in Years 2-6. Staff believes there is public benefit to the GRG partnership proposal and would recommend the Council direct staff to continue to work with GRG on memorializing the agreement. Motion by Councilmember Collins seconded by Councilmember Junker, to direct staff to move forward with a partnership with Great River Greening on a 10-year management plan for Lumberjack Landing. Motion passed 4-1 with Councilmember Polehna voting nay. Hwy 36 and Greeley Street MnDOT Conveyance Community Development Director Turnblad stated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is offering to sell 1.25 acres of property at the northeast quadrant of Hwy 36 and Greeley Street to the City of Stillwater at a price of $367,000. The Washington County CDA has offered to work with the City to market the property. It is also considering funding a portion of the purchase price to reduce the City's carrying burden until it is re- sold to a developer. Staff finds the property is a high visibility site at a prominent Page 14 of 15 City Council Meeting May 4, 2021 intersection and it would be advantageous to the City to own it for the purpose of controlling what is developed there. Motion by Mayor Kozlowski, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to direct staff to identify potential funding sources for the possible purchase of 1.25 acres of property at the northeast quadrant of Hwy 36 and Greeley Street. All in favor. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS There were no Council request items. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Junker, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: J. Thomas McCarty, Acting City Clerk Resolution 2021-060, Resolution Approving the Addition of Additional License Premises Owned by La Carreta, LLC Resolution 2021-061, A Resolution Approving the Lot Line Adjustment Between 12950 75th Street North and & 12960 75th Street North (Case No. 2021-21) Resolution 2021-062, Resolution for Temporary Outdoor Dining Permit Resolution 2021-063, A Resolution Vacating a Public Drainage and Utility Easement Located Within the City of Stillwater, Minnesota (Case No. 2021-23) Resolution 2021-064, Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a 61-Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (Case No. 2020- 60) Resolution 2021-065, Resolution Approving Setback Variances Associated with a 61- Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (Case No. 2020-60) Resolution 2021-066, Resolution Approving Height Variances Associated with a 61- Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (Case No. 2020-60) Resolution 2021-067, A Resolution Denying a Design Permit Appeal for the Proposed 61-Unit Apartment Building to be Located at 200 Chestnut Street East (HPC Case No. 2020-32) Resolution 2021-068, A Resolution Approving Final Plat for White Pine Ridge (Case No. 2021-14) Page 15 of 15 4111wa ter The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 18, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Mayor Kozlowski called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:04 p.m. Present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmembers Collins, Junker, Odebrecht, Polehna Absent: None Staff present: City Administrator McCarty City Attorney Land City Clerk Wolf Community Development Director Turnblad Finance Director Provos Fire Chief Glaser Police Chief Mueller Public Works Director Sanders City Planner Wittman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Kozlowski led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. RECOGNITIONS OR PRESENTATIONS Oath of Duty presentation for Officer David Crist and Officer Joshua Ramirez Police Chief Mueller gave the Oath of Duty to Officers Crist and Ramirez. Their families pinned on their badges. Presentation by Sustainable Stillwater for Green Business Directory Mike Lyner, Sustainable Stillwater MN, introduced the Sustainable Stillwater members who put together the Green Business Directory: Wendy Gorski, Board Member; Kelsey Depew, Membership Manager; and Nancy Lyner, Green Business Directory Educator. Ms. Gorski explained the Greater Stillwater Area Green Business Directory at the URL GreenStillwater.org. It lists businesses that are socially and environmentally responsible in terms of community engagement, energy use, hazardous materials management, office practices, recycling, stormwater pollution, transportation, and water use. She requested an endorsement of the project from the Council. Mayor Kozlowski thanked the group and agreed to post the directory on the City's website. Ms. Lyner stated a resolution was submitted for possible adoption at another meeting. Councilmember Polehna thanked Sustainable Stillwater MN for last week's migratory bird day event. City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Resolution 2021-069, Certificate of Retirement for Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt Resolution 2021-069, Certificate of Retirement for Bill Turnblad. All in favor. Mayor Kozlowski and the Council commended Mr. Turnblad for his service as Community Development Director for the past 15 years. Mr. Turnblad expressed what a privilege it was to work for his hometown. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. STAFF REPORTS Public Works Director Sanders provided an update on the Riverbank Stabilization/ Riverwalk project. The permit has been received from the Corps of Engineers. An MPCA Grant may provide some funding for the project. Bike racks for downtown have been ordered. The Rec Center parking lot will be closed until June 1. Police Chief Mueller stated May is Mental Health Awareness Month. The Department is working with Washington County on the MORE Program, highlighting substance abuse. The protest front has been quiet. There are operational changes in the Department, including more downtown precinct coverage. He updated the Council on officer interviews. He commended Brad Junker for the bike rodeo. The Stillwater Area High School graduation parade will be June 5 starting at 4 p.m. Mayor Kozlowski suggested the Council revisit the skateboarding ordinance. He also requested that Chief Mueller look into posting a suicide hotline phone number on the high bridge. Fire Chief Glaser stated the Fire Department hosted the Chamber's Coffee Talk on May 5. This is National EMS Appreciation Week. He thanked all EMS personnel for their service especially during the pandemic. Chief Glaser also thanked the Council for condolences on the loss of his father. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that of 10 Short Term Home Rental Type C licenses available downtown, nine have been issued. There are plenty of Type A & B licenses available. He thanked Zoning Administrator Graham Tait for his work with Sustainable Stillwater. He noted that Paul Larson has a suggestion to convert the Bergstein Shoddy Mill buildings to restaurant and event use. He inquired if the Council would like to hear Mr. Larson's proposal, or open it up for an RFP. Council consensus was to revisit discussion of possible reuse of the buildings and to invite Mr. Larson to present his idea. City Administrator McCarty stated there is a tentative agreement on the State Budget Bill. The 2022 City budget process will begin soon. A strategic planning session will be held in July. Page 2 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 CONSENT AGENDA May 4, 2021 Regular and Recessed Meeting Minutes Payment of Bills 45th Parallel Spirits Distillery Cocktail Room On -Sale with Sunday Sales and Off -Sale Liquor License 2021 Bridge the Valley Bike Rally Event 2021 Summer Tuesdays Event Contract 2021 UMR Grand Classic Event 2021 Vets Memorial Day Event Update Engineering Services for Main Street Traffic Signal System Fireworks Permits for Cub Foods and Target Ordinance 1167, An Ordinance Enacting Chapter 52, Sec. 52-19 Regarding Predatory Offenders of the City Code of the City of Stillwater Ordinance 1166, An Ordinance Amending Section 31-300 Establishment of Districts by Rescinding Ordinance 1158 and Rezoning Approximately Nine Acres to RA One - Family Residential; approval of White Pine Ridge Development Agreement Planning Services Contract during Community Developer Director Vacancy Resolution 2021-070, A Resolution Authorizing the City of Stillwater to Adopt a Reassessment of Certain Properties for the 2019 Street Improvement Project River Siren Brewing Company Taproom On -Sale with Sunday Sales and Off -Sale Liquor License Stillwater Area Hockey Association Gambling Permit at Ziggy's on Main Technology Reimbursement Policy Update for Commissioners Resolution 2021-071, Resolution Approving Amendment to Liquor License for Additional Temporary Outdoor License Premises [Nacho Mama's] Councilmember Odebrecht commented that the owner of River Siren Brewing Company is interested in trying to provide vaccines with beer. Councilmember Junker stated there are errors in the numbers given in the May 4 Council meeting minutes in regard to the 200 Chestnut building. He will work with the City Clerk to correct the numbers. The minutes were pulled from the Consent Agenda for correction and adoption at a later date. Councilmember Junker requested clarification on the Reassessment of Certain Properties for the 2019 Street Improvement Project. Mayor Kozlowski explained that mediation occurred and the City and property owners settled on an approximately 30% reduction in the assessments for the five properties. Without reaching agreement, there would have been individual trials for each property at potentially significant cost to the City. Additionally, the City erred by not assessing one property whose only frontage was the driveway, impacting the other assessments. He feels this illustrates the need to revisit the assessment policy and the discrepancies in value that a new street brings to a property owner. He feels the policy should be more consistent for residents and include a not to exceed amount or percentage. Councilmember Polehna commented whenever the assessment policy is changed, residents who already paid an assessment oppose being further taxed to pay for streets throughout the City. Page 3 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Councilmember Junker noted that some streets have not been reconstructed in 40 years, and that appraisals done throughout the area came in higher than the actual assessment. Mayor Kozlowski stated he feels that homeowners should not bear 70% or 80% of street reconstruction costs. Councilmember Polehna recalled the assessment policy used to be 50/50%, but that did not bring in enough money to do the streets. Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Odebrecht, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS HPC Case 2021-10 to consider a request by property owner Jason Ous for after -the -fact approval of demolition and reconstruction at 304 Hazel St E.. City Planner Wittman stated this home was constructed in the 1870s. While the structure was associated with state and local historic contexts, it was not determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register. It was in fair condition in 1998. The current owner took possession of the home in October 2019 at which time permits for new windows, new siding, and water/sewer hookup were issued by the City. The City inspected the water/sewer connections in September 2020, but no additional inspections have occurred. On November 30, 2020 the property owner submitted a building permit application for full interior and exterior rehabilitation. Upon review of the property, it was determined unpermitted exterior alterations, including demolition, addition and facade alterations occurred without appropriate planning, zoning, and building inspection office review and approval. On December 30 and, again, on January 28, 2021, Zoning Administrator Tait sent notice to the property owner that the unpermitted work would require review and approval by both the HPC and Planning Commission prior to the review of the building permit application. On March 10 the City received an HPC application for the unpermitted work. The property owner states the work occurred because the second story of the structure collapsed. He is seeking approval of a Demolition Permit for the removal of the front porch improvements and portions of the front -facing roof, renovation and second story addition. While an array of building materials is used on all four sides, the structure lacks four-sided design. The flat roof is out of character for the residence and the neighborhood. On April 21, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing to consider the Building Demolition Permit request and voted to recommend denial of the Building Demolition Permit. Public comment was received from Kevin Tilka, 1921 1st Street North expressing concerns about the design of the structure, the safety of the improvements and the structure's appurtenances, and the activities occurring on the site. These sentiments have also been expressed by other adjacent property owners requesting enforcement of other plausible zoning code infractions. Additional concerns were expressed in a letter from Melanie Ebertz, 1924 1st Street North. Staff and the HPC recommend the City Council deny the after -the -fact Building Demolition Permit. Mayor Kozlowski noted the house was under construction for a while. He asked if anyone in the Planning Department drove down Hazel street during the past year; and Ms. Wittman replied when staff members are out in the field, they keep their eyes and ears on projects, but Hazel is not a well traveled street and staff did not see this project. Page 4 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Councilmember Junker added that when the HPC considered this case a month ago, they were concerned about discussing design review and code violations without the applicant being present. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Jason Ous, applicant, stated the project has not been pleasant. The initial plan was never to go anywhere near this extent of work. Events kept occurring, including a catastrophic failure of the story and a half portion facing east. Permits were pulled for roofing, siding, electrical, connections to City sewer and water, and multiple attempts were made to get those other pieces in place. He accepts full culpability for pushing this project further along. There was no intent to deceive. Councilmember Odebrecht inquired if it was disclosed at closing that this was an historic house; and Mr. Ous replied he knew it was an old house, but nothing was disclosed about it being historic. Ms. Wittman reiterated it is not eligible for listing, but the City's demolition review ordinance affects any house built before 1946. Councilmember Odebrecht remarked he does not believe everything that is old is worth saving, however this could have been discussed and the City has been robbed of that discussion. This house goes back to the Civil War era and he is upset about what has been done. Mr. Ous apologized for not being at the HPC meeting. He had understood that his presence would be irrelevant. Melanie Ebertz, First Street North, just up the hill from the property, stated it baffled her that the high impact activity on Hazel Street was going unnoticed by the City for about a year and a half. Having done historic remodel work herself, it would never have occurred to her to do anything without a permit. What is more impactful for the neighborhood, and a lot of neighbors are fearful to speak out, is the intense activity. It appears there were months that work was not being done on the house, but there were up to six trailers and trucks parked in the driveway and intense truck and trailer activity on Hazel starting about 7 a.m. Employees were parking all day and being picked up and taken elsewhere and the vehicles were left on Hazel Street all day. Backing up the trailers is dangerous especially because there are many pedestrians and bicyclists on the blind hill. She believes Waves Minnesota is the name of the business and it looks like a heavy equipment operation and they are using the place as a shop. She also has huge concerns about the design, which is out of character for the neighborhood. She asked the applicant to address what is the intention for this property. Mr. Ous apologized to the neighbor across the street. He stated there is no intent to house any of his construction equipment at the property. A ramp was constructed due to the grade, to improve the ability to get in and out. Two weeks ago he got topsoil in place and it was seeded. When he purchased this home it was to have a place for his mother-in-law, but most likely that will not happen due to her age. He does not want to own this property after completion. He will not be using it for an Airbnb or any other purpose. On a question by Councilmember Junker if all the construction equipment was strictly for construction on the house; and Mr. Ous responded that he owns Working American Veteran Page 5 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Employment Solutions - WAVES. He does remodeling work. Usually, the vehicles are on station on different projects or in the shop in St. Paul Park. There were vehicles at this site over the winter because of COVID limitations, but that has been remedied with no intent to have equipment there ever again. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. Councilmember Junker inquired if there is any way that plumbing, electrical, and foundation can be accurately inspected after the fact without ripping into walls; and Mr. Turnblad replied that any improvements that are behind sheet rock at this point can not be inspected without tearing the sheetrock out. Councilmember Odebrecht stated he feels an inspection must be made even if sheetrock must be removed. Mayor Kozlowski asked what has been inspected; and Ms. Wittman answered that the water and sewer connections have been inspected, including the connections to the pipe in the street. The piping in the house has not been inspected. No framing, foundation work, or interior inspections have been done. Without a certificate of survey, it is not clear where the house sits in regard to property lines. City staff spoke with Mr. Ous well before COVID and advised, when he got the window permit, that more approvals would be needed and that further work should not be done. If a structure is within three feet of a property line, a survey is required. She explained the normal application and review process. On a question by Mayor Kozlowski if it would be more accurate to assume the house is over the property line or that it is within the property line; Ms. Wittman replied that the steps are on the property line of the Hazel Street right-of-way. The house is within the property line. Most concerning at this point is the back right corner that could potentially be on DNR land. Mayor Kozlowski inquired if permits had been obtained to build what is currently there, what variances would have been required; and Ms. Wittman responded that variances to the front, side and rear yard setbacks would have been required and also possibly a lot coverage variance. A design permit would be required from the HPC because the property is located in the neighborhood conservation district. Design review ensures that a home fits the neighborhood in mass and scale and uses four sided design. Mayor Kozlowski asked if the HPC feels the design does not fit, what does the property owner do; and Ms. Wittman replied sometimes the HPC will approve a design permit with conditions. Another option is outright design permit denial, which tells the applicant to go back to the drawing board. The applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council. Mayor Kozlowski then asked, was the footprint expanded; and Ms. Wittman answered that she does not believe the footprint was expanded, but likely there were foundation repairs done. On a question by Councilmember Odebrecht if the case can be sent back to the HPC and Planning Commission for recommendations on design changes, inspections, survey and so on; City Attorney Land responded that the Council may overturn a decision or send it back to the HPC. The City should give the homeowner some direction on what he needs to modify to make it more acceptable to the HPC. Then let the HPC do their job and apply their rules, knowledge and expertise. Page 6 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Mayor Kozlowski remarked this is one of those homes he has always wanted to see fixed up. He suggests that the HPC review it carefully and give direction as to exactly what the house needs to look like. The variances need to come before the Council for discussion. There should be a fine for demolishing a house prior to getting a demolition permit. The inspections need to happen even if drywall needs to be removed. He does not want to allow somebody to build an unsafe house. He feels it is a concession that the City is not requiring Mr. Ous to tear the whole thing down. Councilmember Junker pointed out that there is no choice but to grant the variance, unless they rip down part of the addition. Councilmember Odebrecht stated, in addition to robbing the Council of the ability to have that discussion, Mr. Ous also robbed himself of the ability to explain "this was already there." His vote would be to approve the application with the condition that it goes back through the HPC, inspections be done, survey completed, and the process be followed. The only other option is denial which would make the house effectively useless. Mayor Kozlowski remarked this property owner needs to jump through every hoop imaginable and the structure needs to look exactly as the HPC wants it. Councilmember Polehna commented the flat roof looks out of character. It needs to fit the design criteria and should be sent back to HPC and Planning. Ms. Wittman explained when an applicant is interested in demolition, a pre application inspection is done by her and Building Official Cindy Shilts. She recommends that the property owner set a time for staff to inspect the property to help inform him of some of the things that may need to be changed in terms of the variances, design permit, even a potential encroachment license request from the Council for something like a porch or overhangs and roof gutters. Ms. Land added that submission of the application starts the 60 day clock for City action. Ms. Wittman stated the next application submittal deadline is May 28. Due to vacations and workload, she recommends the applicant try for the next application submittal deadline, June 25. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht to approve HPC Case 2021-10, request by property owner Jason Ous for after -the -fact approval of demolition and reconstruction at 304 Hazel St E, with the following conditions: the case goes back to the HPC for porch, gable, siding design review and anything else the HPC needs to review; the case goes back to the Planning Commission for whatever variances are needed; inspections must be completed, a survey must be done, and the application must be submitted by the June 25 deadline. Councilmember Junker suggested the motion should not use the word "approve." Attorney Land suggested the motion be to remand the case back to the HPC. That way, the Council is not making a decision tonight. The applicant has to submit all the items noted in order for his application to be deemed complete. Application will automatically trigger the Planning Commission review. Page 7of13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Councilmember Odebrecht reworded the motion to remand the case to the HPC for design review, for the application to be submitted by June 25 and the necessary inspections and surveys to be completed. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Polehna. All in favor. CPC Case No. 2021-15 to consider a request by Linda Countryman, representing Sustainable Stillwater and Chair of the Green Steps Committee, applicant. Request is for the consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment to allow Accessory Dwelling Units within the RA zoning District. Community Development Director Turnblad stated that Linda Countryman, Chair of Sustainable Stillwater's GreenStep Cities Committee, submitted a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment on the committee's behalf to increase the number of properties eligible for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This increase would be accomplished by allowing ADUs in the RA, Single Family Residential Zoning District, reducing the lot size required for an ADU in the RB Zoning District, and by relaxing several performance standards. He reviewed the proposed performance standard revisions. This would essentially double the number of properties in Stillwater that could have an ADU, from around 1500 to 2800. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the draft ADU ordinance amendment based on staff edits which are slightly different from Sustainable Stillwater's recommendations. Councilmember Odebrecht inquired if the amendment removes the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an ADU in the RB District; and Mr. Turnblad replied that currently, ADUs are allowed by CUP in the RB District. The amendment would shift from CUP to outright permitted as long as it meets the recommended parameters. Roger Tomten, Sustainable Stillwater, stated the GreenSteps Cities team and Sustainable Stillwater took this on as a way to open up additional options for affordable housing. He reviewed the points of the proposal that staff recommended be changed. The goal of allowing ADUs on 5,000 square foot lots was to offer the option to as many people as possible. They understand the concern about having a big enough lot, but the City has other ordinances that control lot size, such as impervious surface. In the RB district, about 62% or two-thirds of the lots would qualify for an ADU if minimum lot size is 7,500 square feet, whereas about 90% would qualify if minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. In terms of requiring a CUP, in the RB District a duplex is permitted with a large enough lot. They felt it would be helpful to erase more of the constraints by eliminating the need for a CUP. Councilmember Odebrecht asked why not have applicants go before the HPC for design review as part of this process; and Mr. Tomten answered that it was felt that design compatibility of ADUs is something staff could handle rather than burdening the HPC with it. Councilmember Odebrecht stated that going before the HPC provides a public forum so if a resident has an issue with the application, they can be heard. Mayor Kozlowski recalled when the permitting of ADUs first was discussed a few years ago, a lot of people felt they would destroy neighborhoods. He requested Mr. Tomten address the negative consequences. Mr. Tomten noted one of country's leading developers of ADUs found that in a six to seven block area, there might be one or two. The most intense use might be one per block. The impacts are quite small. In some communities, the biggest area of contention is parking, but Page 8 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 the chances are a resident would not even own a car if they are living in an 800 square foot ADU. He does not think there would be many ADUs in a neighborhood like Croixwood. Community Development Director Turnblad stated several years ago, the State passed legislation aimed at helping people who were giving care to others, allowing for a mobile unit that would be allowed to be there for a certain time period. The City of Stillwater opted out as it did not want to see temporary structures, so the City developed the ADU ordinance. Mayor Kozlowski opened the public hearing. Jennifer Cates, 1304 North First Street, voiced support for the amendment. Alison Campbell and John Rentschler expressed support for the amendment. They are working with Cates Fine Homes to renovate a home at 1304 North First Street. They would like to be able to have an 8 foot ceiling versus a 6 foot ceiling above the garage. Mayor Kozlowski closed the public hearing. He asked Mr. Tomten, what are the positive impacts of the amendment; and Mr. Tomten answered that it opens up more housing options for people on their property without having to move out or relocate, for instance an elderly homeowner could hire a caregiver to live in the ADU allowing the homeowner to stay in the home. It provides a housing type that is not an apartment building in a traditional, historic neighborhood and allows for affordable housing in a dispersed way, rather than concentrated in a high density development. Mayor Kozlowski stated he is worried about the affordability of Stillwater, that it will turn into someplace where only wealthy people can afford to buy a house. He agreed with Mr Tomten about the value of allowing people to stay in their homes longer. As long as it is orderly and within the rules, property owners should have the right to do what they can as long as it does not impact the enjoyment of a neighbor's property. He would like to ease into the amendment somehow. Community Devleopment Director Turnblad stated the Council could change the ordinance in the RB Zoning District first. Councilmember Junker remarked the amendment has the potential to significantly change neighborhoods. Allowing detached ADUs versus attached is a big difference; it could mean converted basements. He also is concerned about parking and more cars on neighborhood streets. He would not even consider allowing ADUs on lots less than 7,500 square feet. As proposed, the change is too drastic. Councilmember Odebrecht stated his concern is that it feels like a big splash. He was leaning in favor of it, but now feels that opening this up to 90% of the homes in Stillwater is too impactful. He inquired if staff is hearing a lot of demand for ADUs; and Mr. Turnblad replied that in the RB Zoning District where CUPs are currently required, 20 have been issued. The low number could be due to the fact that a 10,000 square foot lot is required and it has to be above a garage. Opening it up to 7,500 square foot lots and allowing it to be actually within the house is opening the door to more applicants. Mayor Kozlowski stated he does not think that many people will apply for ADUs. Alison Campbell stated they only want the ability to have a carriage house. On one side of the street it is allowed and the other side it is not. Page 9 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Mayor Kozlowski stated he would support a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size in the RB District, if all the other conditions are met, either attached or detached. Councilmember Odebrecht stated he would like the HPC to review the proposal and he also would like to see CUPs required for ADUs in the RB District, to give neighbors an opportunity to be heard in a public forum. Councilmember Polehna predicted there will be fights among neighbors. He is opposed to allowing ADUs in the RA District. He believes in property owner rights, but this is opening a can of worms. He feels the HPC should review this proposal. Community Development Director Turnblad noted the HPC has not reviewed the amendment. If the issue is adding a mother-in-law apartment inside an existing building, the HPC is not reviewing that anyway. Councilmember Collins commented it is a huge investment to construct an ADU. Mayor Kozlowski commented there is no chance the City would get 200 ADU applications over the next decade. He would stick to the RB District, take the staff recommendation on 7,500 square feet, require three parking spaces per the staff recommendation, and require the application to go to the HPC for review. He would not support requiring a CUP. He asked how much work the CUP requirement means for staff; and Mr. Turnblad answered that it adds six weeks of review - not a tremendous burden. Mayor Kozlowski then suggested leaving the CUP requirement in for now, because it can always be removed. City Planner Wittman explained in the neighborhood conservation district (old Stillwater) a design permit from the HPC is required, and it is done in a public hearing process. So if the Council wishes the HPC to review these applications, then also requiring a CUP puts them through two hearing processes, which is more public oversight than they currently have. Having the HPC review those ADU applications that are in the neighborhood conservation overlay district is appropriate because there are RB-zoned lands that are not in historic areas. She recommended having that public process at the HPC level, but maybe not requiring the CUP, so there is not a dual hearing process. Mayor Kozlowski stated he would be OK with that. Motion by Mayor Kozlowski, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt an Ordinance amending Stillwater City Code Chapter 31-101 regarding zoning definitions, Chapter 31-315 allowable uses in residential districts, and Chapter 31-501 regarding accessory dwelling units, including allowing ADUs in the RB District (only), to follow the staff recommendation to require three parking spaces, and to only allow ADUs on lots that are 7,500 square feet and over, and to require that those ADU applications in the neighborhood conservation district must be reviewed by the HPC. Motion failed 2-3 with Councilmembers Junker, Odebrecht and Polehna voting nay. Councilmembers Polehna and Odebrecht expressed a willingness to revisit the issue if considered for fewer areas of the City. Page 10 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 UNFINISHED BUSINESS COVID 19 Protocol Update City Administrator McCarty stated that the Governor's Executive Order #21-21 on May 6, 2021, provided thresholds for increasing capacities for business operations and modifying other COVID-19 protocols in steps resulting in nearly normal operational protocols by July 1, 2021. On May 14, 2021, Governor Walz issued further guidance consistent with just issued CDC guidelines to remove the mask mandate for those with COVID-19 vaccinations effective on Friday, May 14, 2021. The City's Workplace of Tomorrow team advises moving forward on June 1 to: 1) open City facilities; 2) conduct Council, Board & Commission meetings with public present while concurrently operating a hybrid Zoom option; 3) return staff to in -person operations; and, 4) modifications to the City's COVID-19 preparedness plan as necessary. Council consensus was in favor of opening up June 1 following the recommendations. 4th of July City Celebration City Administrator McCarty informed the Council that although the Governor has lifted restrictions for outdoor gatherings for 2021, the impact of the cancellation of 2020 4th of July events has impacted the supply chain for fireworks and fireworks shells will not be available in time for the City's 4th of July Celebration. Fireworks will be available later this summer. With no fireworks show available for the 4th of July, the City Council needs to discuss and consider other options, including: 1) continue the 4th of July Celebration with music venues, Civil War cannon battery and perhaps other added activities and options; 2) consider a scaled down 4th of July Celebration, possibly cancellation; 3) utilize the fireworks availability (and available budgeted funds) later this summer and integrate a fireworks show with the Bridge Opening Celebration. Councilmember Polehna reviewed several ideas to bring people downtown for the 4th of July to support the businesses. Council consensus was to support having music on the plaza and other activities spread out over the July 4th weekend. Motion by Mayor Kozlowski, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to approve the fireworks for the Lift and Loop Celebration on August 14. All in favor. American Rescue Plan Funds Update City Administrator McCarty informed the Council that the federal American Rescue Plan was signed into law in March of 2021, providing over $4.9 billion in federal funding to the State of Minnesota. The City of Stillwater's allocation is estimated to be over $2.235 million. The State of MN has recently received one half of its allocation (2nd half one year from now) and must disburse county and city allocations within 60 days (by mid -July 2021). The City will have until December 31, 2024 to expend its allocation. City staff will continue to monitor the Treasury guidance issued regarding allowable uses of the American Rescue Plan funding and will provide analysis and recommendations to the City Council at future Council meetings for allowable uses and potential priorities. Page 11 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Finance Director Provos added that cities are encouraged to take their time to identify uses for the funding because of the broad timeline allowed for disbursement. Mayor Kozlowski requested to be notified as soon as it is appropriate to start reaching out to the nonprofit community to determine how the City can help with their needs. NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2021-072, Approving the Appointment of Tim Gladhill as the new Community Development Director City Administrator McCarty noted the retirement of Bill Turnblad from the Community Development Director position effective May 28, 2021, after fifteen years with the City of Stillwater. The City conducted a recruitment process and Mr. Tim Gladhill was selected as the top candidate for the position. Motion by Councilmember Polehna, seconded by Councilmember Collins, to adopt Resolution 2021-072, Approving the Appointment of Tim Gladhill as Community Development Director for the City of Stillwater Effective June 28, 2021. All in favor. Waste Management Contract Amendment for Renewal of Services 2021-2026 City Clerk Wolf stated that staff has been working with Waste Management since last fall on contract language and rates for residential and multi -family complexes. She reviewed the proposed changes for July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2026 to amend the Waste Management Contract. Staff recommends the Council approve the amended contract. Motion by Councilmember Odebrecht, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adopt Resolution 2021-073, Approving Amending Agreement with Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. Effective July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2026 and Establishing Monthly Rate Schedules for the Collection of Solid Waste and Recycling. All in favor. COUNCIL REQUEST ITEMS Mayor Kozlowski noted that former Mayor/Police Chief Wally Abrahamson passed away May 17, and that Len Nelson of Len's Family Foods passed away on May 5. He requested that Mayor Abrahamson and Mr. Nelson be recognized at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Junker, seconded by Councilmember Polehna, to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 10:44 p.m. ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Page 12 of 13 City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 Resolution 2021-069, Certificate of Retirement for Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Resolution 2021-070, A Resolution Authorizing the City of Stillwater to Adopt a Reassessment of Certain Properties for the 2019 Street Improvement Project Resolution 2021-071, Resolution Approving Amendment to Liquor License for Additional Temporary Outdoor License Premises [Nacho Mama's] Resolution 2021-072, Approving the Appointment of Tim Gladhill as Community Development Director Resolution 2021-073, Approving Amending Agreement with Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. Effective July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2026 and Establishing Monthly Rate Schedules for the Collection of Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance 1166, An Ordinance Amending Section 31-300 Establishment of Districts by Rescinding Ordinance 1158 and Rezoning Approximately Nine Acres to RA One - Family Residential Ordinance 1167, An Ordinance Enacting Chapter 52, Sec. 52-19 Regarding Predatory Offenders of the City Code of the City of Stillwater Page 13 of 13 Page 1 CITY OF STILLWATER LIST OF BILLS Alnes Susan Amdahl Locksmith Inc Chris American Solutions for Business AT&T Mobility Automatic Systems Co Batteries Plus Bulbs Bentley Systems Inc. BHE Community Solar Bolton and Menk Inc. CDI CDW Government Inc. Central Wood Products Cintas Corporation Clifton LarsonAllen LLP Cole Papers Comcast Cook Law & ADR Core & Main Cub Foods Cummins Sales & Service Dakota County Technical College David Hardware Inc ECM Publishers Emergency Automotive Emergency Medical Products Ess Brothers & Sons Inc. Ferguson Waterworks #2518 Flexible Pipe Tool Co. Frontier Ag & Turf Generate 360 Consulting Golden Expert Services Grainger Group Medicareblue RX Guardian Supply HiIdi Inc Hoisington Koegler Group Inc Hotsy Equipment of Minnesota Instrumental Research Intoximeters Jefferson Fire and Safety Inc. Jobs HQ/Forum Comm Junker Brad Kirvida Fire Inc. Knippenberg Carla Lindstrom Solar LLC Park Fee Refund Lock installed Eurofit Wall Cell phone Well 9 upgrades Batteries SignCAD subscription Solar Energy Sanitary manhole LaserFiche Computer equipment & software 2210 Premium Double Shredded Hardwood Uniform & mat cleaning service Audit Janitorial supplies TV Internet & Voice 2019 Street Project Equipment Ice cubes - Rodeo Onan Genset & Transfer Switch Training Strikes Public hearing publications Repair Supplies Aqua seal tubes & caulking Supplies Equipment repair charges & support Equipment repair supplies Business strategy seminar Janitor Service Equipment repair supplies Retiree Prescriptions Ins Uniform supplies Actuarial disclosures Design guidelines Equipment wash Equipment repair supplies Equipment Uniforms Building Inspector Reimburse for Bike Safety Rodeo Expenses Ford grass truck repair Reimburse for Planning Commissioner iPad Solar Energy 50.00 577.90 1,292.39 67.88 8,150.00 57.45 771.30 4,999.31 3,964.50 648.12 4,994.29 1,520.00 1,021.39 5,100.00 163.79 483.86 2,000.00 1,340.13 35.92 3,542.79 2,500.00 57.00 199.50 844.20 44.88 1,071.20 227.67 2,480.40 78.10 5,000.00 3,700.00 145.16 3,211.00 480.89 990.00 2,402.00 664.18 200.00 1,150.00 435.74 58.90 299.42 374.98 381.62 6,270.00 Page 2 MacQueen Equipment Inc. Madden Galanter Hansen LLP Mansfield Oil Company Marshall Electric Company Menards Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors MHSRC/Range MK Mechanical Inc MN Dept of Health MN Dept of Health Drinking Water MN Dept of Transportation MN Pollution Control Agency MP Nexlevel LLC Office Depot Performance Plus LLC Pioneer Press St. Paul Postmaster Praxair Ditribution Progressive Microtechnology Inc Quadient Leasing Quill Corporation RG Construction Riedel) Shoes Inc. Reiter Darlene Reiter Deborah Safe Fast Inc SEH Inc Sentry Systems Inc. Simplifile LC SiteOne Landscape Supply Springbrook Software State of Minnesota Stillwater Motor Company Stillwater MP I LLC T.A. Schifsky and Sons Triple Valley Ironworks Utility Logic WSB & Associates Inc. LIBRARY Amazon Business Cintas Corporation Demco Inc. Hedin Sue Menards Office of MN IT Services Supplies Labor Relations Services Fuel Rutherford lift station repair Supplies Maintenance Training Parking shed AC Hospitality Fee Water Connection Fee Traffic signal maint Wastewater certification renewal Locating Office supplies Drug screen Subscription Newsletter Postage Cylinders Evidence tracker service support Postage machine lease Office supplies Grading Escrow Refund Skates Refund Park Donation Memorial Bench Refund Park Donation Memorial Bench Nitrile gloves & safety supplies Maryknoll traffic study Alarm monitoring Filing fee Supplies Springbrook upgrade Decals Vehicle service SMP I LLC - Temp Constr Easement Fee Asphalt Bench with memorial plaque Equipment MS4 Services Programs - Juv SRP (SPLF HJA) Towels & Rugs Processing Supplies Staff Reimbursement Janitorial Supplies Phone - April 125.34 90.00 5,929.56 150.00 1,893.81 896.50 890.00 907.50 40.00 29,500.00 590.38 23.00 2,207.50 173.03 135.00 147.72 1,760.40 59.88 695.00 455.01 115.92 10,500.00 485.60 1,521.00 1,521.00 1,324.32 2,776.12 140.85 50.00 129.52 5,437.50 24.00 50.69 2,000.00 2,333.61 4,563.00 10,459.00 4,648.50 178.20 178.20 185.80 128.25 65.95 143.70 Page 3 Otis Elevator Company Pioneer Press St. Paul Scholastic Inc Tan Ni Elevator Maintenance Service Materials - Periodicals (SPLF Heuer) Programs - JUV SRP (SPLF HJA) Programs - Adult June (SPLF) 598.44 627.00 361.14 350.00 iliwater THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MINNF PLANNING REPORT TO: City Council MEETING DATE: June 1, 2021 APPLICANT: Jason Ous LANDOWNER: Jason Ous CASE NO.: HPC 2021-10 REQUEST: Adoption of Written Statement of Reasons for Denial/Remand (304 Hazel Street East Building Demolition Permit) LOCATION: 304 Hazel Street East DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner At the Council's last regularly -scheduled meeting, the Council elected to remand the 304 Hazel Street East Building Demolition Permit back to the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission. In essence, the Council denied the requested permit, advising the property owner to follow the City's prescribed review and approval processes. Attached is a Resolution memorializing the Council's action. RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DENIAL PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, § 15.99, SUBD. 2, FOR A BUILDING DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 304 HAZEL STREET EAST AND FOR REMANDING THE APPLICANT REQUEST HPC CASE NO. 2021-10 WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a Building Permit application from Jason Ous, property owner of 304 Hazel Street West, and, upon review of the property, determined unpermitted work, requiring Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission review and approval, had occurred on the site; and WHEREAS, the upon request by the City, the applicant submitted a Building Demolition Permit for Heritage Preservation Commission's approval of the unpermitted demolition and the design of the subsequent reconstruction; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the application in a public hearing held April 21, 2021; and WHEREAS, at the April 21, 2021, Heritage Preservation Commission meeting, a motion was made by Commissioner Finwall and seconded by Commissioner Larson to recommend denial of the application to the City council. The Commission voted 7 in favor, with none opposing, and the motion passed; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Stillwater reviewed and considered the request based on the related documents shown in the application in a public hearing held May 18, 2021; and WHERAS, at the May 18, 2021, City Council meeting, the Council motioned to deny the Building Demolition Permit and Remand the request back to the Heritage Preservation Commission and Planning Commission for any associated variances. The Council voted 5 in favor, with none opposing, and the motion passed; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Statutes, § 15.99, Subd. 2(c), provides that "[i]f a multimember governing body denies a request, it must state the reasons for denial on the record and provide the applicant in writing a statement of the reasons for the denial. If the written statement is not adopted at the same time as the denial, it must be adopted at the next meeting following the denial of the request but before the expiration of the time allowed for making a decision under this section. The written statement must be consistent with the reasons stated in the record at the time of the denial. The written statement must be provided to the applicant upon adoption." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following written statement of the reasons for denial stated on the record at the May 18, 2021, regular City Council meeting by Councilors voting to deny the requested Building Demolition Permit: 1. The requested Building Demolition Permit was not consistent with all the standards for granting a Building Demolition Permit as described in Section 31- 215 of the Stillwater Zoning Ordinance. More specifically, the City Council members voting against the requested Building Demolition Permit stated on the record at the May 18, 2021, regular City Council meeting that the request was not justified for the following reasons: i. The design, as proposed with the unpermitted demolition work, is not in conformance to established district adopted guidelines. ii. The City Council could not determine there was a specific substantially inadequate health and/or safety issue. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater this 1st day of June, 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Attest: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Stiliwater Administration Date: May 20, 2021 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Beth Wolf, City Clerk SUBJECT: Solid Waste, Recycling and Roll -off Hauler License DISCUSSION: Advanced Disposal Services has submitted the required information and fee for a 2021 Solid Waste, Recycling and Roll -off Hauler License. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the satisfactory completion of application submittal requirements. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING AND ROLL -OFF HAULER LICENSE for contingent upon the satisfactory completion of application submittal requirements. CLA (CliftonLarsonAllen LLP) 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1436 612-376-4500 I fax 612-376-4850 CLAconnect.com January 7, 2021 Honorable Mayor, City Council and Management City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the terms and objectives of our engagement and the nature and limitations of the audit and nonaudit services CliftonLarsonAllen LLP ("CLA," "we," "us," and "our") will provide for the City of Stillwater ("you," "your," or "the entity") for the year ended December 31, 2020. Christopher G. Knopik, CPA, CFE is responsible for the performance of the audit engagement. Audit services We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business -type activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City of Stillwater, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to the financial statements. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) provides for certain required supplementary information (RSI) to accompany the entity's basic financial statements. The following RSI will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited. 1. Management's discussion and analysis. 2. Schedule of changes in net pension liability (asset) — fire relief association 3. Schedule of contributions — fire relief association 4. Schedule of changes in total OPEB liability and related ratios 5. GASB Statement No. 68 schedule of propitiate share of net pension liability and schedule of employer contributions. We will also evaluate and report on the presentation of the supplementary information other than RSI accompanying the financial statements in relation to the financial statements as a whole. 1. Schedule of expenditures of federal awards 2. Combining and individual fund financial statements 'A member of Nexia International January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 2 The following information other than RSI accompanying the financial statements will not be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements and our auditors' report will not provide an opinion or any assurance on that information: 1. Introductory section 2. Statistical section Nonaudit services We will also provide the following nonaudit services: • Preparation of your financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and related notes. Audit objectives The objective of our audit is the expression of opinions about whether your basic financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP). Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAS); the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Our audit will include tests of your accounting records, a determination of major program(s) in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express opinions and render the required reports. We will perform procedures on the financial information of the Stillwater Board of Water Commissioners to enable us to express our opinions. We will apply certain limited procedures to the RSI in accordance with U.S. GAAS. However, we will not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. We will also perform procedures to enable us to express an opinion on whether the supplementary information (as identified above) other than RSI accompanying the financial statements is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements as a whole. The objectives of our audit also include: • Reporting on internal control over financial reporting and compliance with the provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and award agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial statements in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. • Reporting on internal control over compliance related to major programs and expressing an opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) on compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards that could have a direct and material effect on each major program in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 3 The Government Auditing Standards report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters will include a paragraph that states (1) that the purpose of the report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the result of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control or on compliance, and (2) that the report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity's internal control and compliance. The Uniform Guidance report on internal control over compliance will include a paragraph that states that the purpose of the report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the result of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Both reports will state that the report is not suitable for any other purpose. We will issue written reports upon completion of our audit of your financial statements and compliance with requirements applicable to major programs. We cannot provide assurance that unmodified opinions will be expressed. Circumstances may arise in which it is necessary for us to modify our opinions, add an emphasis -of - matter or other -matter paragraph(s), or withdraw from the engagement. If our opinions on the financial statements or the single audit compliance opinion are other than unmodified, we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If circumstances occur related to the condition of your records, the availability of sufficient, appropriate audit evidence, or the existence of a significant risk of material misstatement of the financial statements or material noncompliance caused by error, fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assets, which in our professional judgment prevent us from completing the audit or forming opinions on the financial statements or an opinion on compliance, we retain the right to take any course of action permitted by professional standards, including declining to express opinions or issue reports, or withdrawing from the engagement. As part of our audit, we will also perform the procedures and provide the report required by the Minnesota Legal Compliance Audit Guide for Political Subdivisions. Auditor responsibilities, procedures, and limitations We will conduct our audit in accordance with U.S. GAAS and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the basic financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the basic financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the basic financial statements. There is an unavoidable risk, because of the inherent limitations of an audit, together with the inherent limitations of internal control, that some material misstatements or noncompliance may not be detected, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with U.S. GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance. Because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, material misstatements, whether from (1) errors, (2) fraudulent financial reporting, (3) misappropriation of assets, or (4) violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the entity or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the entity, may not be detected. Because the determination of January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 4 waste and abuse is subjective, Government Auditing Standards do not require auditors to perform specific procedures to detect waste or abuse in financial audits nor do they expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of detecting waste or abuse. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements or violations of laws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the financial statements or on major programs. However, we will inform the appropriate level of management and those charged with governance of any material errors, fraudulent financial reporting, or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform the appropriate level of management and those charged with governance of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. We will include such matters in the reports required for a single audit. In making our risk assessments, we consider internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the basic financial statements and compliance in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. Tests of controls may be performed to test the effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting fraud or errors that are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements resulting from noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that have a material effect on the financial statements. Our tests, if performed, will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on internal control and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. As required by the Uniform Guidance, we will perform tests of controls over compliance to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with the direct and material compliance requirements applicable to each major federal award program. However, our tests will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on those controls and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal control issued pursuant to the Uniform Guidance. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses in internal control. However, we will communicate to you in writing significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal control relevant to the audit of the basic financial statements that we identify during the audit that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional standards, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the entity's compliance with the provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that have a material effect on the financial statements. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion in our report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards. We will include in our report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance relevant information about any identified or suspected instances of fraud and any identified or suspected noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements that may have occurred that are required to be communicated under Government Auditing Standards. January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 5 The Uniform Guidance requires that we also plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the auditee has complied with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards that may have a direct and material effect on each of the entity's major programs. Our procedures will consist of tests of transactions and other applicable procedures described in the "OMB Compliance Supplement" for the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of the entity's major programs. The purpose of these procedures will be to express an opinion on the entity's compliance with requirements applicable to each of its major programs in our report on compliance issued pursuant to the Uniform Guidance. We will evaluate the presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards accompanying the financial statements in relation to the financial statements as a whole. We will make certain inquiries of management and evaluate the form, content, and methods of preparing the schedule to determine whether the information complies with U.S. GAAP and the Uniform Guidance, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We will compare and reconcile the schedule to the underlying accounting records and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors. Management responsibilities Our audit will be conducted on the basis that you (management and, when appropriate, those charged with governance) acknowledge and understand that you have certain responsibilities that are fundamental to the conduct of an audit. You are responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, RSI, and the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Management is also responsible for identifying all federal awards received, understanding and complying with the compliance requirements, and for the preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (including notes and noncash assistance received) in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Management's responsibilities include the selection and application of accounting principles; recording and reflecting all transactions in the financial statements; determining the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates included in the financial statements; adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements; and confirming to us in the management representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole. Management is responsible for compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements, including compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards applicable to the entity's federal programs. Your responsibilities also include identifying significant contractor relationships in which the contractor has responsibility for program compliance and for the accuracy and completeness of that information. You are responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control, including internal control over compliance, and for evaluating and monitoring ongoing activities to help ensure that January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 6 appropriate goals and objectives are met relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error; and that there is reasonable assurance that government programs are administered in compliance with compliance requirements. You are responsible for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal controls to prevent and detect fraud; assessing the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud; and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving (1) management, (2) employees who have significant roles in internal control, and (3) others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity received in communications from employees, former employees, grantors, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for implementing systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements, including compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards applicable to the entity's federal programs; identifying and ensuring that the entity complies with applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, including compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards applicable to the entity's federal programs; and informing us of all instances of identified or suspected noncompliance whose effects on the financial statements should be considered. You are responsible for taking timely and appropriate steps to remedy any fraud and noncompliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that we may report. Additionally, as required by the Uniform Guidance, it is management's responsibility to evaluate and monitor noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards; take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified, including noncompliance identified in audit findings; and to follow up and take prompt corrective action on reported audit findings and to prepare a summary schedule of prior audit findings and a corrective action plan. The summary schedule of prior audit findings should be available for our review prior to the start of the audit. You are responsible for ensuring that management is reliable and for providing us with (1) access to all information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation, and other matters, and for the accuracy and completeness of that information, and for ensuring the information is reliable and properly reported; (2) access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and other information as needed to perform an audit under the Uniform Guidance; (3) additional information that we may request for the purpose of the audit; and (4) unrestricted access to persons within the entity from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence. You agree to inform us of events occurring or facts discovered subsequent to the date of the financial statements that may affect the financial statements. You are also responsible for providing us access to component information, those charged with governance of components, component management, and component auditors (including relevant audit documentation and communications). Management is responsible for providing us with, or making arrangements to facilitate (1) unrestricted communication between us and the component auditor(s) to the extent permitted by law or regulation; (2) communications between the component auditor(s), those charged with governance of the component(s), and component management, including communications of significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control; (3) communications between regulatory authorities and the component(s) related to financial January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 7 reporting matters; (4) access to component information, those charged with governance of the component(s), component management, and the component auditor(s) (including relevant audit documentation requested by us); and (5) permission to perform work, or request a component auditor to perform work, on the financial information of the component(s). You agree to include our report on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in any document that contains and indicates that we have reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards that includes our report thereon or make the audited financial statements readily available to intended users of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards no later than the date the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is issued with our report thereon. Your responsibilities include acknowledging to us in the representation letter that (1) you are responsible for presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with the Uniform Guidance; (2) you believe the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, including its form and content, is fairly presented in accordance with the Uniform Guidance; (3) the methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period (or, if they have changed, the reasons for such changes); and (4) you have disclosed to us any significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of other supplementary information in accordance with U.S. GAAP. You agree to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains, and indicates that we have reported on, the supplementary information. You also agree to include the audited financial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon or make the audited financial statements readily available to users of the supplementary information no later than the date the supplementary information is issued with our report thereon. You agree to provide us written representations related to the presentation of the supplementary information. Management is responsible for providing us with a written confirmation concerning representations made by you and your staff to us in connection with the audit and the presentation of the basic financial statements and RSI. During our engagement, we will request information and explanations from you regarding, among other matters, the entity's activities, internal control, future plans, specific transactions, and accounting systems and procedures. The procedures we will perform during our engagement and the conclusions we reach as a basis for our report will be heavily influenced by the representations that we receive in the representation letter and otherwise from you. Accordingly, inaccurate, incomplete, or false representations could cause us to expend unnecessary effort or could cause a material fraud or error to go undetected by our procedures. In view of the foregoing, you agree that we shall not be responsible for any misstatements in the entity's financial statements that we may fail to detect as a result of misrepresentations made to us by you. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit findings and recommendations. Management is also responsible for identifying and providing report copies to us of previous financial audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other studies related to the objectives discussed in the "Audit objectives" section of this letter. This responsibility includes relaying to us corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those audits, attestation engagements, performance audits, or other engagements or studies. You are also responsible for providing management's views on our current findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as well as your planned corrective actions for the report, and for the timing and format for providing that information. January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 8 Responsibilities and limitations related to nonaudit services For all nonaudit services we may provide to you, management agrees to assume all management responsibilities; oversee the services by designating an individual, preferably within senior management, who possesses suitable skill, knowledge, and/or experience to understand and oversee the services; evaluate the adequacy and results of the services; and accept responsibility for the results of the services. Management is also responsible for ensuring that your data and records are complete and that you have received sufficient information to oversee the services. The responsibilities and limitations related to the nonaudit services performed as part of this engagement are as follows: • We will prepare a draft of your financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and related notes in conformity with U.S. GAAP and the Uniform Guidance based on information provided by you. Since the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements and schedule of expenditures of federal awards is your responsibility, you will be required to acknowledge in the representation letter our assistance with preparation of the financial statements and schedule of expenditures of federal awards and that you have reviewed and approved the financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, and related notes prior to their issuance and have accepted responsibility for them. You have a responsibility to be in a position in fact and appearance to make an informed judgment on those financial statements and schedule of expenditures of federal awards. These nonaudit services do not constitute an audit under Government Auditing Standards and such services will not be conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. Use of financial statements The financial statements and our report thereon are for management's use. If you intend to reproduce and publish the financial statements and our report thereon, they must be reproduced in their entirety. Inclusion of the audited financial statements in a document, such as an annual report or an offering document, should be done only with our prior approval of the document. You are responsible to provide us the opportunity to review such documents before issuance. If the parties (i.e., you and CLA) agree that CLA will not be involved with your official statements related to municipal securities filings or other offering documents, we will require that any official statements or other offering documents issued by you with which we are not involved clearly indicate that CLA is not involved with the contents of such documents. Such disclosure should read as follows: CliftonLarsonAllen LLP, our independent auditor, has not been engaged to perform and has not performed, since the date of its report included herein, any procedures on the financial statements addressed in that report. CliftonLarsonAllen LLP also has not performed any procedures relating to this offering document. With regard to the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements published electronically on your website or submitted on a regulator website, you understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute information and, therefore, we are not required to read the information January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 9 contained in those sites or to consider the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document. We may issue preliminary draft financial statements to you for your review. Any preliminary draft financial statements should not be relied on or distributed. Engagement administration and other matters We understand that your employees will prepare all confirmations, account analyses, and audit schedules we request and will locate any documents or invoices selected by us for testing. A list of information we expect to need for our audit and the dates required will be provided in a separate communication. At the conclusion of the engagement, we will complete the auditor sections of the electronic Data Collection Form SF -SAC and perform the steps to certify the Form SF -SAC and single audit reporting package. It is management's responsibility to complete the auditee sections of the Data Collection Form. We will create the single audit reporting package PDF file for submission; however, it is management's responsibility to review for completeness and accuracy and electronically submit the reporting package (including financial statements, schedule of expenditures of federal awards, summary schedule of prior audit findings, auditors' reports, and corrective action plan) along with the Data Collection Form to the federal audit clearinghouse and, if appropriate, to pass -through entities. The Data Collection Form and the reporting package must be electronically submitted within the earlier of 30 calendar days after receipt of the auditors' reports or nine months after the end of the audit period. We will provide copies of our reports to the entity; however, management is responsible for distribution of the reports and the financial statements. Unless restricted by law or regulation, or containing confidential or sensitive information, copies of our reports are to be made available for public inspection. We are available to perform additional procedures with regard to fraud detection and prevention, at your request, as a separate engagement, subject to completion of our normal engagement acceptance procedures. The terms and fees of such an engagement would be documented in a separate engagement letter. The audit documentation for this engagement is the sole and exclusive property of CLA and constitutes confidential and proprietary information. However, subject to applicable laws and regulations, audit documentation and appropriate individuals will be made available upon request and in a timely manner to the cognizant or oversight agency, or its designee, a federal agency providing direct or indirect funding, or the U.S. Government Accountability Office for purposes of a quality review of the audit, to resolve audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities. We will notify you of any such request. If requested, access to such audit documentation will be provided under the supervision of CLA personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the aforementioned parties. These parties may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies or information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies. The audit documentation for this engagement will be retained for a minimum of seven years after the report release date or for any additional period requested by the cognizant or oversight agency. If we are aware that a federal awarding agency, pass -through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit finding, we will contact the party(ies) contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to destroying the audit documentation. January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 10 Except as permitted by the "Consent" section of this agreement, CLA will not disclose any confidential, proprietary, or privileged information of the entity to any persons without the authorization of entity management or unless required by law. This confidentiality provision does not prohibit us from disclosing your information to one or more of our affiliated companies in order to provide services that you have requested from us or from any such affiliated company. Any such affiliated company shall be subject to the same restrictions on the use and disclosure of your information as apply to us. Professional standards require us to be independent with respect to you in the performance of these services. Any discussion that you have with our personnel regarding potential employment with you could impair our independence with respect to this engagement. Therefore, we request that you inform us prior to any such discussions so that we can implement appropriate safeguards to maintain our independence and objectivity. Further, any employment offers to any staff members working on this engagement without our prior knowledge may require substantial additional procedures to ensure our independence. You will be responsible for any additional costs incurred to perform these procedures. Our relationship with you is limited to that described in this letter. As such, you understand and agree that we are acting solely as independent accountants. We are not acting in any way as a fiduciary or assuming any fiduciary responsibilities for you. We are not responsible for the preparation of any report to any governmental agency, or any other form, return, or report or for providing advice or any other service not specifically recited in this letter. Our engagement ends on delivery of our signed report. Any additional services that might be requested will be a separate, new engagement. The terms and conditions of that new engagement will be governed by a new, specific engagement letter for that service. Government Auditing Standards require that we make our most recent external peer review report publicly available. The report is posted on our website at www.CLAconnect.com/Aboutus/. Mediation Any disagreement, controversy, or claim ("Dispute") that may arise out of any aspect of our services or relationship with you, including this engagement, shall be submitted to non -binding mediation by written notice ("Mediation Notice") to the other party. In mediation, we will work with you to resolve any differences voluntarily with the aid of an impartial mediator. The mediation will be conducted as specified by the mediator and agreed upon by the parties. The parties agree to discuss their differences in good faith and to attempt, with the assistance of the mediator, to reach an amicable resolution of the Dispute. Each party will bear its own costs in the mediation. The fees and expenses of the mediator will be shared equally by the parties. Any Dispute will be governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota, without giving effect to choice of law principles. January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 11 Time limitation The nature of our services makes it difficult, with the passage of time, to gather and present evidence that fully and fairly establishes the facts underlying any Dispute that may arise between the parties. The parties agree that, notwithstanding any statute or law of limitations that might otherwise apply to a Dispute, including one arising out of this agreement or the services performed under this agreement, for breach of contract or fiduciary duty, tort, fraud, misrepresentation or any other cause of action or remedy, any action or legal proceeding by you against us must be commenced within twenty-four (24) months ("Limitation Period") after the date when we deliver our final audit report under this agreement to you, regardless of whether we do other services for you relating to the audit report, or you shall be forever barred from commencing a lawsuit or obtaining any legal or equitable relief or recovery. The Limitation Period applies and begins to run even if you have not suffered any damage or loss, or have not become aware of the existence or possible existence of a Dispute. Fees Our fees for these services will be $35,600 for the audit and $4,800 for preparation of the financial statements (in accordance with our letter dated July 31, 2018) and $4,000 for the grant compliance audit and entering the information in the Data Collection Form SF -SAC and creating the single audit reporting package. These estimates are based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and their assistance with preparing confirmations and requested schedules. If the requested items are not available on the dates required or are not accurate, the fees and expenses will likely be higher. If unexpected circumstances require significant additional time, we will advise you before undertaking work that would require a substantial increase in the fee and expense estimates. Our invoices, including applicable state and local taxes, will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. In accordance with our firm policies, work may be suspended if your account becomes 60 days or more overdue and will not be resumed until your account is paid in full. If we elect to terminate our services for nonpayment, our engagement will be deemed to have been completed even if we have not issued our reports. You will be obligated to compensate us for all time expended and related fees and to reimburse us for all out-of-pocket expenditures through the date of termination. Other fees You also agree to compensate us for any time and expenses, including time and expenses of legal counsel, we may incur in responding to discovery requests or participating as a witness or otherwise in any legal, regulatory, or other proceedings that we are asked to respond to on your behalf. Finance charges and collection expenses You agree that if any statement is not paid within 30 days from its billing date, the unpaid balance shall accrue interest at the monthly rate of one and one -quarter percent (1.25%), which is an annual percentage rate of 15%. In the event that any collection action is required to collect unpaid balances due us, reasonable attorney fees and expenses shall be recoverable. Consent Consent to use financial information Annually, we assemble a variety of benchmarking analyses using client data obtained through our audit and other engagements. Some of this benchmarking information is published and released publicly. However, the January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 12 information that we obtain is confidential, as required by the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. Your acceptance of this engagement letter will serve as your consent to use of the City of Stillwater's information in these cost comparison, performance indicator, and/or benchmarking reports. Subcontractors CLA may, at times, use subcontractors to perform services under this agreement, and they may have access to your information and records. Any such subcontractors will be subject to the same restrictions on the use of such information and records as apply to CLA under this agreement. Agreement We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. This letter constitutes the entire agreement regarding these services and supersedes all prior agreements (whether oral or written), understandings, negotiations, and discussions between you and CLA. If you have any questions, please let us know. Please sign, date, and return the copy of this letter to us to indicate your acknowledgment and understanding of, and agreement with, the arrangements for our audit of your financial statements including the terms of our engagement and the parties' respective responsibilities. Sincerely, CliftonLarsonAllen LLP Christopher G. Knopik, CPA, CFE Principal 612-397-3266 christopher.knopik@CLAconnect.com Enclosure January 7, 2021 City of Stillwater Page 13 Response: This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Stillwater. Authorized governance signature: Title: Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Date: June 1, 2021 Authorized management signature: Title: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Date: June 1, 2021 StIllr Administration Date: May 26, 2021 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Beth Wolf, City Clerk SUBJECT: Solid Waste, Recycling and Roll -off Hauler License DISCUSSION: Lloyd Construction Services Inc has submitted the required information and fee for a 2021 Solid Waste, Recycling and Roll -off Hauler License. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval contingent upon the satisfactory completion of application submittal requirements. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING AND ROLL -OFF HAULER LICENSE for contingent upon the satisfactory completion of application submittal requirements. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Shawn Sanders, Public Works Director DATE: May 18, 2021 SUBJECT: Market Place Lift Station Improvement Project Background The Public Works Department budgeted funds in 2021 to upgrade the Market Place Lift Station. The upgrade consists of the installation of an emergency bypass manhole to the lift station the and would allow the continued operation of the lift station, in case of power, control or pump failure, with the assistance of a generator. Discussion Six bids were submitted for the Marketplace Lift Station Improvements project on May 18, 2021. The bids ranged from $109,700.00 to $197,820.00. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $137,000.00. The low bid price is from Vinco, Inc. Vinco is a reputable company that has done worked for the City in the past. Recommendation It is recommended that Council accept bid and award contract to Vinco, Inc. for $109,700.00 for the 2021 Market Place Lift Station Improvement Project. Funds for this project will come out of the Sewer Fund. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM Shawn Sandgrs, Public Works Director / City Engineer DATE: May 27, 2021 SUBJECT: Possible Purchase 2022 Ford 550 Mayor and City Council Rackgroiind Public Works Department is proposing to replace a 2001 Ford F450 Super Duty 1 ton with dump box and chipper box used only to haul the wood chipper and wood chips. Because of its age and being undersized for the type of work it performs, it is proposed to replace this vehicle with a new truck with a plow hitch and a hook attachment that allows multiple attachments to the chassis including, a chipper box, flat bed. The department can then use this piece of equipment for multiple tasks such as chipping for tree removal, hauling, flooding rinks with a tank and as a backup plow truck. In looking at a replacement vehicle, received a low quote from Saxon Ford on a 2022 Ford F550 4x4 regular cab and chassis for $42,633.75 on state bid. This price does not include the trade-in of the 2001 Ford F450 Super Duty 1 ton. Staff received a quote from Truck Utilities on state bid for the Hook assembly, chipper box, flat bed and plow hitch for $59,569.00. Digital Radio from ANCOM Communications Inc. for $1300.00. Total cost of the cab and chassis Hook assembly, chipper box, flat bed and plow hitch is $103,502.75. $110,000.00 was budgeted for this equipment purchase. Recommendation Staff recommends the purchase of the new 2022 Ford 550 Truck from Saxon Ford for $42,633.75. The Hook assembly, chipper box, flat bed and plow hitch for $59,569.00 from Truck Utilities on state bid and Digital Radio from ANCOM Communications Inc. for $1300.00 for a total of $103,502.75. Funds will come from the Streets Capital Outlay Fund MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Reabar Abdullah, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 26, 2021 RE: Raingardens Maintenance Agreement DISCUSSION Attached is an agreement with the Washington Conservation District (WCD) to pay for the Maintenance of 48 raingardens in the City of Stillwater, maintenance activities include inlet cleanout, weed removal, and litter removal. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council authorize the approval of the agreement between the Washington Conservation District and the City of Stillwater for the Raingardens Maintenance Agreement. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution 2021- APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WASHINGTON CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF STILLWATER FOR RAINGARDENS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WASHINGTON CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF STILLWATER FOR RAINGARDENS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, an agreement with the Washington Conservation District (WCD) to pay for the Maintenance of 48 raingardens in the City of Stillwater has been prepared and presented to Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA that the agreement presented to Council and on file with the office of the City Clerk is hereby approved and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement. Adopted by the City Council this 1st day of June 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor Attest: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Agreement Between the Washington Conservation District and the City of Stillwater PARTIES: This letter of agreement will set forth the work to be provided by the Washington Conservation District (WCD) to the City of Stillwater (City) to perform maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs). TERM OF CONTRACT: The effective date of the agreement is from April 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. SCOPE OF SERVICES: Work to be performed by the WCD includes the following tasks: a. Perform a minimum of two maintenance visits for 48 raingardens. Maintenance activities include inlet cleanout, weed removal, and litter removal. COST AND PAYMENTS: Costs for services and materials for these activities shall not exceed $3,000.00. Services will be provided by the WCD Staff and Seasonal Maintenance Worker(s) at $59 to $39/hr. Invoices will be sent in the fourth quarter and will list specifically the work performed. Invoices are payable by the City of Stillwater within 60 days. Office supplies, normal office reproduction expenses, and transportation are included in the hourly rate. Other expenses are to be reimbursed at actual cost. RELATIONSHIP: This agreement in no way shall constitute, nor be construed in such a way to create an employment relationship between the City and the WCD. WCD staff shall not be entitled to any rights, privileges, or benefits of employees of the City. INDEMNIFICATION & INSURANCE: The WCD agrees it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its board members and employees against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages and expenses, including attorney's fees, which the WCD its board or employees may hereafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay arising out of the WCD performance or failure to adequately perform its obligations pursuant to this agreement. Likewise, the City agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the WCD, its board members and employees against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages and expenses, including attorneys' fees, which the City its council members or employees may hereafter sustain, incur, or be required to pay arising out of the actions of the WCD. The parties acknowledge and agree that any exposure to liability of the WCD or the City, or the acts or omissions of their respective officers, agents board members and employees will not exceed the limits provided for in is governed by_Minn. Stat. section 466. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY- CIVIL RIGHTS: During the performance of this Agreement, the WCD agrees to the following: No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance, criminal record, creed or national origin, be excluded from full employment rights in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program, service, or activity under the provisions of and all applicable federal and state laws against discrimination including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. RECORDS: Under Minn Stat. section 16C.05, the WCD's books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices relevant to this grant are subject to examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate for a minimum of six years from the end of this agreement. DATA PRIVACY: All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated, or used for any purpose in the course of the WCD's performance of the Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data 2017 WCD Technical Services Agreement Practices Act, Minnesota 1984, Section 13.01, et seq. Or any other applicable state statutes and state rules adopted to implement the Act, as well as state statutes and federal regulations on data privacy. The WCD agrees to abide by these statutes, rules and regulations and as they may be amended. TERMINATION: Either the WCD or City may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice prior to the effective date of such termination. In Witness Whereof, the WCD and City have duly executed this Agreement as of the date and year referenced herein. Jay'Riggs City Administrator, City of Stillwater District Manager, Washington Conservation District 1-13-21 Date Date 2017 WCD Technical Services Agreement City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION 2021- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SUSTAINABLE STILLWATER MN'S GREATER STILLWATER AREA GREEN BUSINESS DIRECTORY WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater strives to be a livable city and supports efforts to provide quality living environments, quality public services and facilities while protecting cultural, historical and natural resources; and WHEREAS, steps taken by Sustainable Stillwater to create a Green Business Directory assists in facilitating the implementation of sustainable solutions aimed to improve greater community resiliency and quality of life; and WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater finds these actions to be in the public interest, consistent with Stillwater's Green Step Cities work plan and demonstrates the City's commitment to a healthy community environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Stillwater City Council supports Sustainable Stillwater in its efforts in creating and providing a Green Business Directory and encourage residents and businesses to use it. Adopted by the Stillwater City Council this 1st day of June, 2021. Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk rtG MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Name of organization Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 222, St. Paul, MN 55101 651-201-7500 Fax 651-297-5259 TTY 651-282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 DAY TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE Only a Dim Image Productions, dba The Zephyr Theatre Address 601 Main Street North Name of person making application City Date organized April 6, 2016 Stillwater Calyssa Hall Date(s) of event July 22-25 (July 26, backup day for severe weather) Organization officer's name Kathryne Stuempert Organization officer's name Robin Anthony Organization officer's name Nicole Bartelt Organization officer's name Christopher Lepage Location where permit will be used. If an outdoor area, describe City Mahtomedi City Stillwater City Stillwater City Stillwater State Tax exemptnumber 81-1157243 MN Business phone 651-342-1542 Zip Code 155082 Home phone 651-373-7026 Type oforganization J Microdistillery Small Brewer Club .Yl Charitable L Religious Other non-profit Zip Code State MN State MN State MN State MN 55115 Zip Code 55082 Zip Code 55082 Zip Code 55082 North Lowell Park, Stillwater. This permit will be used to sell drinks to audience members at an outdoor Brow If the applicant will contract for intoxicating liquor service give the name and address of the liquor license providing the service. Only a Dim Image Productions, dba The Zephyr Theatre, 601 Main Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082. If the applicant will carry liquor liability insurance please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. Cincinnati Insurance Companies. $1,000,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate. APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT CityofStillwater city or county approvingthe license $25/day = Fee Amount Date Fee Paid Date Approved Permit Date bwolf@ci.stillwater.mn.us City or County E-mail Address 651-430-8802 City or County Phone Number Signature City Clerk or County Official Approved Director Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement CLERKS NOTICE: Submit this form to Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 30 days prior to event. ONE SUBMISSION PER EMAIL, APPLICATION ONLY. PLEASE PROVIDE A VALID E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE CITY/COUNTY AS ALL TEMPORARY PERMIT APPROVALS WILL BE SENT BACK VIA EMAIL. E-MAIL THE APPLICATION SIGNED BY CITY/COUNTY TO AGE.TEMPORARYAPPLICATION@STATE.MN.US Portable Restrooms Zephyr Tent Alcohol/ Entrance - Concessions /Exit Seating for 1 D0 tvlyrtle St E .Sac e J Exit Platf ores 3 ocked Trail i water ' H4 BIH! H PI 4! I' OI• MINNI U I A Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Jason Grode, Parks Superintendent Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Re: Zephyr Theatre's Broadway by the Bridge: Mamma Mia! Event BACKGROUND: The Zephyr Theatre has recently completed an event application to produce a professional Broadway -style musical of "Mamma Mia!" in Lowell Park using professional musicians and actors. Performances will take place July 22-25, 2021, at 7:OOpm and ending before 10:OOpm. In an effort to work with Summer Tuesdays and the Cruisin' on the Croix Car Show, setup for the Mamma Mia event would occur on Monday, July 19th, only in locations that do not interfere with these events. Dress rehearsals will take place at 10am-5pm on Tuesday, July 20th; 10am-3:00pm and 8:00pm-10:00pm on Wednesday, July 215t; and l0am-3:00 pm on Thursday, July 22nd. They expect to market this as a regional event and will have seating for up to 1,000 people at each performance. While the event area will be delineated by lightweight fence (open during the day), it will not deter anyone from watching the show outside of the event space or create any site barrier to the beauty of the park. The stage will be covered and the event will occur rain or shine unless there is severe weather - in this case, the cancelled performance will be rescheduled for Monday, July 26th at 7:OOpm. The Zephyr Theatre will be responsible for the costs involved with this event in conjunction with the 2021 Fee schedule including security deposit, parking fees for 7 spaces (Lot #5), barricades, traffic control, special event fees and the park base fee. These event fees and security deposit total $6,060.00 + Police staffing costs (TBD). ACTION REQUIRED: Upon satisfactory review of the application, the City Council should pass a motion approving the Zephyr Theatre's Broadway by the Bridge: Mamma Mia! event application, with the condition that they may reserve the entire parking lot 5 for the four performance days. Attachment: Application Form & Site Plan 2021 BROADWAY BY THE BRIDGE: MAMMA MIA! EVENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made this 1ST day of June, 2021 by and between the CITY OF STILLWATER, Washington County, Minnesota (the "City"), and the ZEPHYR THEATRE, (the "Organizer"). WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the Organizer wishes and the City will permit the Zephyr Theatre to organize and conduct a theatre production of Mamma Mia! at Lowell Park on July 22nd through July 25th 2021 in order to foster and promote tourism within the City of Stillwater and encourage commerce within the City that will ultimately increase property values and the quality of life within the City, thereby promoting the welfare of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the City and the Organizer agree as follows: 1. Security Deposit: A damage deposit of $1000.00 is required in case there is damage to irrigation systems and the City's park. 2. Event/Alcohol. Alcohol will be served and consumed during this event. Police will staff from 6:15 pm-10:00pm during performance nights. 3. Signs. The Organizer will post signs, the number and content of which must be approved by the City Police Chief, describing the regulations prohibiting participants bringing their own liquor into the park. 4. Noise Control. The Event is responsible to control the noise emanating from the Area at a level that will not interfere with the peace and repose of the residential area on the bluffs on the north, west and south edges of the downtown. 5. Dates and Hours of Event. Operations are limited as follows: Set up: July 19 through July 22, 2021: 8 am to 9 pm. Event: July 22 through July 25, 2021 (July 26, 2021—rain date): 5 pm - 10 pm. Clean up: July 26, 2021 or July 27, 2021: 8 am to 9 pm. 6. Police Power. The City reserves the right to order a shutdown of the Area in the event the Chief of Police determines, in his sole discretion, that the public safety is threatened or any condition of this Agreement is violated. If requested by the Chief of Police, the Organizer will assist the police in the clearing of the Area. 7. Use of Parking Lots. The organizer is aware and will inform all vendors and event participants that staking into the asphalt for tents, etc. is not allowed (any damage repair will be paid for by the event organizer). The Event is given use of Lot 5. The Organizer agrees to pay the City for the use of the parking lot according to the parking space fees designated by the City Council. 8. Trail. The bicycle and pedestrian trail from Laurel Street to Nelson Street must remain open and unobstructed (no vehicles, trailers etc.) for the public during the Event. The Organizer shall pay for any restoration of the trail caused by the Event, as determined by the City. 9. Park Property. Lessee shall ensure that no vehicles drive on the City's park property. In the event that damages occur to the City's property, the Organizer shall pay for any restoration of the park as determined by the City. 10. Irrigat'on System in Park Property. Lowell Park is maintained by a buried irrigation system. This system can be damaged by stakes or posts that are driven into the ground. For that reason, stakes or posts longer than 12 inches and more than a quarter inch in diameter may not be used in the park. Further, as insurance against damage, a deposit must be made and any damage to the system will be deducted from the deposit. The balance of the deposit will be returned with 30 days of the conclusion of the event. Organizer shall request the City to locate the irrigation system prior to event. 11. City Services. The type and amount of materials needed for the Event will be determined by the Public Works Superintendent. The Organizer shall be required to request barricades for street closure, trash removal and electricity for vendors. The Organizer may contact the City to arrange rental of materials and will be charged for use according to the City of Stillwater Event permit fee schedule. a. City Public Restrooms. City Public Restrooms on the Pedestrian Walkway will remain open during the Event and the City will supply and equip the restrooms. The City reserves the right to require Organizer to maintain, stock, clean and supervise restrooms should the Event require additional facilities as determined by the Stillwater Public Works Superintendent. b. Barricade Placement. Lessee may at 8:00 am place barricades at the parking lot entrance on Myrtle Street. c. Trash Enclosures. The Organizer shall furnish dumpsters or roll -off boxes and trash receptacles in sufficient quantity to contain the accumulation of trash generated by the Event. The Organizer shall make certain that all trash is picked up during and after the Event daily. The Organizer shall remove any excessive garbage that does not fit within the receptacles and dispose in trash dumpsters. The City reserves the right to require additional receptacles should the Organizer not remove excess garbage from the Event. d. Electricity and Water. Each electrical box needed for the Event will be opened by the City prior to each event. The Organizer shall be charged for the use of each electrical box according to the permit fee schedule. Organizer agrees to meet with the City and/or the State electrical inspector a minimum of 1 week prior to event to ensure all vendors using electrical service comply with the Minnesota Electrical Code. Inspection costs (if any) shall be the Event Organizer responsibility. e. The City shall provide Organizer a key for the water shut off valve if needed. The Organizer shall provide a $50 deposit and be reimbursed upon return of said key. f. Cleanup/Removal. Organizer shall remove all barricades, and portable toilets by 3:30 p.m. on the day following the event. Organizer shall remove trash, additional trash enclosures no later than Noon, each day of the Event. If the above items are not removed as stated above, the Organizer will reimburse the City for costs incurred in removing the items. Vendors. No camping. The Organizer agrees to inform any vendors that there is no camping permitted in Lowell Park or any City parking lots. a. The Organizer agrees that any vendor using cooking facilities will be inspected for safety by the Stillwater Fire Department and Washington County Health Department. Inspection costs (if any) shall be paid for by the Event Organizer directly to the agency/person doing the inspection. b. The Organizer agrees to ensure that all vendors waste water be discharged into a holding tank approved by Washington County Health Department. Vendors without an approved holding tank shall discharge into grey water barrels provided by the Organizer. Disposal costs are the responsibility of the Organizer. For no reason shall grey water barrels or holding tanks be disposed into the City's Sanitary or Storm Systems. c. The Organizer agrees to provide 1 hand washing station to facilitate the expected crowds and vendors as deemed necessary to protect public health. 12. Insurance. The Organizer must provide to the City satisfactory proof that it has obtained liability insurance coverage of at least the statutory limits for municipalities covering claims that might be brought against the Event that arise out of the Event's authorized by this Agreement and to name the City as an additional insured on their policy as their interest may appear. 13. Hold Harmless and Indemnify. The Organizer agrees to hold the City harmless and to indemnify and defend the City with regard to any claims, causes of action, or demands that might be brought against the City arising out of the activities in the area. 14. The Application for the Event as submitted by the Organizer is considered part of this Contract and any representations of the Organizer or conditions imposed by the City are restated as if fully set forth in this Agreement. 15. The Organizer hereby agrees to follow the City's Special Event Policy. [remainder of page intentionally blank] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement with the intent to be legally bound by its terms as of the date this Agreement is fully executed by both parties. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Its Mayor Attest: Beth Wolf, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of 2021, by Ted Kozlowski, Mayor, and Beth Wolf, City Clerk, on behalf of the CITY OF STILLWATER. THE ZEPHYR THEATRE Calyssa Hall, Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss ) Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2021, by Calyssa Hall its Executive Director for the Zephyr Theatre. Notary Public iilwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MIMMESOTA EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION 216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 Telephone: 651-275-4101 Fax: 651-275-4112 Email: pubwrks@ci.stillwater.mn.us Incomplete applications or applications received after deadline will not be accepted. See Event Instructions for application deadline and fees. Date of Application: May 12, 2021 Office Use Only Date Application Received Type: Event Special Event Event w/ Contract Event Information Title/Name of Event Broadway By The Bridge - Mamma Mia! 7/19/2021 thru 7/22/2021 8:00 am 9:00 pm Event Date/Time: Set up: Date Time to Actual Event: Date 7/22/2021 thru 7/26/2021 Time 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm Clean up: Date 7/27/2021 Time 8:00 am to 9:00 pm (Events after 10:00 p.m. require a variance from City Council) Location (Address) of Event: (If in Lowell Park please specify north or south Lowell park) North Lowell Park Descri ption of Event (please be specific - this information will be used to promote the event on the City of Stillwater website) The Zephyr Theatre will produce a professional Broadway -style musical in Lowell Park. This event will use professional musicians and actors with headliner Jen Burleigh-Bentz who was in the national Broadway tour of "Mamma Mia". This event is sponsored by a grant through Explore Minnesota. Performances will take place Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, July 22-25, at 7:00pm and ending before 10:00pm. In an effort to work with Summer Tuesdays and the car show, setup will occur on Monday, July 19th, only in locations that do not interfere with these events. Dress rehearsals will take place 10am-5pm on Tuesday, July 20th; Wednesday, July 21st, at 10:00am-3:00pm and 8:00pm-10:00pm; Thursday, July 22nd, at 10am-3:00pm. %No o,rr,or f +r, rnnrl.o+ +hio 00 . ror,ir,r,ol ov:on+ nnrl ,.,ill h., ,o ono+i.,n fr,r II, +r, 1 flflfl r,or,.,lo ,I. n. nh r,orfr,rrrt, ,r n \A/hilo +ho odor,+ Estimated Attendance (participants and spectators): 4000 Applicant Information (Person/Group Responsible) Sponsoring Organization Name: The Zephyr Theatre Mailing Address: 601 Main Street North City, State, Zip Code: Stillwater MN 55082 Primary Contact/Applicant Name: Bil MacLeslie Phone Number: 651-342-1542 Fax: Cell Phone: 612-618-1218 Email Address: bil@stillwaterzephyrtheatre.org Website Address: www.stillwaterzephyrtheatre.org Name of contact person during event: Bil MacLeslie Cell Phone: 612-618-1218 Alternate contact during event: Calyssa Hall Cell Phone: 651-373-7026 Refer media or citizens inquires to: Either Phone: Site Plan: A site plan is mandatory for all events. Please provide a map of the site layout. Include any tables, stages, tents, fencing, portable restrooms, vendor booths, trash containers, etc. If event involves a parade, race or walk, please attach a route map highlighting route. Include rest stop stations, crossings, signage and indicate route direction with arrows. Event Features Will any signs/banners be put up No • Yes © Number and size: 5-10. 3'tall, 8' wide Will there be any inflatables? No ii Yes ■ Insurance certificate from rental vendor is required Fees for electricity may Will there be entertainment? No • Yes 0 What type: Broadway musical apply see Instructions Will sound amplification be used? No • Yes © Hours and Type: Wired & wireless mics, musical inctri imantc PA fnr miicir anri cinninrr Will a stage or tent(s) be set up? No ❑ Yes 0 Dimensions: 60'x30', with additional small platforms on either side of the stage for specific scenes. Will there be temporary fencing? No • Yes F3 How many Fees for electricity may Will merchandise/food items be sold? No ■ Yes One - Zephyr vendors expected: apply see Instructions Will food be prepared on site? No l3 Yes ■ Contact Washington County Health Department, 651-430-6655 Will cooking operations be conducted? No o Yes • Contact Stillwater Fire Department,351-4950 Will alcohol be served but not sold? No • Yes ■ See Alcohol Regulations in the Instructions Will alcohol be sold? No • Yes 0 See Alcohol Regulations in the Instructions Will there be a fireworks display? No E7 Yes ■ Permit required, contact Stillwater Fire Department, 651-351-4950 Describe power needs and location of power source. Four 120v20A circuits onstage, one 120v20A circuit at mixing booth in the middle of the audience. We can provide power distribution if City can provide "California Style - CS6364C" 208v50A hookup for our power distribution system. Describe level of advertisement (ie, radio, flyers, ads, tv, press release). Attach sample if available We have budgeted between $8,000 and $12,000 for marketing. We will be advertising this as a state-wide, regional event. We will advertise via radio, newspaper, social media, posters and fliers. We will have in our budget the capacity to boost posts on social media and run a direct mail campaign. City Services (After reviewing the event application, City services may be requried for the event.) Will event use, close or block any of the following: If yes specify location on site map. City Streets or Right-of-way No ■ Yes ■ Start/End Time: Date: City Sidewalks or Trails No • Yes ■ Start/End Time: Performance/Dre: Date: 7/19-7/26 Public Parking Lots or Spaces No • Yes 0Start/End Time: Lot #5, 8am 10prr Date: 7/22-7/25 Fees may apply Will event need barricade(s)? No 3 Yes • Number needed: see Instructions Fees may apply Will extra picnic tables be needed? No 0 Yes • Number needed: see Instructions Fees may apply Will portable restrooms be needed? No • Yes 0 Number needed: 5? one per 200 attendees? see Instructions Fees may apply Will extra trash receptacles be needed? No ■ Yes 0 Number needed: 6? see Instructions Describe trash removal and cleanup plan during and after event: We contract with Maroneys for receptacles and trash pickup. Event volunteers will pickup trash at the end of each evening. Will event need traffic control? No 0 Yes • Contact Stillwater Police Department for assistance, 651-351-4900 Describe crowd control procedure to ensure the safety of participants and spectators: We have an employee that has been previously professionally trained in crowd control. We will have ample volunteers and staff to keep people safe and moving logically throughout the space. Fees may apply see Instructions Will "No Parking Signs" be needed? No F'1 Yes • Number needed: Show location(s) on site map Will event need security? No ■ Yes 0 !f event is overnight, security will be required. If using private secruity, list Security Company and Contact Information: We will hire our own security, and will notify the city ASAP as to vendor. Will event need EMS services? No 0 Yes MI Contact Lakeview EMS, 651-430-4621 Describe plans to provide first aid, if needed: Staff are trained in first aid and will provide immediate response to patrons who need medical attention. Staff are directed to call 911 in the event of any emergency. Anything beyond the scope of first aid will be directed to emergency/urgent services, Describe the emergency action plan if severe weather should arise: If severe weather is predicted, we will make a call to cancel by one hour prior to the event start. If severe weather occurs during the event, we will immediately stop the show and will be diligent on communicating with our staff and attendees on where they should go for safety. We may encourage people to wait out the rain and visit downtown shops until the rain subsides, if there is no threat of tornado or lightning. List any other pertinent information: This event will require setup and dress rehearsals in the 4 days prior to event. The sponsor(s) of this event hereby agrees to save the City, its agents, officials and employees harmless from and against all damages to persons or property, all expenses and other liability that may result from this activity. Depending on the size of and scope of the event a "Certificate of Insurance" may be required. if insurance is required, the policy must be kept in force during the event of at least the statutory limits for municipalities covering claims that might be brought against the event that arise out of the events authorized and to name the City as an additional insured on their policy "as their interest may appear." As the sponsor or authorized representative, I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge and agree to pay the permit fee for this event based upon the information provided in this application. I realize my submittal of this application request constitutes a contract between myself and the City of Stillwater and is a release of Liability. 5-18-2021 Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent Dote Acohol ,onces Stcce Exit ctfor ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: City Council MEETING DATE: June 1, 2021 APPLICANT: Jan Niemic, Edina Realty LANDOWNER: Susan L. Eskierka CASE NO.: 2021-28 REQUEST: Consideration of: 1. Zoning Map Amendment from AP (Agricultural Preservation) to RA (One -Family Residential); and 2. Resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Trolley Trail Acres LOCATION: 7959 Neal Avenue North ZONING: AP — Agricultural Preservation REPORT BY: Abbi Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Ms. Eskierka owns the property at 7959 Neal Avenue North and is looking to split the 2.33-acre lot into two lots. However, the property is currently zoned AP — Agricultural Preservation, the zoning district classification it was given at the time it was annexed into the City of Stillwater in January 1, 2015. The purpose(s) of this zoning district is to preserve agricultural land until urban development occurs. The resubdivision requires rezoning the property. A copy of the site location map and resubdvision request is attached to this staff report for City Council review. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting: 1. A Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from AP (Agricultural Preservation) to RA (One -Family Residential); and 2. Resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Trolley Trail Acres. ANALYSIS Zoning Map Amendment CPC Case 2021-18 Page 2 of 3 City Code requires the City find the public necessity, and the general community welfare warrant the adoption and that the proposed amendment is in general conformance with the principles, policies and land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. The City of Stillwater has adopted a Future Land Use Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Plan calls for the property to be developed to the Low Density Residential (LDR) standard, requiring 1-4.4 units per acre. The RA — One Family Residential zoning district, which the applicant has requested this property be rezoned to, is consistent with this zoning district. Furthermore, properties within the vicinity of the subject property are also zoned RA — One Family Residential. Therefore, the proposed Zoning Map Amendment furthers the public welfare and the proposed amendment is in conformance with the land use designations set forth in the comprehensive plan. Resubdivision In the case of a request to divide a lot which is a part of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot or to create two lots and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation of this chapter or the zoning chapter, the division may be approved by the governing body after submission of a survey and legal description by a registered land surveyor showing the original lot and the proposed subdivision. Future Dimensional Standards Required Parcel A 7959 Neal Avenue North Parcel B New Parcel Lot Area 10,000 s.f. 46,705 s.f. 55,007 s.f. Lot Width 75' 117.79' 100.01' Lot Depth 100' 467.03' 467.03 Front Yard Setback 30' 124.3' TBD Side Yard Setback Interior Corner 10' 30' 12.8'-24.8' N/A TBD N/A Rear Yard Setback 25' 280' +/- TBD Maximum Lot Coverage 30% 19% 30% Maximum Sewer and Water The subject property faces Neal Avenue North and will be a part of the Neal Avenue North reconstruction project happening this spring. The two properties will be required to pay the following project costs: Existing Property Future Property Street Assessment $8,756 Water Main & Sewer Main $8,584 $8,584 Water and Sewer Services $4028.64 $4,028.64 $21,368.64 $12,612.64 CPC Case 2021-18 Page 3 of 3 As the new property has not been created and it is uncertain when the official split will be recorded with Washington County, a condition of approval is the Neal Avenue Reconstruction development fees for the new lot (Parcel A) will be due at the time of building permit issuance. Staff has incorporated this condition of approval into the draft resolution, attached. Easements City Code Section 32-1, Subdivision Regulations, Subd. 6, Minimum Design Standards, Subsection (8) requires an easement of ten feet on the front and rear lot lines and five feet on the rear side lot lines must for public utilities, as well as surface drainage. The easements will need to be submitted to the City prior to release of approved deeds from City offices for recording with Washington County. Staff has incorporated this condition of approval into the draft resolution, attached. Park & Trail Dedication Neither parks nor trails are planned for the property or its immediate surroundings. Therefore, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended the payment of fees in lieu of land. The fees are $500 for trails and $2,000 for park dedication. These fee will be due to the City for Parcel A upon release of its approved deed from City offices for recording with Washington County. Staff has incorporated this condition of approval into the draft resolution, attached. Parcel B has an existing home and is therefore exempt from both of these fees. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The City Council has the following options: A. Approve the requested resubdivision and zoning map amendment with or without conditions. B. Deny the requested Resubdivision and zoning map amendment. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the requests for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the request conforms to the standards set forth in City Code. City Staff recommends approving the Resubdivision and first reading of the Zoning Map Amendment. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Certificate of Survey Resubdivision Approval Resolution Rezoning Ordinance cc: Susan Eskierka Jan Niemiec City of Stillwater 216 4th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 April 22, 2021 Currently my property located at 7959 Neal Avenue North in Stillwater, MN, is zoned Agricultural Preservation. I am submitting this Planning Application and requesting a Resubdivision of my property to divide it into two lots (with the intent to sell one lot), a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment so it will conform as a residential RA one family district as the neighborhood, (except my property), is currently zoned and is being used now. Approving this change will bring my property into compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code. It will be compatible and conform to the adjacent area and residential neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Susan L. Eskierka Property owner 612-419-4141 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY www.egrud.com WITH PROPOSED LOT RESUBDIVISION -for-. SUSAN ESKIERKA -of- 7959 NEAL AVENUE STILLWATER, MN LOT INFORMATION EXISTING PIN = 29.030.20.22.0003 EXISTING ZONING = A.P. REQUESTED REGUIDING AND REZONING TO RA (ONE FAMILY DISTRICT) PROPOSED SETBACKS PER RA ZONING - FRONT = 30 FEET - SIDE = 10 FEET - REAR = 25 FEET - MAX. IMPERVIOUS = 30% PROPOSED LOT STANDARDS PER RA ZONING - WIDTH = 75 FEET - DEPTH = 100 FEET - MIN. AREA = 10,000 S.F. EXISTING DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 1, TROLLEY TRAIL ACRES, Washington County, Minnesota. AREA = 101,712 S.F. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: The north 100 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, TROLLEY TRAIL ACRES, Washington County, Minnesota. AREA = 46,705 S.F. PARCEL. B: Lot 2, Block 1, TROLLEY TRAIL ACRES, Washington County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 100 feet thereof. AREA = 55,007 S.F. 66 E.G. ROO a SONS, INC. ini " Professional Land Surveyors 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 SNOW 1/i' Dees I LBSO81— • I' minim a VICINITY MAP $29-T30-R20 1000 SCALE Z I1 rt ,„.. 1 ,„„_ 4. 8Hlmi pry I °Lose 8501e '.t SUIT• J.or �,r1�Tt'a S06 COrnD L, ow LAVid9LN 8. Lose esole eLose 8L050 eSOle Lose ERNS SLOSH----yaLll " 1 CUM ----1aR18 F. N89'12'40"W 407.09 PARCEL A 46,705 S.F. (1.07 ACRES) WAS— ----BLR58 °lose B5016 — —OW XI— —MOW——5150l0——.*Qi-0.— .8501e GSM N89'12'46"w 467.03 310.02 —*Lo's—----KOMI------0L030----anse-----BLOW ♦ ,6 • / 4_920� A a �o {/ EXISTING HOUSE / •,� 3 {.., • AREA=1,740 S.F. �-' .pr, .soot /8j/i////% I .. • .p. SEPTIC 1` AREA s®.-r • / :TOOL Dar h,d. Lake W1.kteiLk I4ryt' Sf �caN iitoo es .... /// / /// ." GARAGE FLOOR=919.0 / ; REA=6235.F. i2 /,li✓// ONO LEGEND PARCEL B 55,007 S.F. (1.26 ACRES) 920 Maw— ----cane mole a5010 05010 81018 KOP ate ELOSe 9�b LDS0.058 -10{e01—__--Re1l—000 11 467.09 N89'12'40"W • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS# 41578 A DENOTES SET SPIKE KO DENOTES AIR CONDITIONING UNIT © DENOTES GAS METER DENOTES WELL DENOTES CLEAN OUT E DENOTES ELECTRICAL BOX x ssl.x DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION Bea DENOTES MAILBOX 'U, DENOTES POWER POLE CO DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL •— DENOTES FENCE DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY -----eI05e— L_=_J DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINE DENOTES LIDAR CONTOURS (NOT ADJUSTED FOR FIELD SHOTS) DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE 81t S0 sMAS NOTES N y/4 I►- O ei01e— mos SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 100 FEET OF 1 F LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TROLLEY TRAIL ACRES 917 8LOSe 137.01 8P q00 • • i oti 114:110— —Male-----0i010—__--05018 8Sole— y--I - FIELD SURVEY WAS COMPLETED BY E.G. RUD AND SONS, INC. ON 04/20/21. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ON ISNATI COUNTY DATUM. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF TITLE WORK. ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND/OR ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. SURVEY SUBJECT TO REVISION UPON RECEIPT OF A CURRENT TITLE COMMITMENT OR AN ATTORNEY'S TITLE OPINION. BENCHMARK TNH AT CORNER OF LOT 6 AND 7, BLOCK 7, LIBERTY ON THE LAKE. ELEVATION = 945.63 KNOWN ELEVATION FROM WESTWOOD BM LIST DATUM = UNKNOWN DIEEE GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 1D 20 40 •= i •IIMINIllllllf� 1 INCH = 20 FEET 1' 8 097 VS St rm01.ur0sn Opp I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the la the State of Minnesota. DANIEL W. OBERMILLER Date: 04/21/2021 License No. 25341 DRAWN BY: BCD CHECK BY: DWO JOB N0: 210470HSI DATE: 04/ 1/21 FIELD CREW: RW/MR 2 3 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY S:1RI113ICAni)IPRph)Ie1• 91 ne.7nWc RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TROLLEY TRAIL ACRES CASE NO. 2021-18 WHEREAS, Susan L Eskierka, landowner, made application to subdivide her lot into two parcels; and WHEREAS, the legal description of the subject lot to be resubdivided is: Lot 2, Block 1, Trolley Trail Acres; and WHEREAS, the subject lot is to be resubdivided into two parcels described as follows: Parcel A The north 100 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Trolley Trail Acres, Washington County, Minnesota ; and Parcel B Lot 2, Bloc 1, Trolley Trail Acres, Washington County, Minnesota, lying south of the north 100 fee thereof ; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021 the City Council held a public hearing on the resubdivision and found it to be compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the City's Zoning Code, Subdivision Code, Comprehensive Plan, and infrastructure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Stillwater hereby approves the resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Trolley Trail Acres with the following conditions: 1. New drainage and utility easements in favor of the City of Stillwater shall be required. The easements shall be 10' in the front, 10' in the rear, and 5' on each side of each lot. These easements must be submitted to the City prior to release of approved deeds from City offices for recording with Washington County. 2. A $500 trail fee and a $2,000 park fee will be due to the City for Parcel A upon release of its deed from City offices for recording with Washington County. Page 2 of 2 3. A total of $12,612.64 shall be due to the City of Stillwater at the time of building permit submittal. If payment is not made in 2021, it shall be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Construction Index. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota this 1st day of June, 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STILLWATER CITY CODE SECTION 31-300 ENTITLED ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS BY REZONING 2.33 ACRES TO RA: ONE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Case No. 2021-28 The City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, does ordain: Section 1. The zoning of the following property, legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Trolley Trail Acres and visually represented in Exhibit A is hereby amended to RA, One Family Residential. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after publication according to law. Section 3. This Ordinance shall not be published until the Final Plat for White Pine Ridge is approved by the City Council. Section 4. In all other ways the Stillwater City Code shall remain in full force and effect. Adopted by the City Council this 1st of June, 2021. CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk Exhibit A l Tne Belt place of Wooebale r�yr Site Location 7959 Neal Ave N 125 25a General Site Location Feel Ulwater THE B I R T H P L A !: E OF MINNESOTA DATE: May 27, 2021 TO: Mayor & Councilmembers APPLICANT: Mark Lambert, Central Commons, LLC LAND OWNER: Central Commons, LLC REQUEST: Tax Abatement AUTHOR: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director CASE NO.: 2020-40 BACKGROUND Central Commons, LLC is the owner of the 35.3-acre property at the southeast quadrant of Manning Avenue and State Highway 36. The owner has approval from the City to develop the property as a mixed use Planned Unit Development (PUD) project over several phases. The first phase will be synchronized with the construction of the new grade separated interchange at Highway 36 and Manning Avenue. The City Council approved the final plat and final PUD for Phase 1 on November 17, 2020. Still remaining to be approved are: 1) a Development Agreement, 2) a Tax Abatement Agreement, and 3) an Assessment Agreement. On June 1st the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the tax abatement/business subsidy request from Central Commons, LLC and decide whether to adopt a resolution approving the primary terms of an abatement action. The Development Agreement, Tax Abatement Agreement and the Assessment Agreement will all be brought before the Council for consideration at the June 15th Council meeting. COMMENTS In order to develop Central Commons Addition a number of public infrastructure improvements are necessary. This includes the grade separated interchange at Manning Avenue and State Highway 36; the frontage road connecting St Croix Trail with Manning Avenue; an oversized stormwater treatment pond; and the extension of trunk sewer and water from their current terminus at Curve Crest Boulevard to the perimeter of Central Commons Addition. And each of these incur costs that are not customarily borne by the developer. To help address these extra costs, the City Council said in a pre -annexation agreement with the developer that the City would consider tax abatement and development fee waivers. Central Commons Tax Abatement May 26, 2021 Page 2 So, the general financing scenario envisioned for the public improvements is that tax abatement and development fee waivers would off -set non -customary costs to Central Commons Addition. But prior to actually drafting the tax abatement agreement, the Council charged a committee of two council members, several staff members and consultants to review the developer's request and make a recommendation on broad terms of the agreement. The committee members were Council Members Junker and Polehna, TIF Consultant Mikaela Huot (Baker Tilly), City Administrator McCarty, City Attorney Land, Finance Director Provos, Community Development Director Turnblad and Public Works Director Sanders. The recommendation follows. Tax abatement is a statutorily authorized financing tool that is intended to be used for assisting the developer with offsetting a portion of the costs associated with development the property that includes primarily acquisition, installation of public and private improvements. Following financial analysis, it has been determined that a portion of the costs required for development of the site are extraordinary and not supportable based on current market conditions. The level of tax abatement assistance has been based on a land development analysis and focuses on the portion of costs not deemed to be supported by the project upon full development. Tax abatement is a tool the City (and County) have considered using to provide financial assistance to the developer and allow for development of the site to be financially feasible. The abatement revenues generated from the future development would be 'rebated' to the developer as an offset to annual property taxes and potential assessments. The value of the abatement based on the current development assumptions is estimated to be approximately $3,894,836 over 15 years and includes both the City and County portion of taxes. Based on the developer's estimates and assumptions, the committee believes that the project presents value to the City both in the short and long term and would therefore recommend: 1. Charge the full standard $945,027.00 in City development fees. Abating none. 2. Enter into an agreement for a maximum of $3,144,836 of City real estate tax abatement over 15 years. Using the development assumptions provided by the developer and based upon calculations performed by Mikaela Huot of Baker Tilly, it is reasonable to expect this project to generate sufficient real estate tax revenue cover up to $3,853,194 of City abatement. 3. In addition to the City's $3,144,836 of tax abatement, the County may abate $750,000 of their portion of the real estate tax. If the County Board chooses to abate taxes, those funds would be distributed to the City. And it is the City's intent to pass the funds back to the developer. 4. City tax abatement will exclude $66,600 from annual abatement to cover City service costs (this is offset by including existing land value in abatement calculation) 5. City will charge 1.5% interest on assessments if the public improvements are paid for out of existing City funds. If money must be borrowed, then 1.5% interest will be charged in addition to whatever the City must pay to borrow the funds. 6. City tax abatement includes land and new building value (base value effectively $0). 7. County tax abatement calculations include only new building value (land calculated as 'base') 8. City tax abatement is not reduced for fiscal disparities, since the City is a net receiver of fiscal disparity funds each year, generating maximum revenues possible. Central Commons Tax Abatement May 26, 2021 Page 3 9. County tax abatement is reduced for fiscal disparities, consistent with County Tax Abatement Policy application. 10. Taxes for Outlots A & B (future development lots) not to be abated with this tax abatement agreement. But, a new or revised tax abatement agreement could be considered by the City Council in the future for Outlots A & B. ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the City Council to hold the public hearing, receive all comments, and close the public hearing. Then we recommend tabling action on the resolution until June 15th so it can be approved together with the Development Agreement, Tax Abatement Agreement and Tax Assessment Agreement. Attachments: Resolution cc: Mark Lambert, Central Commons LLC RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF STILLWATER WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER, MINNESOTA HELD: JUNE 1, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the City Council of the City of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall in said City on Tuesday, the 1st day of June, 2021, at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Kozlowski, Councilmember Junker, Councilmember Polehna, Councilmember Odebrecht and Councilmember Ryan. and the following were absent: None Councilmember its adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1. Recitals. (a) The City has been requested by Central Commons, LLC (the "Owner") to develop property as a mixed use Planned Unit Development (PUD) project over several phases located in the City (the "Project"). The City proposes to use the Abatement (as defined below) for the Project provided for in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.1812 through 469.1815 (the "Abatement Law"), from the property taxes to be levied by the City on Parcel Identification Numbers 0602920220001, 0602920220003, 0602920220002, 0602920230001 (the "Tax Abatement Property"). 13394884v1 (b) On June 1, 2021, the Council held a public hearing on the question of the Abatement, and said hearing was preceded by at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior published notice thereof at which all interested persons appeared and were heard. (c) The City proposes to approve the Abatements on the City's share of property taxes on the Tax Abatement Property in an amount not to exceed $3,144,836 for a term of up to 15 years to reimburse the Owner for certain eligible expenses of the Project. (d) The Abatement is authorized under the Abatement Law. 2. Findings for the Abatement. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: (a) The Abatement is the City's share of taxes received on the Tax Abatement Property. (b) The Council expects the benefits to the City of the Abatement to be at least equal or exceed the costs to the City thereof. (c) Granting the Abatement is in the public interest because it will increase the tax base in City. (d) The Tax Abatement Property is not located in a tax increment financing district. (e) In any year, the total amount of property taxes abated by the City by this and other resolutions and agreements, shall not exceed the greater of ten percent (10%) of the net tax capacity of the City for the taxes payable year to which the abatement applies or $200,000, whichever is greater. The City may grant other abatements permitted under the Abatement Law after the date of this resolution, provided that to the extent the total abatements in any year exceed the Abatement Limit the allocation of the Abatement limit to such other abatements is subordinate to the Abatement granted by this resolution. 3. Terms of Abatement. The Abatement is hereby approved. The terms of the Abatement are as follows: (a) The Abatement shall be for up to 15 years beginning with real estate taxes payable in 2024 and continuing through 2039, inclusive and shall not exceed $3,144,836. (b) In accordance with Section 469.1815 of the Act, the City will add to its levy in each year during the term of the Abatement the total estimated amount of current year Abatement granted under this resolution. (c) The City shall provide the Abatement as specified in this resolution and a tax abatement agreement to be entered into with the Owner. (d) The Abatement shall be subject to all the terms and limitations of the Abatement Law. 2 13394884v1 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was made by Councilmember and duly seconded by Councilmember and, upon a vote being taken thereon after full discussion thereof, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Stillwater, Minnesota (the "City"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that attached hereto is a compared, true and correct copy of a resolution approving the abatement of property taxes by the City to Central Commons, LLC, duly adopted by duly adopted by the City Council of the City on June 1, 2021, at a regular meeting thereof duly called and held, as on file and of record in my office, which resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date thereof, and is in full force and effect as of the date hereof, and that the attached Extract of Minutes as to the adoption of such resolution is a true and accurate account of the proceedings taken in passage thereof. WITNESS My hand this 1st day of June, 2021. 3 City Clerk 13394884v1 Sillwa ter Administration TO: Mayor and City Council City Department Heads FROM: Tom McCarty, City Administrator DATE: May 28, 2021 SUBJECT: 2021 Stillwater July 4th Celebration Update BACKGROUND At the May 18, 2021 City Council meeting, the Council authorized proceeding with a 2021 Stillwater 4th of July Celebration even though fireworks are not available for this year's event. Planning for Stillwater's 2021 July 4th Celebration with activities similar to past years' events is well underway. Staff has been able to contact and gain commitment from previous years' music and entertainment providers for the 2021 July 4th Celebration. The cost of these events will be similar to previous years and will be within the approved 2021 Special Events budget. Confirmed events are noted below, with more details to follow as final arrangements completed: • St Croix Jazz Orchestra concert in Pioneer Park from 7:00 - 9:00 PM. • Battery I, 1st US Artillery will be present on Mulberry Point in Lowell Park with civil war cannon demonstrations. • BAM! Productions will be bringing two bands to the Amphitheater in Lowell Park from approximately 5:30 - 9:45 PM. If there are any additional events added to the 4th of July Celebration schedule, staff will update the City Council. Final schedule details will be publicized through the media, City website and City social media sites. iliwater THE B{ R T H P L A I; E OF MINNF PLANNING REPORT TO: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: PREPARED BY: City Council June 1, 2021 The Zephyr Theatre Only a Dim Image Productions A Special Event Permit for an outdoor performance series 601 Main Street North Central Business District Abbi Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2021-31 INTRODUCTION In April of this year, the City Council received a temporary Outside Seating Area permit application from the Zephyr Theatre to conduct outside performances in their parking lot this summer. Their request, to operate in a similar fashion as the 2020 summer season, came before the City in an effort to continue operations hampered by the impacts of limited occupancy restrictions associated with statewide emergency orders. As the Theatre's request included outside amplification, the Council denied the request on the basis the temporary OSA program does not allow for outside amplification. The Council advised an amendment to the Theatre's Conditional/Special Use Permit request is required for Outside Events held on private land in the Central Business District. After the April meeting, City staff discussed the potential Use Permit modification with Theatre staff. Given the potential amendment is for outside performances with amplified sound, and the City has fielded complaints regarding this use, staff would not be able to recommend Use Permit modification approval to the City Planning Commission. Without knowing whether negative impacts to the neighborhood can be mitigated, changes to the Use Permit, that run with the land in perpetuity, are in conflict with the findings that need to be made to issue the Use Permit amendment. Staff advised the Theatre that submittal of a (standard) Event Permit application may be the only option at this time. City Code advises the City Council may "approve one-time special event not occurring on a regular basis" in the Central Business District. As such, the Theatre has requested approval of an event series to be held in their parking lot 18 times a month from May Case no. 2021-31 Page 2 through October, 2021. As noted in their request letter, this would enable the Theatre to continue operations while occupancy restrictions are in place. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of: 1. Conditional Use Permit for two (2) multi -family residences in the CBD Zoning District; and 2. 20' Variance to the required 20' (combined) Side Yard Setback to vertically expand a non -conforming structure; and 3. 20' Variance to the 20' Rear Yard Setback to vertically expand a non -conforming structure. ANALYSIS The City Code requires regular Outside Events to have a Special/Conditional Use Permit to help ensure the use is compatible with, and will not be a detriment to, the neighborhood. As noted, wholesale changes to the Use Permit without having an understanding of whether or not some of the impacts can be mitigated could pose a detriment to the neighborhood. The event permit program is designed for the occasional public event. The idea being that certain outdoor activities warrant special permitting and review. For public events held on private land, the City's policy has limited the number of events to three; an example of this includes Maple Island's Bands for the Brave. For public events on public land, the City's policy has limited the number of events to ten; examples include Cruisin' on the Croix and Summer Tuesdays. Similar impacts are considered when the City is evaluating requests for Special/Conditional Use Permits and Special Events. The two most significant impacts identified are noise and parking. These have been shared with staff by members of the downtown community, including representatives of the Terra Springs HOA though no formal comment has been provided to date. Parking Concerns With regard to the latter concern, at their regularly -scheduled meeting held in May, the Downtown Parking Commission (DTPC) considered their request and determined the use of a portion their parking lot would have an impact to the public parking system. The DTPC determined that hosting performances for up to 250 people in the parking lot where those patrons are required to park would have an impact to the public parking system. As a result, the DTPC recommends the Theatre mitigate this impact by contributing $480 per month for those months where more than half of the month performances would be held in the parking lot. That said, this does not actually address the spill -over effect that will occur on public and private lands. Concern from citizens has been raised that the frequency and number of the events combined with the total number of performers and patrons will have an impact that cannot be mitigated. Spillover will occur and will create a deficit in an area that is needed for other types Case no. 2021-31 Page 3 of public and private use in the area (i.e. trail use in City Parking Lot 12 and business use at Terra Springs). Noise Impacts With regard to noise, the City has fielded several complaints from residential users in the Lofts, Mills on Main, and Terra Springs regarding the outdoor events that had been occurring on the site. While concerns have predominantly stemmed from the use of outside amplification and its reverberation and projection to the south and west of the Theatre's land, these concerns are not isolated to when performances are occurring; practice time, set building, etc. are also creating disturbances in this area of the downtown core. The Theatre has been working with Olson Sound to create sound mitigation strategies during performances. Some of the strategies include: • Instead of a single speaker system, utilize a speaker array, and utilize several smaller speakers at specific points around the audience; • Use speakers that have specific `throw patterns', minimizing the sound that spills our fo the audience area; • Place speakers above the audience, pointing down; and • Testing frequencies at specific residences. These measures might be able to mitigate negative impacts associated with the performances. However, it does not address the cumulative effect set building/teardown and practice time each week contributes to neighborhood concerns. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Council has the following alternatives: A. Approve the Event Permit Series application, in whole or in part, with or without conditions. 1. The Theatre shall submit to the City an engineered sound plan showing the size, location and direction of all speakers with relationship to the seating chart; 2. At the time of outdoor performances, no other activities may be occurring onsite; and 3. The maximum capacity of the outdoor venue shall not exceed 250 people; and 4. All plans shall be reviewed and approved by applicable fire and building inspection personnel prior to productions occurring; and 5. If required, a State of Minnesota electrical permit shall be obtained for the installation of any permanent sound system; and 6. If lighting is proposed to be utilized, it shall be temporary in nature and removed after each performance. B. Deny the Event Permit Series application. Case no. 2021-31 Page 4 C. Table and request additional information. Staff will prepare a Resolution memorializing the Council's action and bring it back for formal consideration at the June 15th City Council meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While city staff understands the need to augment operations, all emergency occupancy orders have been lifted as of the date of this memo. So the Theatre may resume indoor operations. The request for all operations to operate outside all of the time now hinges less on the ability to combat occupancy restrictions but more to provide entertainment in a way Theatre patrons have come to enjoy. That said, moving all operations outside is not appropriate at this time — if not ever. If negative impacts can be mitigated, allowing the Theatre to test an outdoor event series through the event permit application process is appropriate. While modified sound systems may help reduce impacts associated with performances, sound produced during rehearsals and with stage and set building/teardown will still occur. Additionally, the use of half of the parking lot will push all patron parking into those available parking spaces within the vicinity. These impacts are harder to mitigate and will burden the neighborhood if only temporarily. Given this, staff would recommend the Council approve a modified outdoor event series for no greater than ten events for 2021 and for no greater than one performance in a single week. Attachments: Narrative Request (2 pages) Event Permit Application Seating Plan cc: Calyssa Hall 7 THE ZEPHYRTHEATRE Dream. Perform. Inspire. April 25, 2021 Dear City of Stillwater, As summer approaches, our goal and desire is to continue to provide professional, high quality entertainment to The St. Croix Valley. In 2020, The Zephyr Theatre was one of the only production companies in the state to continue performance in a safe way during the pandemic. Our outdoor shows brought thousands of people to downtown Stillwater to share in (albeit distant!) community, shop downtown, and purchase food for takeout. The outdoor concerts also provided much needed work and income for local artists who had lost hundreds of event bookings. As a non-profit performing arts organization, we rely on live performance as our primary business practice. The current Minnesota state mandates require us to operate at only 50% capacity indoors. While we work through the Planning Commission toward an amendment to our Conditional Use Permit to use our outdoor stage more permanently, we are requesting acceptance of this Events Permit to augment our current business practices and provide live performances outdoors. We have hundreds of supporters, donors, and friends that live to the west and south of us that attend as many outdoor shows as they possibly can, even watching from their balconies and front lawn. That being said, we understand the importance of being good neighbors and minimizing any impact to those that have raised concern over noise. We are working with acoustician, Bruce Olson, from Olson Sound with 30 years of experience in the industry designing sound systems. We are also working with sound engineer Paul Larson, from Alchemy Sound and Vision, who specializes in creating outdoor amplified entertainment systems that specifically reduce sound impact and noise bleed to residences and businesses. Below are their recommendations: Apply a "More is Less" approach, minimizing the use of a single large high -output speaker array, and utilize more smaller speakers at specific points around the audience. - Use speakers that have a specific "throw pattern", minimizing the sound the spills out of the audience area and bounces around. Place speakers above the audience, pointing down, minimizing the sound being directed across the flat of the parking lot. After installation, test frequencies at specific residences using calibrated microphones and SMAART sound analyzing rig, adjusting the sound system settings accordingly, and allowing us to trouble shoot and fix any specific concerns. 601 NORTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 I 651-342-1542 We lay forth the following conditions for consideration in this permit: - All amplified sound will cease at 8:OOpm on Sunday through Thursday, and 10:OOpm on Friday and Saturday evenings. Number of outdoor events will not exceed 18 in any given 30-day period. Shakespeare in the Park will be returned to being held in a park instead of in the park...ing lot. Outside renters will be required to use our sound system and design. All events will follow City of Stillwater noise ordinances. Every effort will be made to make modifications if noise complaints should arise. All Covid-19 capacity limitations and state recommendations will be followed at all times. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to continuing our mission in bringing art to this City! Sincerely, Calyssa Hall, Executive Director, The Zephyr Theatre Office Use Only Event Date/Time: Set up: Date ____________________________ Time __________ to __________ Date ____________________________ Time __________ to __________ Date ____________________________ Time __________ to __________ Incomplete applications or applications received after deadline will not be accepted. See Event Instructions for application deadline and fees. Description of Event (please be specific ‐ this information will be used to promote the event on the City of Stillwater website): Primary Contact/Applicant Name: Phone: Refer media or citizens inquires to: Phone Number: Sponsoring Organization Name: Actual Event: Clean up: (If in Lowell Park please specify north or south Lowell park) Applicant Information (Person/Group Responsible) City, State, Zip Code: Date Application Received ________________ Date of Application: _____________________________ Website Address: Name of contact person during event: Cell Phone: Alternate contact during event: Cell Phone: Type: Event Special Event Event w/ Contract Location (Address) of Event: Estimated Attendance (participants and spectators): Event Information Title/Name of Event (Events after 10:00 p.m. require a variance from City Council) Mailing Address: EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION 216 4th Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082 Telephone: 651-275-4101 Fax: 651-275-4112 Email: pubwrks@ci.stillwater.mn.us Cell Phone: Fax: Email Address: Site Plan: A site plan is mandatory for all events. Please provide a map of the site layout. Include any tables, stages, tents, fencing, portable restrooms, vendor booths, trash containers, etc. If event involves a parade, race or walk, please attach a route map highlighting route. Include rest stop stations, crossings, signage and indicate route direction with arrows. Event Features Will any signs/banners be put up No ■ Yes MI Number and size: Sandwich Board Signs for shows, occasional small banner - band name Will there be any inflatables? No F3 Yes ■ Insurance certificate from rental vendor is required Concerts, Plays, Musicals Fees for electricity may Will there be entertainment? No ■ Yes El What type: apply see Instructions See letter for hours Will sound amplification be used? No ■ Yes MIHours and Type: attached proposed 10' 10' tent for table. Outdoor Will a stage or tent(s) be set up? No • Yes f3 Dimensions: x entrance Stage is 24' x 16' Will there be temporary fencing? No ■ Yes MI How many Fees for electricity may Will merchandise/food items be sold.7 No • Yes Not sold through vendors expected: outside vendors apply see Instructions Will food be prepared on site? No ■ Yes © Contact Washington County Health Department, 651-430-6655 Will cooking operations be conducted? No 0 Yes ■ Contact Stillwater Fire Department, 351-4950 Will alcohol be served but not sold? No © Yes © See Alcohol Regulations in the Instructions Will alcohol be sold? No © Yes © See Alcohol Regulations in the Instructions Will there be a fireworks display? No F4 Yes ■ Permit required, contact Stillwater Fire Department 651-351-4950 Describe power needs and location of power source. Power will be taken directly from The Zephyr Theatre building. Describe level of advertisement (ie, radio, flyers, ads, tv, press release). Attach sample if available Events will be promoted through The Zephyr's website, social media, press releases, radio ads, and television interviews. City Services (After reviewing the event application, City services may be requried for the event.) Will event use, close or block any of the following: If yes specify location on site map. City Streets or Right-of-way No I Yes ■ Start/End Time: Date: City Sidewalks or Trails No © Yes ■ Start/End Time: Date: Public Parking Lots or Spaces No F:i Yes ■ Start/End Time: Date: Fees may apply Will event need barricade(s)? No 3 Yes • Number needed: see Instructions Fees may apply Will extra picnic tables be needed? No 0 Yes ■ Number needed: see lnstructions Fees may apply Will portable restrooms be needed? No 0 Yes ■ Number needed: see Instructions Fees may apply Will extra trash receptacles be needed? No M Yes ■ Number needed: see Instructions Describe trash removal and cleanup plan during and after event: Trash removal and clean-up will be done by The Zephyr Theatre's staff and event volunteers at the end of every day. Will event need traffic control? No © Yes • Contact Stillwater Police Department for assistance, 651-351-4900 Describe crowd control procedure to ensure the safety of participants and spectators: Event area will be fenced off, guests must enter through a specific location for registration/tickets/sign-in. See attached our Covid-19 preparedness plan. Fees may apply see Instructions Will "No Parking Signs" be needed? No M Yes ■ Number needed: Show location(s)onsite map Will event need security? No 0 Yes • If event is overnight, security will be required. If using private secruity, list Security Company and Contact Information: Will event need EMS services? No © Yes • Contact Lakeview EMS, 651-430-4621 Describe plans to provide first aid, if needed: All staff will be trained in administering basic first aid. In the event something more serious arises, 911 or Lakeview Hospital will be contacted immediately. Describe the emergency action plan if severe weather should arise: All performers and patrons will be asked to move indoors at The Zephyr Theatre or return to their cars. List any other pertinent information: Please see attached cover letter detailing our request. Thank you! The sponsor(s) of this event hereby agrees to save the City, its agents, officials and employees harmless from and against all damages to persons or property, all expenses and other liability that may result from this activity. Depending on the size of and scope of the event a "Certificate of Insurance" may be required. If insurance is required, the policy must be kept in force during the event of at least the statutory limits for municipalities covering claims that might be brought against the event that arise out of the events authorized and to name the City as an additional insured on their policy "as their interest may appear." As the sponsor or authorized representative, 1 certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge and agree to pay the permit fee for this event based upon the information provided in this application. 1 realize my submittal of this application request constitutes a contract between myself and the City of Stillwater and is a release of Liability. 4-20-2021 Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent Date 4� 4> 4> ..al-• ` likklI o' Er _..,sue..�0\Y�YI ��a � ,I��, 6.-41M r ok.umn SEATING FOR 250 m ENTER FROM ��SOUTH art ENTER !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/I�. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIi IIIIIIIIII_I.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIII� IIIIIIIII._..IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIII� ���IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!II I ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi I!lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA ',IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA ,iIIIIIIIIII00$0 ,, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA IIIIIIIIIIIIIIAAI iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii% • liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii IIIIOIIOIIOIIIIOIIIAA VIIOIIOIIIPIIOIIOIIIOIIOIIOIIIIOIIOIIOIIIIAA I, ni ni VIIII/IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIl� ♦' .j ♦' .♦ ♦♦ STAGE ♦♦ ♦♦ 8„ -8" q ELEV -16" -16" " 0" BARRICADES ♦• -8" -8„ ONE WALKW. BAR n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 51, SECTION 8, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF STILLWATER The City Council of the City of Stillwater does ordain: SECTION 1 REPEAL AND REPLACE. Chapter 51, Section 8, of the City Code, Definitions, is hereby repealed and replaced as follows: Sec. 51-8. -Self-Propelled Devices. Subd. 1. Self-propelled devices. The term "self-propelled device" means a non - motorized platform, footboard, ski -like device, shoe, boot, or similar object mounted on wheels and designed and intended to propel the rider by human power or force or by gravity, including, but not limited to: skateboards, roller skis, scooters, roller skates and in -line skates. The definition does not include wheelchairs, bicycles, wagons or strollers. Subd. 2. Regulations. (1) Persons shall ride self-propelled devices upon a public street, highway or sidewalk in such a manner that does not endanger or would be likely to endanger other persons or property, or wherever it is prohibited by signs, whether on public or private property. All riders must slow to a speed that is reasonable for conditions of traffic, be able to stop if necessary and yield the right-of-way to any pedestrians. Riders must yield to motor vehicles when crossing roadways. (2) No person may attach a self-propelled device to any motor vehicle. (3) Persons using self-propelled devices may not obstruct any public property by placing any building materials, carriages, carts, boxes, lumber, firewood, posts or rails or any other materials or substances whatsoever to be used as ramps or guides for other skateboards or other self-propelled devices. Use of a self-propelled device is prohibited on private property of another without the written permission of the property owner, which shall be provided to law enforcement upon request. The city council may prohibit the operation of self-propelled devices within certain areas of the city by resolution, if recommended by the police chief in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens. SECTION 2 SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: Chapter 51, Section 8, was amended to allow the use of self-propelled devices in the City in a manner that does not endanger persons or property. SECTION 3 EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective after its passage and publication according to law. Approved this day of , 2021. ATTEST: Beth Wolf, City Clerk CITY OF STILLWATER Ted Kozlowski, Mayor 2 Washington ---------County County FYI BOARD AGENDA June 1, 2021 - 9:00 AM Because of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Emergency Declaration declared by the Governor of the State of Minnesota and Declaration of Local Emergency issued by the Washington County Board of Commissioners on March 17, 2020, some or all of the county board members may participate by video conference, telephone or other electronic means and the Board meeting will be conducted pursuant to and in compliance with Minnesota Statute 13D.021. The County Board meeting will be conducted at the regular meeting location of the Board Room, Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater, MN. Members of the public can attend the meeting in person, or view/monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location via live web stream. Board of Commissioners Fran Miron, District 1 Stan Karwoski, District 2 Gary Kriesel, District 3 Wayne A. Johnson, District 4 Lisa Weik, Chair, District 5 Members of the public who wish to share their comments or concerns on any issue that is the responsibility or function of Washington County Government, including the items that are listed on this agenda, may provide that comment via email at administration(a�co.washington.mn.us, or by telephone at 651-430-6001. Any comments or concerns shared, either prior to or during the board meeting, will be provided to each county commissioner. Members of the public who wish to participate and/or comment for any of the Public Hearings may join the meeting remotely through WebEx at: https://washco.webex.com/washco/j. php?MTI D=m4b59619c77235668d546bfd986bacd42 1. 8:15 Personnel Committee 2. 9:00 Washington County Regional Railroad Authority A. Roll Cali B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for Regional Rail Authority for 2021. D. Approval of the Regional Railroad Authority minutes from June 23, 2020. E. Approval of the Washington Regional Railroad Authority budget amendment of $13,000 for additional scope added to the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 Corridor Transit Feasibility Study. F. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Gold Line Joint Powers Agreement. 9:30 G. Adjourn Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer Washington County 3. 9:30 Roll Call Washington County Board of Commissioners Meeting Convenes 4. 9:30 Comments from the Public Visitors may share their comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibility or function of Washington County Government, whether or not the issue is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Board must fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the County Board Clerk or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium, state your name and city of residence, and present your comments. Your comments must be addressed exclusively to the Board Chair and the full Board of Commissioners. Comments addressed to individual Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair reserves the right to limit an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, overly argumentative, or if it is not relevant to an issue that is part of Washington County's responsibilities. 5. 9:40 Consent Calendar - Roll Call Vote Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action. A. Adopt a resolution for the 2022 - 2023 Auto Theft Prevention Grant No. 14105 for program funding from the Minnesota Department of Commerce in the amount of $116,200.00. B. Adopt a resolution for Joint Powers Agreement No. 14104 between the State of Minnesota, Department of Corrections, Facilities Division, and Washington County by and through the Washington County Attorney's Office, for reimbursement of expenses related to state correctional facilities for the period of July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. C. Adopt Amendment No. 1 to the Gold Line Joint Powers Agreement. 6. 9:40 Public Works - Kurt Howard, Planner II (item A) - Wayne Sandberg, Deputy Director/County Engineer (item B) - Joe Ayers -Johnson, Planner II (item C) 9:40 A. Public Hearing Review and consider amendments to the Washington County Development Code to enable coordination of membership between the Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) and the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (BAA) as recommended by the Planning Advisory Commission. 10:10 B. Public Hearing Update to the current Washington County transportation sales tax, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 297A.993. 10:40 C. Adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of an application to request funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) through the 2023 Metro Local Partnership Program. Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer Washington County 7. 10:55 Library - Amy Stenftenagel, Director A. Adopt a resolution to proclaim June 1 to August 31, 2021 as Summer at Your Library. 8. 11:10 General Administration - Kevin Corbid, County Administrator A. Adopt a resolution for the State Standard Measures Program and authorize the County Administrator to file declaration to participate with the Office of the State Auditor. 9. 11:30 Commissioner Reports - Comments - Questions This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report to the full Board on committee activities, make comments on matters of interest and information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during this time. Any action necessary because of discussion will be scheduled for a future board meeting. 10. 11:45 Board Correspondence 11. 11:45 Adjourn 12. 11:45-12:00 Break 13. 12:00 Board Workshop with Property Records and Taxpayer Services A. Review Assessment Year (AY) 2021 Appeals 14. 12:30 Board Workshop with Administration A. Update on the Land and Water Legacy Program's Wilder Forest land acquisition project. Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer Washington --- County Fi BOARD AGENDA May 25, 2021 - 9:00 AM Because of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Emergency Declaration declared by the Governor of the State of Minnesota and Declaration of Local Emergency issued by the Washington County Board of Commissioners on March 17, 2020, some or all of the county board members may participate by video conference, telephone or other electronic means and the Board meeting will be conducted pursuant to and in compliance with Minnesota Statute 13D.021. The County Board meeting will be conducted at the regular meeting location of the Board Room, Washington County Government Center, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater, MN. Members of the public can attend the meeting in person, or view/monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location via live web stream. Board of Commissioners Fran Miron, District 1 Stan Karwoski, District 2 Gary Kriesel, District 3 Wayne A. Johnson, District 4 Lisa Weik, Chair, District 5 Members of the public who wish to share their comments or concerns on any issue that is the responsibility or function of Washington County Government, including the items that are listed on this agenda, may provide that comment via email at administration@co.washington.mn.us, or by telephone at 651-430-6001. Any comments of concerns shared, either prior to or during the board meeting, will be provided to each county commissioner. 1. 9:00 Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance 2. 9:00 Comments from the Public Visitors may share their comments or concerns on any issue that is a responsibility or function of Washington County Government, whether or not the issue is listed on this agenda. Persons who wish to address the Board must fill out a comment card before the meeting begins and give it to the County Board Clerk or the County Administrator. The County Board Chair will ask you to come to the podium, state your name and city of residence, and present your comments. Your comments must be addressed exclusively to the Board Chair and the full Board of Commissioners. Comments addressed to individual Board members will not be allowed. You are encouraged to limit your presentation to no more than five minutes. The Board Chair reserves the right to limit an individual's presentation if it becomes redundant, repetitive, overly argumentative, or if it is not relevant to an issue that is part of Washington County's responsibilities. 3. 9:10 Consent Calendar - Roll Call Vote Consent Calendar items are generally defined as items of routine business, not requiring discussion, and approved in one vote. Commissioners may elect to pull a Consent Calendar item(s) for discussion and/or separate action. A. Approval of the May 4, 2021, and May 11, 2021, County Board meeting minutes. B. Adopt a resolution to authorize submission of the 2022-2023 Section 5310 grant application to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, and provide local share. C. Approval of the Workforce Development Division's Local Plan for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) for Program Years 2021 through 2023 (7/1/2021 — 6/30/2024). D. Approval of an application for renewal of an On -Sale and Sunday Liquor License from Cenco Farms Inc., located in Denmark Township. Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer Washington County Consent Calendar continued E. Adopt a resolution of support for Washington County's application to the Minnesota Historical Society's State Capital Projects Grants -in -Aid County and Local Preservation Grants Program to pursue funds in the amount of $50,000 for addition of storm windows for preservation of windows located at the Historic Courthouse. F. Approval of new County Owned Property Naming Policy. G. Adopt a resolution to participate in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Snowmobile Trails Assistance Program, and for staff to administer grant for the Star Trail Association. 4. 9:10 Community Services - Sarah Tripple, Planning & Program Manager A. Adopt a resolution to extend a Special Project position for the hotel emergency shelter program, through January 31, 2022. 5. 9:20 Public Health and Environment - Stephanie Souter, Public Health Program Supervisor A. 1. Approval to update Subsurface Sewage Treatment System (SSTS) Loan Program Policy #7003. 2. Approve permanent use of fund balance in the amount of $500,000. 6. 9:35 Public Works - Sandy Breuer, Parks Director A. Approval to name the new Lower Landing Facility at Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park as "Ravine Landing". 7. 9:45 General Administration - Kevin Corbid, County Administrator A. 1. Approve Contract No. 14078 with OpenGov, Inc. for a budget management system. 2. Approve permanent use of fund balance from the capital technology fund in the amount of $146,900 for the initial one year and implementation costs of the contract. B. Request for permission to submit grant application for the county's Land and Water Legacy Program. C. Legislative Update Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer Washington County 8. 10:15 Commissioner Reports - Comments - Questions This period of time shall be used by the Commissioners to report to the full Board on committee activities, make comments on matters of interest and information, or raise questions to the staff. This action is not intended to result in substantive board action during this time. Any action necessary because of discussion will be scheduled for a future board meeting. 9. 10:30 Board Correspondence 10. 10:30 Executive (Closed) Session - Public Works A. Executive (closed) session pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.05 subd. 3(c) to review the appraisal for the property located at PID 21.030.20.11.0006 as it pertains to its purchase for future road improvements along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 11. 11. 10:55 Adjourn 12. 11:00 Board Workshop with Property Records and Taxpayer Services A. Provide an update on the Mapping Prejudice Project and the University of Minnesota's request for Washington County to participate. 13. 11:30 Board Workshop with Public Works A. Update on the findings and recommendations of the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 Corridor Transit Feasibility Study. 14. 12:00-12:15 Lunch 15. 12:15 Board Workshop with Administration A. Review funding guidance for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Assistive listening devices are available for use in the County Board Room If you need assistance due to disability or language barrier, please call (651) 430-6000 Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer