HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/01/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
JANUARY 17, 2017
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:00 p.m. 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project
Update
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
2b. Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes November 28, 2016
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes December 19, 2016
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes December 19, 2016
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes January 3, 2017
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Reappointment of Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service Commission
Recommended Action: Motion to reappoint Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2019.
6. Public Hearings -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items – None
9. Communications – None
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city
bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet
are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting of January 17, 2017
City Council Agenda
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the elimination of permit parking restrictions in front of
4104 Utica Avenue South.
4b. Approve the updated Financial Management Policies dated January17, 2017
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing advertisement for bids for the construction of an outdoor
skate park.
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the quick take condemnation procedure for public
purposes for the W. 37th Street Road and Bridge Reconstruction Project.
4e. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Kauffman
Foundation in the amount of $1382.02 for travel and conference registration expenses
of Mayor Jake Spano to attend the 2016 Mayor’s Conference on Entrepreneurship
which was held in St. Petersburg, FL on November 30 – December 2, 2016.
4f. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of
October 19, 2016.
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the proposed 2017 Pavement Management and
associated Connect the Park sidewalk segments and provide direction to staff, particularly related
to the proposed sidewalks.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish staff to continue to pursue the
installation of the sidewalk segments discussed in this report? Should staff continue to pursue the
narrowing of certain street segments and discussed in this report?
SUMMARY: The Engineering Department has been working on the design of the 2017 Pavement
Management Project and a number of sidewalk segments adjacent to the streets being rehabilitated
in the Sorensen and Birchwood Neighborhoods.
Pavement Management
Annually the pavement management project rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets.
This year, the streets to be rehabilitated are located in Pavement Management Area 4. The street
rehabilitation work consists of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement and
replacing portions of concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work includes sewer repairs and
watermain replacement.
Connect the Park
Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways throughout the community. This year there is one sidewalk segment in the Connect the
Park plan located in Pavement Management Area 4. In addition, there a number of sidewalk gap
segments under consideration.
This report provides an overview of the proposed pavement rehabilitation, watermain replacement
and sidewalk construction for 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017. Franchise fees will be used to fund street rehab, water
utility funds will be used for the watermain construction, and sidewalks will be funded using G.O.
Bonds. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found in the remainder of
the report. The construction cost estimate for the entire Pavement Management and Connect the
Park Project is still being finalized and will be available at the February Council meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Sorensen & Birchwood Neighborhood Project Map
Sorensen & Birchwood Neighborhood Sidewalk
Recommendation Map
Recommended Street Width Modifications
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Project Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s Pavement Management Program (PMP) proactively addresses the
condition of the residential streets within the city. Many of these streets are now approaching 50
years of age or more. The city’s residential streets are still in relatively good condition due to the
fact that the streets were built well, are generally situated on good soils, utilize curb & gutter for
drainage and have been well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to keep
residential streets in good condition using maintenance strategies such as patching, crack filling
and seal coating. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed
to prolong their life.
The PMP was developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-wide performance in a cost-
effective and efficient way by providing the right pavement strategy at the right time. Using the
City’s pavement management software, staff documents street condition ratings and monitors their
performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-effective treatments to
extend pavement life.
Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways throughout the community. As part of Vision St. Louis Park in 2007, the city worked
with community members to create an Active Living Sidewalks and Trails plan.
The primary goal of Connect the Park is to develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of
sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and
accessibility, and enhances overall community livability. This is achieved by creating a system
plan that provides sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile and bikeways every ½-mile in order to
improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the community. In addition to the
sidewalks included in the Connect the Park CIP, the City council provided staff direction to look
at sidewalk gaps that are adjacent to streets being rehabilitated as a part of our annual PMP.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This year’s project will be performed in Area 4 of the City’s eight
pavement management areas. It includes work in the Sorensen and Birchwood Neighborhoods.
The attached maps identify the streets in Area 4 that have been selected for rehabilitation and
outlines the various work to be performed on each street. Selection was based on street condition
and field evaluations to determine the condition of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city’s
underground utilities. A team of staff members from Streets, Utilities, and Engineering worked
together to select streets and to recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques for inclusion in
this year’s Pavement Management Project.
Many of the street segments are proposed to include additional infrastructure upgrades such as
watermain and water service replacement, storm sewer construction, and the installation of
sidewalk. Other streets will have random curb and gutter replacement and new asphalt surfacing.
Watermain and Water Service Replacement
The watermain on these streets are approximately 65-75 years old and experiencing deterioration.
The work will consist of the replacement of the watermain and the water services to the curb stop.
The watermain is approximately 7.5 feet deep and located under or near the curb, running parallel
to the street. In order to replace the watermain on a street segment, the asphalt pavement is
removed and the street is open cut to the depth of the watermain. In most cases the curb line closest
to the watermain needs to be removed prior to the watermain replacement, otherwise the curb will
fall in to the watermain trench. The removal of the entire curb line on one side of the street gives
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
the city an opportunity to modify the width of the roadway. There is more information on the
proposed modifications to the street widths later in this report.
The water services connect to the watermain and run to the curb stop and then to the house. The
curb stop is located between the curb and gutter and the right of way line. The City owns the water
service between the water main and the curb stop while the property owner owns the water service
between the curb stop and the house.
As a part of this project, the water service is proposed to be replaced between the watermain and
the city owned curb stop. The water service is also approximately 7.5 feet deep and must be open
cut to replace. Replacing the water services has significant impacts on existing trees, landscaping,
sidewalks, driveways, retaining walls, etc.
Street Widths
As noted previously, as a part of the Pavement Management Project we are replacing the
watermain on a number of the streets in the neighborhood. This work requires the removal of all
of the curb on one side of the road. In areas where we are removing all of the curb on one side of
the road, it provides us an opportunity to narrow the street. Staff recommends narrowing streets
for the following reasons:
1. A wider grass boulevard provides more space to plant trees.
2. Traffic calming- narrower streets can reduce vehicle speeds.
3. Reduction in directly connected impervious- less street pavement means less runoff going
into our storm sewer.
4. Less pavement reduces solar generated heat.
5. By narrowing the streets pedestrians have a shorter crossing distance at intersections.
6. Cost- narrower streets reduces the cost of initial construction and future maintenance
(sealcoating, sweeping, salt application, snow plowing, etc.)
7. It’s consistent with past policy direction given by the Council and is in alignment with the
Living Streets policy being developed by the Environment and Sustainability Commission
and staff.
We have discussed this recommendation with our Police and Fire Departments and they do not
have a concern about a 28 foot wide road with parking on both sides.
Attached to this report is a graphic displaying staff’s recommended proposed street widths.
Watermain is being replaced on the following street segments. Staff recommends that these streets
be narrowed as shown in the table.
Street Segment Existing (ft.) Proposed (ft.)
Webster Avenue from 35th Street to Lake Street 30 28
Xenwood Avenue from 35th Street to 33rd Street 30 28
Yosemite Avenue from 35th Street to Lake Street 30 28
Zarthan Avenue from 35th Street to 33rd Street 30 28
Alabama Avenue from 35th Street to 34th Street 30 28
Brunswick Avenue from Wooddale Avenue to Lake Street 32 28
34th Street from Lake Street to Xenwood Avenue 30 28
Hamilton Street from Dakota Avenue to Yosemite Avenue 30 28
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
The following streets do not have watermain replacement and are recommended to stay at their
current width:
Xenwood Avenue from 33rd Street to Lake Street (30 feet)
Zarthan Avenue from 33rd Street to Lake Street (30 feet)
Alabama Avenue from 34th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (30 feet)
Blackstone Avenue from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (26 feet)
Dakota Avenue from 35th Street to Lake Street (30 feet)
32nd Street from Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (21.5 feet)
33rd Street from Zarthan Avenue to Webster Avenue (28 feet)
35th Street from Dakota Avenue to Alabama Avenue (30 feet)
A street width of 28 feet from face of curb to face of curb is adequate to allow parking on two
sides of the streets. Street widths of less than 28 feet are typically signed as parking on one side
only.
Staff also worked closely with Operations and Recreation, Police and Fire to understand
appropriate street widths for efficient snow removal and safe travel for emergency response
vehicles.
Storm Sewer
Staff has identified opportunities to install storm water best management practices (BMPs) in order
to reduce volume and improve storm water quality. These improvements will be installed as a part
of the project. This neighborhood drains to the basin in Bass Lake Preserve. One of the City’s
goals for the Bass Lake Preserve is to reduce the volume of water going to the basin.
Street Trees
The City Forester has completed a tree inventory in the project area. This inventory reviewed the
size, species, health, and condition of all of the trees within the project limits. As a part of the
design, staff worked to preserve existing boulevard trees to the maximum extent possible. There
are a number of trees that are being recommended for removal because of health, watermain
construction or sidewalk construction. Tree replacement will be completed based on the City’s
tree ordinance.
Proposed Sidewalks
As a part of the design for the Pavement Management Project, 13,964 feet (2.64 miles) of
sidewalks and 544 feet (0.10 miles) of trails were evaluated for construction in 2017. These
sidewalks fall into three categories; Connect the Park CIP, sidewalk gaps, and resident feedback
segments. There are 37 different segments that were evaluated.
Staff Recommendations:
At the end of this report, staff has provided individual evaluation sheets for each of the 37 sidewalk
segments. Comments received from the public meetings and other communication from property
owners along with details on each segment have been added to the individual segment pages.
Each sidewalk segment is unique and requires its own set of design solutions. Staff used the
following criteria to base our recommendations. Staff recommendations are context sensitive; no
one criteria ranked higher than others, rather it was an evaluation of numerous factors.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Traffic volumes
o Volumes under 150 vehicles a day = Sidewalk not recommended
o Volumes from 150 vehicles a day and greater = Sidewalk recommended on at least
1 side of the street
Existing sidewalk percentage versus proposed sidewalk percentage
o If proposed sidewalk is less than 25% = Recommend sidewalk if no major impacts
o If proposed sidewalk is greater than 25% = Look at other criteria factors.
Street widths
Connectivity to sidewalk network and destinations
o How does the sidewalk fit into the overall network of sidewalks and trails?
o Is this sidewalk identified in the Active Living Sidewalk and Trail Plan?
o Does the sidewalk provide a direct connection to a park, shopping center, school,
etc.?
Impacts (Tree, retaining walls, etc.)
Cost
Connect the Park CIP:
The following sidewalk segments were proposed for construction as a part of the Connect the Park
CIP.
Number Description
Staff
Recommended?
1 Zarthan Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (West Side) Yes
2 Zarthan Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) Yes
3 Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West Side) Yes
4 Hamilton Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (South Side) No
As a result of the review of the comprehensive sidewalk plan for the neighborhood, staff is not
recommending the construction of the sidewalk gap on the south side of Hamilton Avenue.
Instead, staff recommends that the sidewalk be constructed one block south along the north side
of the Frontage Road (35th Street) with a connection from the Frontage Road (35th Street) along
the west side of Zarthan to 34th Street (see segment numbers 13 & 33).
Since these segments were identified in in the Connect the Park CIP, they are proposed to be
designated as Community sidewalks with the City taking the responsibility for snow removal.
Sidewalk Gaps & Resident Feedback Sidewalks:
As a part of our construction projects, staff works to identify gap sidewalk segments. The sidewalk
gaps identified for the 2017 pavement management area are included in this project design for
consideration. For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered a section of sidewalk that is
missing on a continuous street block.
At the first public meeting, residents expressed a need for sidewalk connections to Webster Park.
As a result, the staff evaluated additional (east-west) sidewalk connections in the neighborhood.
These resident feedback sidewalks were discussed at the second and third public meeting.
These segments, if approved, would be constructed at no cost to the property owners and the City
would be responsible for future repairs to defective sidewalk panels. However, these sidewalk
segments would follow the appropriate sidewalk designation Neighborhood or Community.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Neighborhood sidewalks are the property owner’s responsibility for snow removal; community
sidewalks are the City’s responsibility.
The table on the following page is a summary of all of the Gap and Resident Feedback Sidewalks
along with staff recommendations.
Estimated Cost for Sidewalk and Trail Segments:
Recommended
(9,683 FT)
Not Recommended
(4,825 FT)
Total
Construction Cost $807,323 $376,498 $1,183,821
Engineering Cost
(20%)
$161,465 $75,300 $236,765
Total Cost $968,788 $451,797 $1,420,585
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 7
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Number Description
Staff
Recommended?
5 Webster Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) Yes
6 Webster Avenue- 33rd Street to Lake Street (East Side) Yes
7 Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (West Side) No
8 Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) Yes
9 Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (West Side) Yes
10 Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (East Side) Yes
11 Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (West Side) Yes
12 Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (East Side) No
13 Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side) Yes
14 Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (East Side) No
15 Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East Side) Yes
16 Alabama Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side) No
17 Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) No
18 Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (East Side) Yes
19 Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West Side) Yes
20 Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East Side) Yes
21 Blackstone Avenue- Lake Street to Dead End (West Side) No
22 Brunswick Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (East Side) Yes
23 Brunswick Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side) Yes
24 34th Street- Lake Street to Brunswick Avenue (North Side) Yes
25 34th Street- Brunswick Avenue to Alabama Avenue (South Side) Yes
26 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South Side) No
27 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side) Yes
28 34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (South Side) No
29 34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North Side) Yes
30 Hamilton Street- Dakota Avenue to Wooddale Avenue (North Side) Yes
31 Hamilton Street- Wooddale Avenue to Brunswick Avenue (North Side) Yes
32 Hamilton Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South Side) No
33 35th Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (North Side) Yes
34 35th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side) Yes
35 35th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North Side) Yes
36 35th Street- Xenwood Avenue to Webster Avenue (North Side) Yes
37 Utica Avenue- 27th Street to 28th Street (West Side) Yes
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 8
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Public Process:
Three open houses were held to provide an opportunity for residents to learn more about the
proposed project and to provide feedback on the proposed plans. Notifications was done through
letters, sandwich boards, neighborhood associations, NextDoor, Constant Contact and the city
website.
Open House #1 (August 16, 2016)
This public meeting was a kickoff meeting to provide residents with high level information
on what was being proposed for this project and the history of the Pavement Management
Program and Connect the Park CIP. Information was provided on what to expect for future
open houses and what to expect during construction. Residents were able to look at
preliminary layouts and provide feedback to city staff.
The following are the key comments and questions staff heard in this first open house:
Sidewalk snow removal
A need additional (east-west) sidewalk connections to Webster Park including
a sidewalk along 35th Street
What is the public process with the sidewalks?
Concern that the decision on the sidewalks are a “done-deal”
Tree and landscaping impacts
What to expect during construction
There were 32 residents who signed in at this open house out of 642 properties notified of
the meeting.
Open House #2 (October 25, 2016)
The purpose of this open house was to gather feedback on the preliminary plans for the
street reconstruction and the proposed sidewalks. This was the first meeting showing
sidewalks that were added due to resident feedback. The preliminary plans showed impacts
to trees, landscaping, retaining walls, etc. and showed the proposed construction limits.
Many residents asked questions, wrote post it notes on the plans and provided suggestions
for modifications to this preliminary design. Staff tried to incorporate these comments into
a refined design. Feedback from this meeting ultimately helped guide city staff on the final
designs.
The following are the key comments and questions staff heard in this second open house:
Concerns over tree removals or root damage. Request to look at alternatives to
save tree.
Sidewalk is not needed or only needed on one side of the street
Sidewalk is needed on both sides
Sidewalk snow removal
Landscaping impacts
Who removes the snow from the sidewalk on corner lots on 35th Street
Street narrowing
Add a turnaround at end of Utica Avenue
Safety at crosswalk on Utica Avenue at pedestrian bridge
There were 36 residents who signed in at this open house out of 642 properties notified of
the meeting.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 9
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Open House #3 (January 10, 2017)
The purpose of this open house was to provide attendees with the staff recommended final
design for streets and sidewalks in the project. The final plans show impacts to trees,
landscaping, retaining walls, etc. and the proposed construction limits. This is the last
public information meeting before bringing this project to City Council for a public hearing
and action.
City Council Public Hearing
The City Council Public Hearing is scheduled for February 6, 2017.
If property owners were unable to attend the meetings, or if they had specific concerns that they
wanted to walk through, staff met with them on site. Using the information gathered from the
open houses, individual site visits, phone calls and emails, staff revised the sidewalk design to try
to minimize the impacts within the right- of- way. When impacts could not be avoided, staff
proposed mitigation.
Engineering staff worked closely with Operations and Recreation staff to ensure the network of
sidewalk being built would meet the objectives for tree preservation/ replanting and acceptable
widths and design features for snow removal on community sidewalk segments.
NEXT STEPS: The proposed schedule for the segments recommended by staff to facilitate
construction in 2017 is as follows:
Council Study Session January 17, 2017
Council Public Hearing February 6, 2017
Council Awards Construction Bids Early April 2017
Construction May to November 2017
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 10
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
CONNECT THE PARK CIP- SIDEWALK SEGMENTS
1. Zarthan Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (West Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 11
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#1
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(Hamilton Street to 34th Street)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 358 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 3 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 3 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 128 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $39,090
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $106.40/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: A 2.75 foot high retaining wall needed for part of sidewalk segment due to grade of yards.
Resident Feedback:
3400 Zarthan‐ Email‐ Resident thinks it is a great idea to add more sidewalk in neighborhood even if
it means more snow to shovel. Wanted to make sure other gaps in neighborhood would get
evaluated. I sent him a map showing the sidewalks segments being evaluated. Resident sees a lot
of kids walking down to the corner of 34th/ Yosemite to catch school bus and they have to walk in
street if no sidewalks.
Open House Comment‐ Sidewalk not needed on west side since there is existing sidewalk on east
side.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 12
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
2. Zarthan Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 13
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#2
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐10 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 645 Feet (52%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 584 Feet (48%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 10 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 3 Trees to be protected
Bushes 1 bush removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 50 Feet (Due to house and driveway length)
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $53,244
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $82.55/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: Due to driveway length and proximity to patio at 5900 34th St (corner of Zarthan Ave & 34th St) the
sidewalk was moved to the back of curb for 50 feet for that property.
Resident Feedback:
3364 Zarthan‐ Email and met in person‐ Would love to see sidewalk all the way from Lake Street to
34th Street even if it will mean a change to their front yard. Met in person to discuss impacts to
their landscaping. They moved their flowers in the fall. Also had concerns about the storm catch
basin in front of their house that constantly gets plugged and floods street. Staff will evaluate catch
basin.
3328 Zarthan‐ Met in person‐ Would like to coordinate the construction of the street and sidewalk
with plans to redo their driveway.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 14
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
3. Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 15
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#3
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 40 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 246 Feet (19%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 1,073 Feet (81%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 4 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes 2 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 37 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $19,073
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $77.53/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Street Width, Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: Boulevard is only 2.5 feet due to limited right of way. Segments of Zarthan Avenue are only 21.5 feet
wide and has parking limited to one side. Due to street widths, parking and traffic volumes, staff
recommend sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Resident Feedback:
3018 Zarthan‐ Email‐ Resident has lived in Sorensen Neighborhood for 27 years and strongly
supports construction of sidewalk where there are none and to fill in gaps. Resident walks a lot and
it is dangerous and a pain to hop from sidewalk to street and back. It is dangerous because of cars
for both the driver and pedestrians. It looks bad for sidewalk to go up part of block and then be a
gap for a few house then have the sidewalk continue as both sides of our block do. And it feels
fairer if everyone on our block had to shovel their sidewalk in the winter as we do.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 16
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
4. Hamilton Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (South Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 17
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#4
Hamilton Street
South Side
(Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue)
Connect the Park CIP Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 363 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 4 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 90 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $31,582
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $87.00/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low Traffic Volumes
Notes: No major impacts to construct the sidewalk but due to low traffic volumes staff is not
recommending to build this sidewalk segment. If sidewalk on 35th Street is approved, it would provide an
east‐west connection to Webster Park. The 35th Street sidewalk in conjunction with a sidewalk along
Zarthan from 35th to 34th would meet the goals of the Connect the Park CIP.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 18
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
SIDEWALK GAP AND RESIDENT FEEDBACK SIDEWALK SEGMENTS
5. Webster Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 19
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#5
Webster Avenue (Park Trail)
East Side
(35th Street to 33rd Street)
Resident Feedback Trail
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Trail Width 8 Feet (Bituminous Trail)
Proposed Trail Length 544 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk/Trail Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed Trail 1 City Park
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Trail at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 374 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $29,107
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $53.51/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: Staff meet with Operations and Recreation staff and the recommendation was to construct an 8 foot
bituminous trail along Webster Park.
Resident Feedback:
Sorensen Neighborhood‐ Residents of Sorensen Neighborhood were supportive of sidewalk
connection to get to and from Webster Park. Residents were also very interested in what the city
has planned for Webster Park once MnDOT land is released.
3350 Webster‐ Comment Card‐ Resident is excited about the proposed sidewalks and about the
new trees that will replace the ones that are lost.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 20
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
6. Webster Avenue- 33rd Street to Lake Street (East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 21
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#6
Webster Avenue
East Side
(33rd Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 727 Feet (52%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 675 feet (48%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 11 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 8 Trees to be protected
Bushes 3 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property ‐ 42 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 20 feet
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 374 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $79,342
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $109.14/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/Destinations
Notes: Existing sidewalk on Webster Avenue to the north is 4 feet wide. Of the 3 trees being removed, they
are leaning towards to the street so for safety reasons, staff recommends removal. This sidewalk would
provide a connection from Lake Street to Webster Park.
Resident Feedback:
3225 Webster‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the location of the proposed sidewalk, impacts, and what to expect
during construction.
3147 Webster‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the proposed project and the watermain replacement. Has special
concrete section that will need to be replaced for water service but has no issues with that being done. Asked
the city to install additional catch basin mid‐block due to flat curb slope.
3265 Webster‐ Met in person‐ Had questions about the policy of sidewalks and why the city was spending
money on sidewalks when it could be spent elsewhere. Staff explained the history of Connect the Park. Was
concerned with street narrowing and plows getting through the narrowed streets. Staff explained that Streets,
Fire, Police were all involved with street width discussions. Resident was also concerned with limited driveway
length. Staff verified that his driveway length is adequate to park cars and not block the sidewalk. Resident
would rather have tree removed and boulevard reduced. Why isn’t this city plowed?
3350 Webster‐ Email‐ Resident thought it was great idea to connect the sidewalks to nowhere but had
questions on how this will affect the trees in the area. Staff explained that we will look at all options before
removing a tree.
3273 Webster‐ Email‐ Concerned and angry that nearly half of front yard will become a sidewalk and that the
retaining wall would be affected. Would like to see the boulevard width reduced and the sidewalk width
reduced. Feels the current proposal negatively alters property more than is necessary for a sidewalk.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 22
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
7. & 8. Xenwood Avenue- 35th Street to 33rd Street (West & East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 23
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#7
Xenwood Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8.5‐10 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 956 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 22 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 6 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 8 Trees to be protected
Bushes 2 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Major (4 Properties – 1,010 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed 456 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 45 feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 245 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $83,187
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $87.02/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐ Recommend other side)
Notes: Construction on the west side would require a 2.25 foot high retaining wall for the majority of the
length of sidewalk between 34th Street and 33rd Street. With low traffic volumes on Xenwood Avenue,
sidewalk on at least one side of the street is adequate. East side of Xenwood Avenue has less impacts.
Resident Feedback:
3328 & 3308 Xenwood‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the proposed watermain and sidewalk project.
Staff explained the impacts (tree and new retaining wall) the proposed sidewalk would have. Staff
explained that if approved, staff would work with residents on limiting impacts to landscaping.
They had concerns with having more steps and with snow removal. Staff gave them information on
how to contact council member and about process of public hearing.
3412 Xenwood‐ Met in person‐ Discussed the proposed watermain and sidewalk project. Wanted
to see in person where the sidewalk would be located. Staff measured out the boulevard and
sidewalk for them. Staff could protect the tree on the corner by moving the sidewalk further away
from the street but they were okay with the tree being removed.
3340 Xenwood‐ Comment Card‐ Xenwood from 33rd to Walker/ 35th has very narrow lots. Many
have little to no backyard. Majority of green space in front yard. Street is narrow with parking on
both sides. Two cars coming from opposite direction, one must pull over.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 24
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#8
Xenwood Avenue
East Side
(35th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 945 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 12 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 4 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 7 Trees to be protected
Bushes 1 bush removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 88 feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 245 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $68,756
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $72.76/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐East side has less
impacts)
Notes: Construction of this sidewalk will not require a retaining wall. With low traffic volumes on Xenwood
Avenue, staff recommends sidewalk on one side of the street. East side of Xenwood Avenue has less
impacts. The only major tree impact is to two pine trees on one property.
Resident Feedback:
3337 Xenwood‐ Comment Card‐ Sidewalks on the 3300 block of Xenwood would not connect to
parks or trails. People walk down 33rd Street to the park. This will not increase the value of people
properties. Most of the odd side homes do not have usable back yards as we sit on a hill. This is
only level green space my kids have. Sorensen neighborhood has already been through the
Highway 100 construction inconvenience and now another year of inconvenience. For cost vs
benefit this does not make sense.
3345 Xenwood‐ Comment Card‐ Resident can’t see the benefit of putting sidewalk on both sides of
the street especially when we don’t have a backyard. Property values will go down.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 25
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
9. & 10. Yosemite Avenue- 35th Street to 34th Street (West & East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 26
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#9
Yosemite Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to 34th Street)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 53 Feet (13%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 359 Feet (87%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $4,357
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $82.21/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed Sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: No major impacts. Would connect existing sidewalk on Yosemite Avenue to the proposed sidewalk
on 35th Street.
Resident Feedback:
3418 Yosemite‐ Resident is very happy about the sidewalk improvements that are proposed on
Yosemite Avenue.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 27
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#10
Yosemite Avenue
East Side
(35th Street to 34th Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 66 Feet (16%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 346 Feet (84%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $4,753
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $72.00/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed Sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: No major impacts. Would connect existing sidewalk on Yosemite Avenue to the proposed sidewalk
on 35th Street.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 28
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
11. & 12. Yosemite Avenue- 34th Street to 33rd Street (West & East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 29
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#11
Yosemite Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 87 Feet (11%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 729 Feet (89%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Residential Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $5,136
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $59.03/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed Sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: No major impacts and low cost to construct the small sidewalk gap missing.
Resident Feedback:
3372 Yosemite‐ Phone conversation‐ Resident had question about whether property owners would
be assessed for this project. Staff explained that there would not be assessments for this project.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 30
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#12
Yosemite Avenue
East Side
(34th Street to 33rd Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐8.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 642 Feet (79%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 172 Feet (21%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 11 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 5 Trees to be protected
Bushes 8 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (3 Properties‐232 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed 280 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 18 Feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 213 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $52,468
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $81.72/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommended on other
side of street), Impacts
Notes: Construction on the east side would require a 2 foot high retaining wall for parts of the sidewalk
between 34th Street and 33rd Street. With low traffic volumes on Yosemite Avenue, sidewalk on at least
one side of the street is adequate. West side of Yosemite Avenue has less impacts. If sidewalk segment is
not approved, city staff would ask residents for input of what to do with existing walk.
Resident Feedback:
3349 Yosemite‐ Comment Card‐ Consider sidewalk on one side of the street. Sidewalk on both sides
is overkill. Save our elder trees.
3337 Yosemite‐ Comment Card‐ Wants sidewalk on both sides of the street. Looking forward to
new water pipes and sidewalks on both sides. Every day I see people walking in the streets because
of sidewalk gaps.
3345 Yosemite‐ Comment Card‐ In agreement with recommendation of not adding sidewalk on east
side
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 31
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
13 & 14. Zarthan Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West & East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 32
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#13
Zarthan Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to Hamilton Street)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 9.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 284 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 5 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 3 Tress to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $16,382
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $57.68/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street), Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: Due to traffic volumes, sidewalk on one side of Zarthan between 35th Street and Hamilton Street is
adequate. No major impacts on either side but constructing the sidewalk on the west side would mean a
continuous sidewalk on the west side from Lake Street all the way to 35th Street.
Resident Feedback:
Open House Comment‐ Sidewalk not needed on west side if built on east side
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 33
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#14
Zarthan Avenue
East Side
(35th Street to Hamilton Street)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 253 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (100%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 3 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $13,667
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $54.02
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommend on other
side)
Notes: Due to traffic volumes, sidewalk on one side of Zarthan between 35th Street and Hamilton Street is
adequate. No major impacts on either side but constructing the sidewalk on the west side would mean a
continuous sidewalk on the west side from Lake Street all the way to 35th Street. The 35th Street sidewalk
in conjunction with a sidewalk along Zarthan from 35th to 34th would meet the goals of the Connect the
Park CIP.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 34
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
15. Zarthan Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 35
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#15
Zarthan Avenue
East Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 40 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐2.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 712 Feet (56%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 561 Feet (44%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 8 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Yes (1 property‐ 635 Sq. Ft)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole, 1 Manhole
Sidewalk at back of curb? 297 Feet (Due to limited right of way)
Traffic ADT 223 (33rd St to Lake St)
Total Cost $52,643
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $73.94/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Street width
Notes: Boulevard is only 0 to 2.5 feet due to limited city right of way. Zarthan Avenue is only 21.5 feet wide
and has parking limited to one side. Due to street widths, parking and traffic volumes, staff recommend
sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Resident Feedback:
3109 Zarthan‐ Open House Comment‐ Does not want sidewalk on east side. No need for sidewalk
on both sides.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 36
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
16. Alabama Avenue- 35th Street to Hamilton Street (West Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 37
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#16
Alabama Avenue
West Side
(35th Street to Hamilton Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 7 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 192 Feet (53%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 173 Feet (47%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 187 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 103 (35th St to Hamilton St)
Total Cost $16,715
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $87.06/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low Traffic Volumes, Impacts
Notes: Due to low traffic volumes on Alabama Avenue, sidewalk on one side of the street is adequate.
There is existing sidewalk already on the east side of the street. Sidewalk would require the removal of 3
trees in the right‐ of‐ way in front of one property. If sidewalk segment is not approved, city staff would ask
residents for input of what to do with existing sidewalk.
Resident Feedback:
6001 Hamilton (SW corner of Alabama Ave & Hamilton St)‐ Email and met in person‐ Appreciates
the intent of eliminating sidewalk gaps but strongly objects the proposed sidewalk on Alabama Ave
between 35th St and Hamilton St. No need for a sidewalk along my property besides closing the
gap. Pedestrian traffic is very light. No sidewalk on Alabama Avenue to the north so it a sidewalk to
nowhere. Sidewalk would remove 3 of 4 trees along Alabama Avenue. Would impact the grading of
the ROW adjacent to my property. Loss of ~30% of garden. Reduced Privacy. Have hard time
justify why I should maintain new sidewalk and it would make it more difficult to clear snow from
driveway.
3459 Alabama‐ Email‐ Completely unnecessary to build sidewalk because there is a sidewalk on my
side (East) already and brings no value to the neighborhood. Other locations that need sidewalk.
Sidewalk would have impacts on the trees and would be burden for resident to shovel.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 38
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
17 & 18. Alabama Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West & East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 39
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#17
Alabama Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 7‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 516 Feet (56%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 412 Feet (44%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 7 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 4 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 3 Trees to be protected
Bushes Approx. 12 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Major (1 Property‐ 1,208 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 170 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $45,432
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $88.05/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommend on other
side), Impacts
Notes: Due to low traffic volumes on Alabama Avenue, sidewalk on one side of the street is adequate. A
very large tree would need to be removed for sidewalk. Sidewalk would have significant impacts to
landscaping and trees at 3316 Alabama Avenue. If sidewalk segment is not approved, city staff would ask
residents for input of what to do with existing sidewalk.
Resident Feedback:
3344 Alabama‐ Email‐ Main suggestion is to complete sidewalks along 34th Street from Alabama
Avenue to Lake Street. This is a comparatively well‐used route and many who walk it are students
on the way to or from the High School.
3316 Alabama‐ Met in Person‐ Main concerns are for the impacts to his landscaping, bushes and
trees. Have spent a lot of time and money in his front yard. Also would not like the see the removal
of the big tree on the property north of his. Sidewalk on one side is adequate.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 40
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#18
Alabama Avenue
East Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 5‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 666 Feet (69%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 305 Feet (31%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 9 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 8 Trees to be protected
Bushes 2 bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 87 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 1 Power Pole
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 170 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $60,228
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $90.43/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street)
Notes: Due to low traffic volumes on Alabama Avenue, sidewalk on one side of the street is adequate.
Sidewalk on the east side has less impacts to landscaping and trees. Sidewalk would require a 2.5 foot high
retaining wall for one property (3365 Alabama Ave).
Resident Feedback:
3329 Alabama‐ All rain runoff runs into catch basin here and floods. Adding sidewalk will add more
flooding during heavy rains.
3325 Alabama‐ Comment Card‐ My wife and I don’t want the sidewalk. It will be closer to our front
door than any other house on our block due to the curve in our street. Our pavement is fine shape
and does not need to be replaced at this time.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 41
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
19 & 20. Alabama Avenue- Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard (West & East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 42
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#19
Alabama Avenue
West Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 52 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 167 Feet (10%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 1,536 Feet (90%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $14,891
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $89.16/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: In order to save tree at 3200 Alabama Avenue, sidewalk would need to be built on private property.
Completing this short section of sidewalk would mean there would be a continuous sidewalk/trail from
Minnetonka Blvd to Lake St.
Resident Feedback:
3200 Alabama Avenue‐ Met in person‐ Met with resident and Parks Department to discuss the large
tree on the property that would be impacted by the sidewalk. She stated the city promised her that
the small gap of sidewalk on her property would not be built because it would mean the removal of
the tree. The only way to save the tree would be to build sidewalk on private property. She would
be willing to allow that. A signed easement would be required.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 43
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#20
Alabama Avenue
East Side
(Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 52 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐4.5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 344 Feet (22%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 1,233 Feet (78%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 6 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 2 Trees Removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes 1 bush removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 96 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 105 Feet (Due to Driveway Length)
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $45,138
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $131.21/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Proposed sidewalk % under 25%
Notes: The major impacts to building this sidewalk are for 3101 and 3107 Alabama Avenue. The garage at
3107 is close to street so sidewalk has to be at back of curb in order for a vehicle to park in the driveway. A
1.5 foot high retaining wall would also be required for these two properties due to the grade of their yard.
Resident Feedback:
3101 Alabama Avenue‐ Email and Met in person‐ Concerned about proposed sidewalk. She says her
yard is basically a hill and to add sidewalk would take away her yard. Already a sidewalk on the
west side so don’t see a need. Concerned because she would have to shovel the sidewalk which is
basically impossible for her. Sidewalk would decrease value of home and would take away yard and
privacy.
3107 Alabama Avenue‐ Phone‐ Resident left a message with city staff asking if any new sidewalk
was going in on her side of the street. I returned her call and told her we are proposing sidewalk on
the east side of Alabama Avenue and that she can give me call and we can discuss the impacts.
Have not received a response yet.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 44
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
21. Blackstone Avenue- Lake Street to Dead End (West Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 45
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#21
Blackstone Avenue
West Side
(Lake Street to Dead End)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 40 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 1,028 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 8 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 8 Trees removed due to Sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 263 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 1,028 Feet (Due to limited right of way)
Traffic ADT 133 (Lake St to Dead End)
Total Cost $62,627
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $60.92/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low Traffic Volumes, Impacts
Notes: Due to limited right of way and grade of yards, the sidewalk would need to be at the back of the curb
for the entire length and would need a 1.5 foot high retaining wall for 263 feet and affect 5 properties.
Blackstone Avenue has a low volume of traffic and is a dead end. Sidewalk would impact many trees and
require the removal of 8 trees.
Resident Feedback:
3266 Blackstone‐ Met in person‐ Was concerned with how the sidewalk and retaining wall would
impact her two trees. The trees are far enough back that they will not be impacted. She did not
think a sidewalk was needed for Blackstone Ave.
3256 Blackstone‐ Email, Comment Card, Met in Person‐ Convinced that the residents of Blackstone
Avenue deserve to be as safe as everyone else in Sorensen Neighborhood. Very concerned about
people being forced on the MN&S tracks. More sidewalk are needed in this plan. Sidewalk needed
to allow children to safety walk or bike to Webster Park.
3207 Blackstone‐ Meeting Comments‐ Don’t need sidewalks. Too many big trees will be removed
or damaged.
3274 Blackstone‐ Email‐ Staff answered questions about sidewalk design and how much of the yard
would be affected by sidewalk. Resident personally doesn’t see a need for a sidewalk on dead end
street without much traffic when it means losing a chunk of small front yard.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 46
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
22. Brunswick Avenue- Hamilton Street to 34th Street (East Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 47
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#22
Brunswick Avenue
East Side
(Hamilton Street to 34th Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 80 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 16 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 110 Feet (30%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 256 Feet (70%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 238 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $8,557
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $77.79/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts , Low cost
Notes: No major impacts and low cost to construct the missing small sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
6026 Hamilton Street (NE corner of Brunswick Ave & Hamilton St) ‐ Email‐ Staff explained to
resident that there are no assessments for this project. Resident had questions about the shoveling
of sidewalk. Staff explained the difference between neighborhood and community walks and that
the sidewalk on Brunswick Avenue would be a neighborhood walk which is resident maintained.
Resident stated that people who walk their dogs or take walks typically walk on her lawn or they
cross the street and use sidewalk on other side. Resident is opposed to this sidewalk and see no
value that it will provide to her.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 48
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
23. Brunswick Avenue- 34th Street to Lake Street (West Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 49
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#23
Brunswick Avenue
West Side
(34th Street to Lake Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 80 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 12 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 345 Feet (74%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 119 Feet (26%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 7 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 238 (34th St to Lake St)
Total Cost $32,600
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $94.49/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts , low cost
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap. Closing this sidewalk gap would mean
there is a continuous sidewalk on the west side of Brunswick Avenue from Lake Street to Wooddale Avenue.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 50
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
24. 34th Street- Lake Street to Brunswick Avenue (North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 51
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#24
34th Street
North Side
(Lake Street to Brunswick Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐7 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 190 Feet (40%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 286 Feet (60%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 1 Tree to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 368 (Brunswick Ave to Alabama Ave)
Total Cost $10,910
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $57.42/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes, No major impacts , low cost
Notes: No major impacts and low cost to construct the missing sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 52
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
25. 34th Street- Brunswick Avenue to Alabama Avenue (South Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 53
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#25
34th Street
South Side
(Brunswick Avenue to Alabama Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐9 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 207 Feet (56%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 165 Feet (44%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 1 Tree to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed 100 Feet
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted 17 Feet
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 368 (Brunswick Ave to Alabama Ave)
Total Cost $24,515
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $118.43/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes
Notes: Due to grade of yard, sidewalk would require a 2.5 foot high retaining wall for one property.
Resident Feedback:
5905 34th Street (Lives a block to the west of this sidewalk segment)‐ Email‐ Resident and neighbors
are excited to get the sidewalk extensions installed in their neighborhood and appreciates the city’s
efforts to improve the livability for us all. More people than ever walk in front of his house on 34th
Street.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 54
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
26 & 27. 34th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South & North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 55
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#26
34th Street
South Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 8‐10 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 300 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 1 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 1 Tree to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 3 Power Poles
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 293 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $26,477
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $88.26/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on
Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street‐Recommend on other
side), Impacts
Notes: Sidewalk would require the removal of a large tree and would require major branch trimming and
root damage to protect a pine tree. The north side would not require any tree removal and would cost less.
Resident Feedback:
3401 Zarthan Avenue (SE corner of 34th and Zarthan) ‐ Resident want to save her white pine tree.
Staff was able to save the tree but major branch trimming will be required and root damage is
possible.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 56
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#27
34th Street
North Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 304 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 293 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $20,788
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $68.38/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic Volumes (Only 1 side of street), No major impacts
Notes: The north side would not require any tree removal and would cost less than south side. Existing
sidewalk to the west on 34th Street is on the south side which would require pedestrians to cross to the
north side at the intersection of 34th Street and Zarthan Avenue. There is stop signs for north‐south traffic
at this intersection.
Resident Feedback:
5820 34th Street‐ Comment Card‐ Resident states there is no walk now or planned that would
connect to this walk in my block on the north side. Resident does not want walk that will not be
used. Proposed walk will hardly ever used. People will have to cross the street from the south side
to the north side. Waste of money.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 57
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
28 & 29. 34th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (South & North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 58
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#28
34th Street
South Side
(Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2‐5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 287 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Tree removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes 8 Bushes removed due to sidewalk
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations 2 Power Poles
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $23,024
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $80.22/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Impacts
Notes: Sidewalk would require the removal of a three trees. Sidewalk would also be close to house at SE
corner of 34th Street and Yosemite Avenue. Sidewalk would also require the removal of bushes at 3400
Xenwood Avenue. Boulevard was reduced to 2 feet at 3400 Xenwood Avenue due to short driveway length.
The north side would not require any tree removal.
Resident Feedback:
3400 Xenwood Avenue (SW corner of 34th and Xenwood) ‐ Resident was concerned with driveway
length and having truck block sidewalk along with the safety of backing out of driveway. Staff
moved sidewalk closer to street to create minimal 20 feet of driveway length.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 59
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#29
34th Street
North Side
(Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 290 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 4 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 105 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 50 Feet (Due to Tree)
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $23,666
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $81.61/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts, Low cost
Notes: Sidewalk was moved to back of curb at 5704 34th Street to save large tree.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 60
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
30. Hamilton Street- Dakota Avenue to Wooddale Avenue (North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 61
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#30
Hamilton Street
North Side
(Dakota Avenue to Wooddale Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 152 Feet (38%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 256 Feet (62%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 1 Resident Property
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $12,615
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $83.00/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts, Low cost
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 62
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
31. Hamilton Street- Wooddale Avenue to Brunswick Avenue (North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 63
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#31
Hamilton Street
North Side
(Wooddale Avenue to Brunswick Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2.5‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 111 Feet (33%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 223 Feet (67%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $11,814
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $106.43/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on No major impacts
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 64
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
32. Hamilton Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (South Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 65
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#32
Hamilton Street
South Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 288 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 90 (Alabama Ave to Zarthan Ave)
Total Cost $21,321
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $74.03/LF
Recommendation No
Recommendation based on Low traffic volume, No major impacts
Notes: No major impacts to construct the sidewalk but this would possibly put sidewalk on 3 sides of 3450
Yosemite Avenue. Due to low traffic volumes staff is not recommending to build this sidewalk segment. If
sidewalk on 35th Street is approved, that would be an adequate east‐west connection to Webster Park.
Resident Feedback:
3451 Zarthan Avenue (SE corner of Hamilton & Zarthan) ‐ Open House Comment‐ Sidewalk would
be right against chain link fence.
Open House Comment‐ Would like to keep Hamilton Street width at 30 feet due to parking on both
sides.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 66
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
33. 35th Street- Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue (North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 67
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#33
35th Street
North Side
(Alabama Avenue to Zarthan Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 4‐8 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 219 Feet (57%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 162 Feet (43%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 705 (Zarthan Ave to Yosemite Ave)
Total Cost $15,769
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $72.00/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic volumes, No major impacts, Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: No major impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was
approved, there would be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open
house. Due to high traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 68
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
34. 35th Street- Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue (North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 69
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#34
35th Street
North Side
(Zarthan Avenue to Yosemite Avenue)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 366 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed None
Trees Protected 6 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 67 Feet (Due to Tree)
Traffic ADT 705 (Zarthan Ave to Yosemite Ave)
Total Cost $26,992
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $73.75/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on
Traffic volumes, No major impacts, Connectivity to sidewalk
network/destinations
Notes: Moved the sidewalk to the back of the curb to save the tree at 3450 Yosemite Ave. No major
impacts to construct the missing sidewalk gap. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was approved, there would
be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open house. Due to high
traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
3450 Yosemite Ave (NW corner of 35th & Yosemite) ‐ Phone and Open House‐ Resident was
concerned about how the sidewalk would impact the trees on 35th especially the big tree near his
driveway. Staff was able to move the sidewalk to the back of curb to limit impacts to his tree. He
was happy with that design.
Open House comment‐ Who shovels this sidewalk? ‐ Staff is recommending this as a community
sidewalk (city snow removal)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 70
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
35. 35th Street- Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue (North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 71
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#35
35th Street
North Side
(Yosemite Avenue to Xenwood Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 2‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 403 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 3 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed 2 Trees to be removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected 2 Trees to be protected
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT 705 (Zarthan Ave to Yosemite Ave)
Total Cost $36,231
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $89.90/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: No major impacts to construct the sidewalk. Met with resident who has one tree being removed.
Would rather have tree removed than have sidewalk closer to house. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was
approved, there would be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open
house. Due to high traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
3412 Xenwood Ave (NW corner of 35th & Xenwood) ‐ Met in person‐ Answered questions about
project and the location of the sidewalk. Was okay with tree removal to keep sidewalk closer to
street.
3431 Yosemite Ave (NE corner of 35th & Yosemite) & Open House comment‐ Who shovels this
sidewalk on 35th? ‐ It was originally planned to be resident responsibility but staff is recommending
this as a community sidewalk (city snow removal)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 72
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
36. 35th Street- Xenwood Avenue to Webster Avenue (North Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 73
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#36
35th Street
North Side
(Xenwood Avenue to Webster Avenue)
Resident Feedback Sidewalk
ROW Width 60 Feet
Proposed Boulevard Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 525 Feet (100%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 0 Feet (0%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 2 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Community Walk (City)
Trees Removed 5 Trees removed due to Sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW None
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? None
Traffic ADT NA
Total Cost $31,543
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $60.08/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic volumes, Connectivity to sidewalk network/destinations
Notes: Three of the five trees to be removed are Ash trees. If all the sidewalk on 35th Street was approved,
there would be an east‐west connection to Webster Park that was asked for by residents at open house.
Due to high traffic volumes on 35th Street staff is recommending sidewalk on the north side.
Resident Feedback:
Have not received any direct feedback on this sidewalk segment.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 74
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
37. Utica Avenue- 27th Street to 28th Street (West Side)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 75
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update
#37
Utica Avenue
West Side
(27th Street to 28th Street)
Sidewalk Gap
ROW Width NA
Proposed Boulevard Width 0‐6 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Width 5 Feet
Proposed Sidewalk Length 617 Feet (65%)
Existing Sidewalk Length 332 Feet (35%)
Properties Affected by proposed sidewalk 10 Residential Properties
Maintenance Responsibility Neighborhood Walk (Resident)
Trees Removed 3 Trees removed due to sidewalk
Trees Protected None
Bushes None
Private Landscaping Impacted in ROW Minor (1 Property‐ 112 Square Feet)
New Retaining Wall Needed None
Existing Retaining Wall Impacted None
Private Utility Relocations None
Sidewalk at back of curb? 80 Feet (Due to Driveway and Trees)
Traffic ADT 964 (27th St to 28th St)
Total Cost $60,190
Cost per Linear Foot (LF) of New Sidewalk $63.42/LF
Recommendation Yes
Recommendation based on Traffic volumes
Notes: Sidewalk was moved to back of curb at 2780 Utica Avenue due to driveway length and to save the
trees and berm in the city right of way.
Resident Feedback:
2780 Utica Avenue‐ Email and Phone‐ Opposed to the sidewalk due to impacts to her berm and
trees. Also would lose a driveway parking spot. Staff moved the sidewalk to the back of curb to
address her concerns.
2788 Utica Avenue‐ Comment Card‐ Opposed to the sidewalk. Why can’t the community trail go
from Minnetonka down Vernon heading north and turn east on 27th. Sidewalk already exist there
and is used a lot. Pedestrians coming from bus stop already use Vernon. Pedestrians on the east
side of Hwy 100 cross the pedestrian bridge and head north or go down 27th St to Vernon.
Pedestrians coming from west already use 27th and Vernon. You may have tested traffic on the 27th
Block of Utica but there are very few pedestrians walking on it. This is a waste of money to connect
the sidewalk gap when it connects to nothing. The existing sidewalk is coming up anyways to do
sewer why not leave it out.
Utica Avenue Resident‐ Email‐ Excited to see the city is planning to connect the rest of the
neighborhood with sidewalks. It is a great idea with our kids having a safe place to walk instead of
being forced out into the street. We hope the city understands the importance of the sidewalk on
this street. Utica is subject to higher traffic volumes than most streets. We have a young child and
are nervous to go for walks down the street. Have spoken to neighbors in support as well. Hard for
families with children to make meetings to express their support for this project. Our lack of
presence at open houses does not indicate lake of interest.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!
")5
¬«7DAKOTAAVESEDGEWOODAVESMINNETONKA BLVD
WO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E VERNONAVESBLACKSTONEAVESYOSEMITEAVESZARTHANAVES32ND ST W
LAKE ST W
XENWOODAVESW A LKERSTWALKER ST
33RD ST W
MIN
N
ET
O
NKA BLVD31ST ST W
35TH ST W
CAMERATA WAYLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
HAMILTON ST
UTICA A VES34TH ST W
32ND ST W
DAKOTAAVESALABAMAAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESW O O D D A LE A V E TO E B H W Y 7W B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D A L E A V E
S E R V IC E D R H IG H W A Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVES
6222
6222
6222
6222
3200
3031 30243036
5624
3030 30253030 3021303130343031
3100 31003101
3045
5551
3046 3039
3042
3048 3049
3044
3034 55553041
3045
3033
3019
3025
3005
58155825
3008
3015
5622
301830213024
5600
30193021 57073000 3000
3020
5801
3004
3009
3024
5917
3037 30353041 30363034
3037
3035 3025
3000
6019
3001
5524
3000 553030016317
30002954 2953
3000
6417 6325
5500
6012
5600
2943
6020 2952
3020
3021
3018
3020 3014
5612
301330153011
3017 3011 30063012
3005
5703
3021
3012
3029 3028
3040
30303031303030313038
3016 30113011
564356473024
30253027
3010
3007 30055621
3025
30243025
6425
64136405
57082967 29485920
301530153016
3007 3010
56393250
3300
2955
6320
334433443355
2949
5600
33443354
33413340
33373337
33363332 3332
3328 33313328
3336
3333 3337
3329
3345
3345 3344 3340
3341 33413341 333633343350
3333 33323345
33283329
621233333325 3324 3324332733243329
3321 3320
3317331633173316
5580
3344 334533453345
334033413340
3342
3351
3334
3333 33283339
3325
33083312330833093252
3316
330433043308
3317
33256037
332033263320603133223317
3313
3316 3320
3320 3321
6025
33133312
61263311
3308
6013
3305
6019
33173252 3308
330433053248
33003304
3272
3309
6007
330133013300324463116325
3309
3240
3260
3237 3236 3275
3304 32743249
3300
3244 33013300
3240 3272326732683236
3300
3278
32593233 3267
3353
3324
3263
3268
3259 3264
3255
3254
32483256
63203256
3251
630032553228
631263243263
3308
3266
3257 32633261
32523232
3245
32403221322032433236
32323237
5925
32443225322432483244
3250 3250
32363220 32433243
323232173236
3251
3253 3265
63043229
6310
3264
3240 32493247 3257
3324
3321
33163317
3312331233123313
6120325333093280 330532483313 33003312
3301
3240
3216 3216 3237 32443239
3230 3236
3212 32333232 3235324032363237
3233 3239 3232323132313231
32273224
3208 3229 3230
3245
3232 3231
3205 323332043228 322532223225
5823
32193220 3220 3221
3216315632133212
3235
3225
322132203221 3218
3217
5817
3217
3226
5
8
3
1
3224 3224322532253225
3201 3200 3219
3211
3219
3211
3152 3152
3220
32083209 3207
3241
32793267
3267
3266 3273
327432563260
3216
32163212 3213
32123153 320532093206
5826
3149 3148 3205
5737
32013200
3232
3248
324432283249 3255
3224
3247 3253
3241 3242 3248
324132453237
32133212
3200
3201 31603200
3200
3208
3141 3156
3207
3209
3145 3144 57333201 3161
32003140 3201
3137 3153
5717
31413132
31453144 3147
3140
3136
315231433133
32093208 32283229
3230
3204 58273224 3223
3200 32203224
3216 3217
3157 3156 3213
3128
574031443132
3129 3128 3141 31403140
3120
320832133210
3148 3204320432053144
5900
5820
3201
3157
57255814
3148
5808
3145
314131303129
3131 31273124
3134 3137
57263124
3137
3125
57323131
3135 5720
3112 3125 3118
3117
3112 5627
3108
3121 3131
3116 3130 3133
3101
31293119310731043117
5714
3113 3112
31213120 5623
312131013104
3113
5709
3148313731363137
3124
3121
3140
5701
3116
3125 3127
3113 3124
3114
3111
3052
3051
3106
3057
5700
3104
3053 3101
3100
5619
3109
3105
5601
3121
3130
3108
31053050
3119
3115
31103109 3107
3056 3056 3105 3101
3110
568456506017
46 5655566565045925
6500 568556915708
6300
6005
5815
3470
6012 59126018630863126316
3450
3410
3400
567534573456
6010 3520 3530
3480
34513450
59156019
6425
621662283459
3456 6025
3426
3420
591259166012
3419
62006500
34123413
600160056301
6000 5918592463006320
3463 3464 346334623460
3456
34505921
6015
34506211
63096317
3407
3398
34303431
34256026
3425
3424
6528
6018
3419 3416
62186418 5913
5917592162076215
3410
3418
59203425600062066214 341234133413
6401
3406 34093407
340034013401
6329 3360
3369
60063361
600160053401
5725
6212 602463043468
58203379
3369
59005906
337533973376
6210336033693366 33573356
6
4
1
4 60133401
62216227
5704
33703368
3359 3348
59163365 3368
33643356
3356
5925
60093365
621633576227
3352 3360
63133455
6525
34313424
6520
3417
600662106224
3406
64226
2
2
1
3355
335033493358 3349 3348
64163400
3400592560096201
5720337233806220591259223363
3364 33656301 33603359
33533362 335233553348 33503349
6213
3354
3349
3000
3524
5707
5720
3548
1,000
Feet±
Legend
2017 Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks
!!Existing Trails
Watermain and Pavement
Managment
Pavement Management
Segments
Parcels
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SORENSEN NEIGHBORHOOD
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 76
!
!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«100
29TH ST W
27TH ST W
VERNONAVESTOLEDOAVES26TH ST W
27TH ST W
29TH ST W
28TH ST W UTICA AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTERAVESRALEIGHAVESSALEMAVESSBHWY100STOMINNETONKABLVDALLEY2921
2913
29172916
2828282928302829
2910
2712
2939
552455302953
5500
5600
2945
2943 2940
5612
564329342941
2924
2925
2931
5621
2948
2944
2925
2908
29122913
2936
56392905 2900
2900
2909
2901
2847
28402840
2846
2841
2845
2930
2920
2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
2816 2814
2824
28212820
2821 2820
2834
2817 2812
2807
280828082809
2804
28242825
2817
2813
2801
2813
2805
2800
2804
2644
26402643
2729 2729
2644
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
2725
2712
2721
27052705
26362641
27242725
2721
2717
2713
2704
2657
2650
2657
2645
2633
2656
2633
26532653
2648
26362637
2800
2624
2632
26212625
26282625
2620262026212617
2656
2801
2652
26482649
2749
2757 27562757
2748
2632
2629
26282629
2624
27442747
2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
27092708
2701
2737
2733
2708
2700
2709
2700
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740 2736
2732
2701
2737 2704 27012701273227002733
27162717 26492648 2650
2643 264526442709
2729
2724 2657
26512648
26442708
2701 2634
2705 27052738
2701
2728
2720
2631 2630262826242624
2620 262126202651
2632
2625265526222622
2647 2614
2657
2713
26382637 2637
2616 2617 2614 2613
2607
2641 26002600
2610
2607
2619
2617
2612
26092608
260026012600
2704 2704
27002700
2725 2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
26362700 2635
2631
2625
2625
2616
26132645
2643 26062608
2604
260126012631
52252544
293129372936
2934
29252955
2925
2926
29402939
293029332933
2929
29242922 2921
2909
2910
2904
2930
292029192918
29152916
2937
2855
2851
52102847
5124
2843
2839 2843
29212949
2917
2908 2905
2900
290129002856
5024
5032
2909 2907
2901
2925
2913 5116
2851
2901
2831 2835
2829
28422842
2835 28342834
2829
5024
2925
29162943
2816
2841 282428232822
28212835
51175123
520152072785 5200 51002747 50245032
2743
2772
2845 2825
2808
2815
2831 5025
51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
29042931 29002901
2919 2848
51005200
51322840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788 2751
2748
5100
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764 2725
2725
51245224
2777 2745 2744
2737
27312728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
271327422710
2750 2716
2709
28392832
28352824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
5033
51055217
5112
2800
2750
51182744
2743
2735 27382737
2765
2758
2719
2749
2708 27082709
500
Feet±
Legend
2017 Trails
Sidewalk Gaps
Existing Sidewalks
!!Existing Trails
Pavement Management &
Watermain Segments
Parcels
2017 Pavement Mangement and Sidewalks
Area 4 (Utica Avenue. S.)
Proposed trail (2017)
location to be determined.
Proposed Trail (2017)
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 77
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«7WOO
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MINNETONKA BLVD
LAKESTW
BLACKSTONEAVESMI
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D
YOSEMITEAVESCAMERATA WAYXENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESWALKERST33RD ST W
31ST ST W
WALKERST35TH ST W ZARTHANAVESALABAMAAVES33RD ST W
32ND ST W
HAMILTON ST
34TH ST W
32ND ST W YOSEMITEAVESXENWOODAVESDAKOTAAVESALABAMAAVESBLACKSTONEAVESWEBSTERAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESW O O D D A LE A V E TO E B H W Y7W B H W Y 7 T O W O O D D A L E AV E S E R V IC E D R H IG H WA Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVESBRUNSWICKAVESBRUNSWICKAVES
6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
3031 3024
5624
3030 30253030 3021303130343031
3100 31003101
3045
5551
3046 3039
3042
3034
555530413033
3019
3005
58155825
3008
3015
5622
301830213024
5600
3019
3021
5707
3000
2949
3000
2948
2944
3020
5801
3004
3009
63126404
2938 2939
3024
5917
2948 2949 2934
2944 2945
3037 3035 30363034 3035 3025
3000
6019
3001
5524
3000
5530
30016317
2954 2953
2955
30006325
5500
2953
6004
60126100
6104
2961
5600
2945
5912
2943
6020
2949
6200
2952
3020 3018
3020 3014
2940
5612
5908
2942
6000
6108611261166212
3013
3015 3011
3011 30063012
3005
5703
3021
3012
3028
3030
3031303030313038
3016 30113011 56435647
3024
30253027
2934
2945
294429412940
2944 2941
2930
29412940
2936 2937
2940 2941
2941
2936 29242937
3010
3007
2936
2936 2925
3005
29312930
2936
5621
3025
30243025
6405
57082967
29482948
2944
2960
5904
2944
5920
2955
60086220
301530153016
2935
292429342937 2929 2925
2945 2936
2943
3007 3010 5639
6119 2945
2940
2937
2937 2924
2930
2932
6320
334433443355
5600
33443354
33413340
33373337
33363332 3332
3328 33313328
3336
3333 3337
3329
33453345
3344 3340
3341 33413341 33363334
3350
3333
33323345
33283329
621233333325 3324 3324332733243329
3321 3320
3317331633173316
5580
3344 334533453345
334033413340
3342
3351
3334
3333
33283339
3325
330833123308330932523316
330433043308
3317
33256037
332033263320
6031
3322
3317
3313
3316 3320
3320 3321
6025
331333126126
3311
3308
6013
3305
6019
3317
3308
33043305
33003304
3272
3309 6007
33013301330063116325
3309
3260
3236 3275
3304 3274
3300
3244 33013300
3240 3272
3267
3268
3300
3278
3259 3267
3353 3324
3263
3268
3259 3264
3255
3254
32483256
6320
3256
3251
6300
3255
63126324
3263
3308
3266
3257 32633261
32523232
3245
3240
3243 3236
32323237
5925
32443224324832443250 3250
32363220
32433243
32323236
3251
3253 326563046310
3264
3240 32493247 3257
3324
3321
33163317
33123312331233136120
3309 3280 330532483313
33003312
3301
3240
3216 3237 3244
3239
3230
3236
3212 32333232 3235324032363237
3233 3239
3232323132313231
32273224
3208 3229 3230
3245
3232 3231
3233
3228 322532223225
5823
32193220 3220 3221
321632133212
3235
3225
322132203221 3218
3217
5817
3217
3226 5831
3224 3224322532253225
3200 3219
3211
3219
3211
3152
3220
32083209 3207
32793267
3267
3266 3273
327432563260
3216
32163212 3213
3212
3205
3209 3206
5826
3148 3205
5737
32013200
3248
324432283249 3255
3247
3253
3241 3242
3248
324132453237
3200
3201
31603200
3200
3208
6319
3156
3207
3209
3144
5733
3201
3161
3200 3201
3153
5717
31413132
31453144 3147
3140
31523143
32283229
3230
3204
5827
3224
3223
32203224
3216 3217
3156 3213
57403144
3128
3141 3140
3140
3208
3213
3210
320432043205
5900
5820
3201
3157
5725
5814
3148
5808
3145
31413130
3129
3131 3127
3124
3134
3137
5726
3137
5732
3131
3135 5720
3112 3125
3118
5627
3131
3130 3133
3101
31293119
3117
5714
3113 3112
31213120
5623
31213104
3113
5709
3148313731363137
3124
3121
3140
5701
3116
3125 3127
3124
3114
3111
3051
3106
5700
3104
3101
5619
3109
3105
5601
3121
3130
3108
31053050
3119
3115
31103109 3107
3056 3105 3101
3110
56816017
5655566156655925
568556915708
6300
6005
5815
3470
6012 59126018630863126316
3410
3400
567156753457
3456
6010
3520
3530
3480
34513450
59156019
6425
6216
6228
3459
3456 6025
3426
3420
591259166012
3419
6200
34123413
60016005
6301
6000 5918592463006320
3463 3464 346334623460
3456
34505921
6015
3450
621163096317
3407
34303431
34256026
3425
3424 6018
3419 3416
6218
6418
59135917592162076215
3410
3418
59203425600062066214
34123413
3413
6401
3406 3409
3407
340034013401
5905
6329 3360
3369
6006
3361
600160053401
5725
6212
6024
6304
3468
58203379
3369
5906
3375
3397
3376
6210
336033693366
33573356
6
4
1
4
6013
3401
62216227
5704
33703368
3359
3348
59163365
3368
33643356
3356
5925
6009
3365
6216
3357
33526227
3352 3360
63133455
6525
3431
3424
3417
600662106224
3406
6422
6221
3355
33503349
3358 3349
3348
64163400
3400592560096201
572033723380
6220
5912
5922
3363
6012 3364 33656301
33603359
3353
3362
33523355
3348 3350
3349
6213
3354
3349
3524
5707
3548
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SORENSEN NEIGHBORHOOD
Legend
Not Recommened Sidewalks
Recommended Community Sidewalks
Recommended Neighborhood Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks- Community
Existing Sidewalks- Neighborhood
Removal of Existing Sidewalk Under Review
Recommended Community Trails
! ! ! ! ! !Existing Trails
Ü
SEE LAYOUT #3SEE LAYOUT #2SEE LAYOUT #1SEE LAYOUT #4SEE LAYOUT #5Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 78
!
!!!!
!
!
!!!!!
!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
")5
¬«100
VERNONAVE S
MIN
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D TOLEDO AVES28TH ST W
27TH ST W
29TH ST W
28TH ST W
27TH ST W
26TH ST W
UTICAAVES29TH ST W
28TH ST W
WEBSTERAVESSALEMAVESSBHWY100STOMINNETONKABLVDALLEY2921
2913
2917
2916
2828
2829
2830 2829
2910
2712
5622 5600
2939
5524
5530
2953
5500
5600
2945
2943
2940
5612
5703
2934
2941
2924
2925
2931
5621
2948
2944
2925
2908
29122913
2936
5639
2905
2900
2900
2909
2901
2847
28402840
2846
2841
2845
2930
2920
2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
2816
2814
2824
28212820
2821
2820
2834
2817
2812
2807
2808
2808 2809
2804
2824
2825
2817
2813
2801
2813
2805
2616
261326122613
2800
2804
2644
2640
2643
2729 2729
2644
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
2725
2712
2721
27052705
2636
2641
2724
2725
2721
2717
2713
2704
2657
2650
2657
2645
2633
2656
2633
26532653
2648
26362637
2800
2624
2632
26212625
2616
26282625
262026202621
2617
2656
2801
2652
26482649
2749
2757 2756
2757
2748
2632
2629
2628
2629
2624
2744
2611
2747
2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
2709
2708
2701
2617
2737
2733
2708
2700
2709
2700
2610
2609
26042605
2608
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740
2736
2732
2701
2737 2704
2701
2701273227002733
2716
2717
26492648 2650
26432644
2709
2729
2724
2657
2648
2644
2708
2701 2634
27052738
2728
2720
2631 2630
2628
2624
2624
2620 262126202651
2632
2655
26222622
2647
2614
2713
26382637
2616 2617
2614
2641
2600
2600
2610
2607
2617
2612
2609
2608
260026012600
2704 2704
27002700
2725
2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
2636
2700
2635
2625
2625
2616
26132645
2643 26062608
2604
2601
2631
5225
2544
2937 2936
2934
2955
2925
2926
29402939
2930
29332933
2929
2924
2922
2910
2904
2930
29202919
2918
29152916
2937
2855
2851 5210
2847
5124
2843
2839
29212949
2917
2908
2900
29012900
2856
2909 2907
2925
2913
5116
2851
2901
2831
2829
28422842
2835
28342834
2829
2925
2916
2943
2816
2841
282428232822
2835
5117512352015207
2785 5200 5100
2747
2743
2772
2845
2808
2815
2831
51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
2904
2931
2900
2901
2919 2848
510052005132
2840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788
2751
2748
5100
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764
2725
51245224
2777
2745 2744
2728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
2742
2710
2750
2716
2709
2839
2832
2835
2824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
51055217
5112
2800
2750
5118
2744
2735
2738
2737
2765
2758
2749
2708 27082709
2017 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
Legend
Not Recommened Sidewalks
Recommended Community Sidewalks
Recommended Neighborhood Sidewalks
Existing Sidewalks- Community
Existing Sidewalks- Neighborhood
Recommended Community Trails
! ! ! ! ! !Existing Trails
Ü
SEE LAYOUT #6Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 79
")5
¬«7DAKOTAAVES VERNONAVESBLACKSTONEAVESYOSEMITEAVESZARTHANAVESWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
MIN
N
ET
O
N
KABLVD
XENWOODAVESW ALKERST33RD ST W
31ST ST W
35TH ST W
32ND ST W
33RD ST W
HAMILTON ST
34TH ST W
32ND ST W
DAKOTAAVESALABAMAAVESWEBSTERAVESBRUNSWICKAVESS E R V IC E D R H IG H W A Y 7COLORADOAVESBRUNSWICKAVES6222
6222
6222
6222
6222
3200
3031 3024
5624
3030 30253030 3021303130343031
3100 31003101
3045
5551
3046 3039
3042
3049
3034 55553041
3045
3033
3019
3025
3005
58155825
3008
3015
5622
301830213024
5600
30193021
5707
3000 3000
3020
5801
3004
3009
3024
5917
3037 30353041 30363034
3037
3035 3025
3000
6019
3001
5524
3000
5530
30016317
2954 2953
3000
6417 6325
5500
6012
5600
2943
6020
2952
3020
3021
3018
3020 3014
5612
301330153011
3017 3011 30063012
3005
5703
3021
3012
3029 3028
30303031303030313038
3016 30113011
564356473024
30253027
3010
3007
3005
5621
3025
30243025642564136405
570829675920
301530153016
3007 3010
56393250
330029556320
334433443355
5600
33443354
33413340
33373337
33363332 3332
3328 33313328
3336
3333 3337
3329
3345
3345 3344 3340
3341 33413341 333633343350
3333 33323345
33283329
621233333325 3324 3324332733243329
3321 3320
3317331633173316
3344 334533453345
334033413340
3342
3351
3334
3333 33283339
3325
33083312330833093252
3316
330433043308
3317
33256037
3320332633206031
3322 3317
3313
3316 3320
3320 3321
6025
33133312
61263311
3308
6013
3305
6019
3317 3308
33043305
33003304
3272
3309
6007
33013301330063116325
3309
3260
3237 3236 3275
3304 32743249
3300
3244 33013300
3240 327232673268
3300
3278
32593233 3267
3353 3324
3263
3268
3259 3264
3255
3254
32483256
63203256
3251
63003255
631263243263
3308
3266
3257 32633261
32523232
3245
3240322132433236
32323237
5925
32443225322432483244
3250 3250
32363220 32433243
323232173236
3251
3253 3265
63043229
6310
3264
3240 32493247 3257
3324
3321
33163317
33123312331233136120
3253 3309 3280 330532483313
33003312
3301
3240
3216 3237 32443239
3230 3236
3212 32333232 3235324032363237
3233 3239 3232323132313231
32273224
3208 3229 3230
3245
3232 3231
3205 3233
3228 322532223225
5823
32193220 3220 3221
321632133212
3235
3225
322132203221 3218
3217
5817
3217
3226
5
8
3
1
3224 3224322532253225
3201 3200 3219
3211
3219
3211
3152
3220
32083209 3207
3241
3279
3267
3266 3273
32743256
3260
3216
32163212 3213
32123153 320532093206
5826
3149 3148 3205
5737
32013200
3248
324432283249 3255
3247 3253
3241 3242 3248
324132453237
3213
3200
3201 31603200
3200
3208
63193141 3156
3207
3209
3145 3144 5
7
3
3
3201
31613200
3201
3137 3153
5717
31413132
31453144 3147
3140
315231433133
3209 32283229
3230
3204 58273224 3223
32203224
3216 3217
3157 3156 3213
57403144
3129 3128 3141 31403140
320832133210
320432043205
5900
5820
3201
3157
57255814
3148
5808
3145
31413130
3129
3131 31273124
3134
3137
57263137
3125
5732
3131
3135 5720
3112 3125 3118
3117
5627
3121 3131
3130 3133
3101
3129311931073117
5714
3113 3112
31213120 5623
312131013104
3113
5709
3148313731363137
3124
3121
3140
5701
3116
3125 3127
3113 3124
3114
3111
3051
3106
3057
5700
3104
3053 3101
5619
3109
3105
5601
3121
3130
3108
31053050
3119
3115
31103109 3107
3056 3105 3101
3110
60176300 6005 5815
3470
6012 59126018630863126316 34573456
6010
3520
3530
3480
34513450
59156019
6425
621662283459
3456 6025
3426
3420
591259166012
3419
62006500
34123413
600160056301
6000 5918592463006320
3463 3464 346334623460
3456
34505921
6015
34506211
63096317
3407
34303431
34256026
3425
3424 6018
3419
62186418 5913
5917592162076215
3410
3418
59203425600062066214 341234133413
6401
3406 34093407
340034013401
5905
6329 3360
3369
6006
3361
600160053401
5725
6212
602463043468
58203379
3369
59005906
337533973376
6210336033693366 33573356
641460133401
62216227
5704
33703368
3359 3348
59163365
3368
33643356
3356
5925
60093365
6216
33576227
3352 3360
63133455
6525
34313424
6520
3417
600662106224
3406
6422 62213355
335033493358 3349 3348
64163400
3400
5925
60096201
572033723380622059125922
3363
3364 33656301
33603359
33533362 335233553348 33503349
6213
3354
3349
3000
3524
5707
20
262621.5261,000
Feet±
Street Widths
Under 28 ft.
28 ft.
30 ft.
Parcels
2017 Pavement Management Area 4 (Sorensen Neighborhood)
Proposed Street Widths
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 80
¬«100
29TH ST W
27TH ST W
MINNETONKA BLVD
26TH ST W
27TH ST W
28TH ST W
29TH ST WTOLEDOAVES28TH ST W UTICAAVESSALEMAVESXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTERAVESVERNONAVESVERNONAVESRALEIGHAVESRALEIGHAVESALLEY2921
2913
2917
2916
2828
2829
2830 2829
2910
2712
2939
293455245530
2953
5500
5600
29452943
29522940
5612
5643
56472934
294129302924
2925
2931
5621
2948
294429442925
2908
291229122913
2936
5639
2905
2900
2900
2909
29042901
29002847
28402840
2846
2841
28402845
29242930
29202920 2918
2839
2835
2904
2848
28362833
2825
28322816
2814
2824
28212820282828212824 2820
28342836281728202812
2807
2808
2808 2809
2804
2824
2825
2817
2813
2801
2813
28052810 2616
261326122613
28002614
2816280426482644
2640
2643
2729 2729
2644
2724
2720
2728
27162716
2720
2717
27182725
27242712
2721
27052705
2636
2641
2724
2725
2721
2717
27132706 2704
2657
2650
2657
264526402633
2656
2633
26532653
2648
265426362637
2800
2624
2632
2621262526202616
26282625
2620262026212617
2656
280126562652
26482649
2749
27482757 2756
2757
2748
2632
2629
262826292630 2624
2744
2754274727422736 2737
2746
2736
2732
2741
2733
2709
2708
2701
2617
2737
27332712 2708
27002700
2709
2700
2756
2753
2745 2744
2740
2736
2732
27302701
2737 2704
2701
2701273227002733
2716
2717
26492648 2650
2643 26452644
2709
2729
2724
2657
2651
2648
26442708
2701 2634
2705 27052738
2701
2728
2720
2631 2630
2628
2624
2624
2620 262126202651
2632
26252655
26222622
2647
2614
2657
2713
26382637 2637
2616 2617
2614 2613
2607
2641
2600
2600
2610
2607
2619
2617
2612
2609
2608
260026012600
2704 2704
27002700
2725
2656 265626572656
2647
2712
26402645
26362700
2635
2631
2625
2625
2616
26132645
2643 26062608
2604
26012601
2631
5225
2544
2931293729362934
2925
2955
2925
2926
2939
293029332933
2929
2924
2922 2921
2909
2910
2904
2930
29202919
2918
29152916
2937
2855
2851 5210
2847
5124
2843
2839
2843
29212949
2917
2908
2905
2900
29012900
2856 50245032
2909 2907
2901
2925
2913
5116
2851
2901
2831
2835
2829
28422842
2835
28342834
2829
2925
2916
2943
2816
2841
282428232822
2821
2835
5117512352015207
2785 5200 5100
2747 5032
2743
2772
2845 2825
2808
2815
2831 51012801
2801
2780
2913
2908
2904
2931
2900
2901
2919 2848
510052005132
2840
2907
28182819
2804
27512788
2751
2748
27402773 2741
2768 2736
2764 2725
2725
2777
2745 2744
2737
27312728
2757 2727
2753
2722
2716 2719
2744
2769
2736
2731 2730
2724
2715 2724
2715
2745
2716
27132742
2710
2750
2716
2709
2839
2832
2835
2824
28302828
2823
2819
2816
503351055217
2800
2750
5118
2744
2743
2735
2738
2737
2765
2758
2719
2749
2708 27082709
500
Feet±
Street Widths
28 ft.
32 ft.
Parcels
2017 Pavement Management Area 4 (Birchwood Neighborhood)
Proposed Street Widths
Special Study Session Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: 2017 Pavement Management and Connect the Park Construction Project Update Page 81
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Donations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda:
From Amount For
Kauffman
Foundation $1382.02
Travel and conference registration expenses of Mayor Jake
Spano to attend the 2016 Mayor’s Conference on
Entrepreneurship that was held in St. Petersburg, FL on
November 30 – December 2, 2016
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. Becky Bakken, President of Discover St.
Louis Park, will be in attendance to provide an annual update on the activities of this destination
marketing organization
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of Discover St. Louis Park in keeping with the
expectations of the City Council?
SUMMARY: On December 20, 2010 the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a 3%
lodging tax that would serve as the primary source of revenue for a new St. Louis Park visitor’s
bureau now known as Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP). In February, 2011 an Operating
Agreement was entered into by the City and DSLP that delineated the working relationship
between the two entities. On March 1, 2011 the lodging tax went into effect.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Operating Agreement between the City
and DSLP requires that the City collect the lodging tax from the hotels and then remit 95% of the
proceeds to DSLP. The City retains the 5% for uses identified in a policy previously adopted by
the City Council. For 2017 this amount is expected to be in the $40 to $45,000 range.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: DSLP PowerPoint Presentation
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Discover St. Louis ParkEconomic Impact Report 2016St. Louis Park City CouncilCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 2
2A Destination Marketing Organization ‐DMO‐City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 3
A DMO is a non‐profit who’s function is to keep adding to the economic impact of the hospitality industry!MN Statute 469.190Local Lodging TaxSubd. 3.Disposition of proceedsNinety‐five percent of the gross proceeds from any tax imposed under subdivision 1 shall be used by the statutory or home rule charter city or town to fund a local convention or tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city or town as a tourist or convention center. 3City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 4
AgendaTourism/Economic Vitality ………………..…………………………………….. 5‐12Business Segments/Featured Marketing ….………………………………. 13Website Analytics ……………………………………………………………......... 14‐17Social Media Stats ………….........................………………………………. 18‐19Digital Marketing Efforts …………………………………………………………. 20Business Accounts …………………………………………………………………... 21Group Awareness……………………………………………………………………… 22Group/Leisure Economic Impact………….…………………………………... 23‐242016 Tradeshows……………………………………………………………………… 25Lodging Tax ………………….............……………………………………………… 262016 Accomplishments …………………………….....…………………………. 27Looking Ahead ………………………….....……………………………………...... 284City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 5
Why is Tourism Important?5Because Economic Vitality Follows!City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 6
Minnesota State Tourism Generates:$13 billion a year, or $35 million per day in tourism‐related economic impacts254,000 full and part‐time jobs or 11% of MN’s private sector employment$4.7 billion in salaries and wages –that are largely spent in the community$878 million, or 17% of all state sales tax revenuesMetro Area Tourism Generates:$8.7 billion a year $572.5 million in sales taxes160,839 full and part‐time jobsHennepin County Tourism Generates: 4.7 billion a year in $307 million in sales taxes77,491 full and part‐time jobs6City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 7
222317161750510152025St. Louis Park Tourism Generates:SLP Lodging Tax (3%): $859,758 City for Administrative Services (5%): $42,988DSLP Portion to Market & Promote the Community (95%): $816,770$859,758 in SLP lodging tax receipts (3%) =$28.8 million in lodging revenues (97%) =$99.6 million in visitor spending throughout the communityVisitor Dollars: 22% spent on lodging78% spent throughout the community7*Sources: Explore Minnesota Tourism, The Economic Expenditures by Travelers of Minnesota, Davidson‐Peterson Associates, MN Dept. of Revenue, MN Dept. of Employment and Economic DevelopmentCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 8
St. Louis Park’s five hotel properties collectively employed more than 375 people in 2016. Tourism generated $99.6 million in visitor spending throughout the community.Tourism supports existing companies while stimulating the development of new business. 8Tourism Means Economic Vitality for St. Louis Park23%22%17%17%16%5%Travel Spending by SectorFood & BeverageTransportationLodgingRecreationOtherRetailCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 9
What Happens When More Visitors Come to Town? Economic Vitality Follows!9City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 10
Businesses benefitRestaurants benefitAttractions benefitRecreation facilities benefitThe Community’s Image as a Good Place to Live, Good Place to Start a Career, Good Place to Start a Business, Good Place to Retire is greatly enhanced.That’s How Economic Vitality Follows Tourism.10When More Visitors Come to Town:City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 11
Economic Development Also Follows Tourism…Virtually every community has a parcel ready for redevelopment, or vacant land available for new development. Bringing more visitors to town increases the likelihood of stimulating this development.More Visitors = More Economic Vitality11City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 12
1212City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 13
Business SegmentsMeetings and EventsLeisureSMERF and SportsGroupLavender MagazineDigital Marketing DoubledSearch Engine MarketingTwins “Deep Cuts” Radio ShowMinnesota Meetings + EventsExplore Minnesota Travel GuideMPLS/St. Paul Official Visitors GuideSt. Louis Park MagazineMall of America Kiosk DistributionCTM Media –Highway 35 and Highway 94 plus airport distributionMinnesota Public RadioThe CurrentPartnership with Meet MinneapolisMeeting PagesVikings Yearbook132016 Featured MarketingCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 14
68%11%11%10%Website Traffic Sources26,841 Unique Visits from January-December 201652%25%23%Top Referral TrafficCity of St. Louis Park14Explore MinnesotaMinneapolis: AboutSearch Engine TrafficDirect TrafficDisplay TrafficEmail TrafficCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 15
28%27%27%10%8%Top Five Pages Looked at on Our SiteBusiness ListingsThings to doHotels15RestaurantsShopping•Information shown only represents the top five viewed pages on our website. •Stats do not include visits made to the home pageCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 16
0100020003000400050006000Minneapolis St. Louis Park Saint Paul Plymouth MinnetonkaWhere People Are Coming From Within MN0500100015002000Chicago Fargo New York City Sioux Falls San Francisco St. LouisWhere People Are Coming From Out‐of‐State16City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 17
54.15%45.85%GenderWebsite Audience Demographics0.00%5.00%10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%18‐24 25‐34 35‐44 55‐64 65+Age17MaleFemaleCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 18
010002000300040005000600070008000Facebook Twitter Instagram Mail Chimp201220132014201520166,9051,145Social Media Growth 2012‐2016185032,297City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 19
Where Our Facebook Audience Lives19MN Metro AreaGreater MNChicagoCanadaCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 20
•Over 1 Million geo‐targeted banner ad impressions, 250,000 premium pre‐roll video impressions were served•We saw noticeable increases in web traffic from Sioux Falls, Fargo and Greater Minnesota, which aligned with our 2016 objectives•Our organic search traffic remained 90% from new visitorsDigital Marketing 2016: A Recap20City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 21
211962449710756Active Business AccountsSMERFGroup TourTotal Accounts Generated: 2016 = 7002015 = 5732014 = 451AssociationMeeting and EventsSportsCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 22
Group Economic Impact146 Groups Leads Sent 94 Groups Definite5,367Total room nights picked up14,667Total potential room nights requestedActual Hotel Pick‐Up Revenue: 5,367 x 100 = $536,700Overnight Groups 5,367 x $145 per day x 1.5 days = $1,167,733Day Groups 2,075 x $70 per day = $145,250Overnight & Day Combined = 1,312,983Potential Groups: 14,666 x $245 x 1.5 days = $5,389,755*Includes all Definite & Potential Groups* Sources: Explore Minnesota Tourism, The Economic Impact of Expenditures by Travelers on Minnesota, Davidson‐Peterson Associates; MN Dept. of Revenue, MN Dept. of Employment & Economic Development, Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Travel Association.22City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 23
Leisure Awareness/Economic Impact 13,113 Total Leisure Leads Year‐to‐DateIncludes visitor guides distributed via email, mail and throughout the community (estimated through February 2016)1,311 (10% of total) x *$108 x 3 Total = $424,764*Blended Rate of day tripper vs. overnight visitor*Sources: Explore Minnesota Tourism, The Economic Impact of Expenditures by Travelers on Minnesota, Davidson‐Peterson Associates; MN Dept. of Revenue, MN Dept. of Employment & Economic Development, Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Travel Association.23City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 24
Actual and Potential Awareness Generated$3,260,559$1,312,983$424,764$536,700Potential EI = $5,389,755Actual EI = $2,129,196Actual and Potential Awareness GeneratedPotential GroupsGroup Actual Pick‐UpLeisure24Actual Hotel RevenueCity Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 25
CMCAConnect FaithDuluth Women’s ExpoRochester Women’s ExpoSports Relationship ConferenceTEAMS ConferenceUS Sports CongressNASCConnect SportsAssociations North ExpoConnect AssociationAssociations North Leadership ConferenceAmerican Bus AssociationWinnipeg Sales MissionSMERFSocial, Military, Educational, Religious, FraternalSports Association Group Tour2016 Tradeshows25City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 26
SLP Lodging Tax Summary692,482.56746,248.68$805,421.06 $828,222.62$860,435.54$0.00$100,000.00$200,000.00$300,000.00$400,000.00$500,000.00$600,000.00$700,000.00$800,000.00$900,000.00$1,000,000.002012 2013 2014 2015 2016YOY Growth26+53,766.12 +59,172.38 +22,801.56 +32,212.92 City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 27
2016 AccomplishmentsGolden Valley AgreementMeet Minneapolis Integrated Marketing ProgramTargeted Sales Efforts/One‐on‐One Relationship Building Enhanced & Consistent Touchpoints with our HotelsYear‐Over‐Year Revenue Growth27City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 28
Looking AheadReady –Fire –Aim Identify Market Specific Sales StrategiesLaunch a new Creative StrategyRoll out a new WebsiteUtilize the ROC and the SLP West End Festival Sitein DSLP Sales EffortsSuper Bowl Participation/Preparation (Feb. 4, 2018)Foster Meet Minneapolis Partnership Implement Golden Valley into DSLP Efforts28City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 29
Discover St. Louis Park’s mission is to strengthen the awareness of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley as a prime meeting and visitor destination, stimulate economic development and support community growth. City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 30
Bill Gordon, Retired – Citizens Independent Bank (Treasurer)Tom Harmening, City Manager – City of St. Louis ParkShannon Henry, Senior Partner – Shannon Thomas CompaniesMike Kottke, Director of Sales & Marketing – DoubleTree by HiltonMichael Landstad, Senior Property Manager (West End) –Mid America GroupBill MacMillan –Fire Commissioner Dan Maurer, Director of Sales – Marriott WestDoug McIntyre, Senior Attorney –Foley & Mansfield (Past Chair)Deb McMillan, Director of Government Affairs –TwinWest Chamber of CommerceJohn Smith, President – Smith Architects (Chair)Jake Spano, Mayor – City of St. Louis ParkSean Twedt, General Manager – Homewood Suites by HiltonPhil Weber, Owner –Park Tavern*Tim Cruikshank, City Manager – City of Golden Valley (Golden Valley Representative)2017 Board of Directors30City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 31
Questions?City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 2b) Title: Annual Update – Discover St. Louis ParkPage 32
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Minutes: 3a
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 28, 2016
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Principal
Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Chief Information
Officer (Mr. Pires), Sr. Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Fire Chief (Mr. Koering),
Deputy Fire Chief (Mr. Wolff), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Pappas).
Guest: Cindy Nagel, KOMA.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 5 & 12, 2016
Councilmember Miller asked for an update on Water Treatment Plan #4, in conjunction with the
Reilly Superfund Site update on December 12.
Councilmember Sanger asked to look at the city’s smoking ordinance as it relates to teens, flavored
cigarettes, and what convenience stores are selling. She also asked to review and consider what
other cities around St. Louis Park are adopting related to this.
2. Remodeling City Council Chambers
Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Nagel (Krech, O’Brien, Mueller and Associates - KOMA) presented the
updated plans for the city Council Chambers. They discussed reorientation of the room and
reviewed detailed drawings in order to complete the requested cost analysis. Mr. Hoffman
presented a detailed breakdown of the proposed costs totaling $620,000.
Mr. Hoffman stated the Council Chambers is public space, used by outside groups in addition to
the council. He added that the room is currently used about 15 hours per week by the public.
Ms. Nagel described some of the design elements, noting reorientation of the room; replacing the
common wall from the lobby with openable sliding glass; constructing a new dais on the south
side of the room; adding a new acoustic ceiling with integrated LED lighting and recessed lighting;
redistributing lighting; possibly installing a sink/food prep area in the storage room; and adding
new wood doors and trim. She also noted the opportunity to enlarge the west-facing exterior
windows for a better view from the room. She stated that enlarging the openings and installing two
large windows with darkening glass is an extensive project, and costs are estimated at
approximately $250,000. She noted another alternative would be to replace the existing ten
windows with new frames and variable darkening thermo-pane glass to avoid using blinds for a
cost of less than $50,000.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
Mr. Hoffman also discussed the security measures that were incorporated into the bid, including
panic switches, cameras and ballistic materials to be used in the dais.
Ms. Nagel asked the council about how to maintain the Wall of Mayors and the stained glass at
the front of the current chambers.
Mr. Pires stated he had visited a few other city’s chambers and noted that in some cases, they used
iPads and monitors in the dais. He asked if the council was interested in including this feature into
the project. He added that monitors would be wall mounted and also hang from the ceiling, with a
clear view for both council and meeting participants. Ms. Nagel also noted the monitors would
present on both sides of the screen. The podium would be moveable and be flexible.
Councilmember Miller stated he is in favor of changing the orientation of the chambers and agreed
with adding the ballistic materials to the dais. He added he thinks changing out the windows is
worthwhile to do now, also.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the number of people who currently attend meetings and if
more seating is actually needed.
Mayor Spano noted that it would be best to build the room to allow for maximum capacity for
meetings, especially when sometimes there is standing room only available. He agreed with
reorienting the room. He asked that the room be easier to move around in, without long rows of
chairs, to allow people to more easily approach the podium. He added he likes the idea of using
frosted glass on the moveable glass wall and is in favor of bulletproofing the dais and adding an
exit door in the AV room in order to allow for quick exit out of the chambers, if needed.
Ms. Nagel stated they did look at adding doors off the AV room; however, because of height issues,
a ramp would need to be added.
Mayor Spano noted the current windows are small and do not allow enough light into the room,
stating it would be helpful to open up the windows to bring more light into the space.
Councilmember Sanger stated she does not want to spend a lot to bulletproof the whole AV room,
but noted a safe room might be a good alternative. She added she does not think a food prep area
is needed and is too costly. She would like to find a way to keep the stained glass and incorporate
it into the new room. Councilmember Sanger noted that while it is dark in the room with the small
windows, she is not certain she wants to spend the money to change out the windows. She added
the glare from the lights is outrageous and asked if a dimmer or diffuser can be added so the
lighting is more indirect.
Councilmember Brausen stated he has two ideas on this project. He noted that a multimillion dollar
project on the Council Chambers will be scrutinized, so he would prefer not to raise costs too high.
He would love to open up the window area to the gardens, and asked also if a door could be added
to access the outside. He added the city cannot protect against everything, and spending thousands
of dollars to create a safe room does not make sense to him. He stated he would like to make sure
the new Council Chambers complies with green building practices and the Climate Action Plan
and also receives cost-savings on environmental and energy aspects. Councilmember Brausen
stated the city needs to lead on this and be as innovative as they can be as it relates to energy
savings.
Councilmember Sanger added she likes the Wall of Mayors and would like it to remain.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
Councilmember Lindberg agreed with the room reorientation and the glass moveable wall to allow
for interaction with those in the lobby. He agreed with opening the windows, and if that decision
is made, he would like it to be done right with much thought going into better indoor lighting. He
stated he is not interested in a safe room, saying it sends the wrong message. The costs would need
to be weighed if considering additional doors in the back for quick escape.
Councilmember Hallfin stated the city has one shot to do this right. He stated that after reading
through the report and considering the prices, he would like this to be the most modern and up-to-
date council facility that the city can afford. He noted this is being done for future councils, and it
has been 30 years since the room was redone. He added it is better to spend the money now vs.
later, as it may be another 50-60 years before the room is remodeled again.
Councilmember Hallfin added the bulletproof dais is fine, but the doors to get out may not be
practical and could be used as doors to get into the chambers. He stated it would be best to do the
windows now, and he likes the glass design. He added he is fine with the sink and counter space,
adding it could then be used for other meetings and for staff to utilize the room, as well.
Councilmember Brausen asked if the space could be split for possible use by two groups at the
same time. Mr. Pires stated this is a good idea, but added that it’s important to remember that the
council chambers is a symbolic space for council use.
Councilmember Brausen stated he likes the Council Chambers to be wide open into the lobby as
it sends a message that this is an open and transparent government. Councilmember Lindberg
agreed.
Mayor Spano stated he likes the idea of the open space; however, he noted that hallway
conversations can sometimes become too loud, so that issue will need to be dealt with.
It is the consensus of the council that they favor reorientation of the room and updating the
windows. They are uncertain on the kitchen/amenities; however, a small sink might be fine.
Additionally, the council is in favor of keeping the Wall of Mayors and the stained glass. They
also prefer a bulletproof dais and fixed glass wall between the chambers and the lobby. The council
noted they are in favor of iPads at the dais and monitors with viewing on both sides.
Mr. Hoffman added that staff will look further into the idea of a safe room to escape to and will
report back to council on that item. Additionally, the dais will be designed to be lower and closer
to the audience.
Mayor Spano added it would be helpful to spend more time learning about emerging technologies
prior to construction of the new room. Mr. Pires stated he will report back on this item. Mayor
Spano stated the carpet in the chambers is a tan color and the step is a tan color currently, as well.
He is hoping when the new carpet is installed, there will be a color of high contrast on the step, so
folks who may be visually impaired will be able to see it clearly and not trip on the step.
Mr. Hoffman stated staff will begin working on this and come back for more input. He noted that
the project would most likely begin in June, 2017, and take approximately 3 months to complete.
In the meantime, the Community Room would be used for meetings.
3. SWLRT – Agreements for City Contributions for Local and Project Work
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
Ms. McMonigal presented the list of capital improvements to be included in the SWLRT project.
The city previously approved agreements for design costs for these items. With construction
beginning next year, the city was asked to commit to funding construction of these improvements.
The overall cost for the items noted in the report is estimated to be $6,267,525. This amount would
be paid in increments from 2017 to 2020. Sources for the funds are a combination of bonding, tax
increment financing and levy.
Mr. Sullivan explained the enhancements and features at each station. The Louisiana trail
connection to Brunswick Avenue will be designed at street grade with a trail underpass created.
There will be upgrades to the bridge railing, with enhancements and a fence at both sides of the
regional trail
Councilmember Sanger stated she did not realize there would be noise walls along this trail. Mr.
Sullivan stated there will be noise walls due to the proximity to neighborhoods to the south from
the trail. Ms. McMonigal added that the wall will not be visible to anyone in the Elmwood
Neighborhood, as it will be located between the bike and freight trails. She noted that a
neighborhood meeting about the wall was held last spring.
Councilmember Lindberg asked staff to explain this trail and if there are any safety concerns. Mr.
Sullivan stated there will be less ability to go north and south to neighborhoods after construction.
He added that the design should provide ways to safely get folks to the crossing stations in the
corridors and to safely utilize the right-of-way with the underpass. He added that staff is working
on enhancing access all over the system.
Councilmember Hallfin asked about access to Wooddale to get onto the trail, noting it seems like
too much money to create this access. Councilmember Miller agreed, noting to go east without
this trail would be difficult. Councilmember Lindberg agreed also, noting it is a significant amount
of money.
Mayor Spano noted that neighborhoods such as his would be cut off, and it will be a challenge to
access the trail from the Brooklawn Neighborhood. He added it seems like quite a lot of money to
do this.
Mr. Harmening asked if this was not built now, could space be reserved to build it later. Mr.
Sullivan explained that the space would remain and the only difference between doing it now and
later is related to infrastructure. He added it could be built later with some modifications in the
retaining wall; however, it might be costlier later. He added it could be re-evaluated in the future.
Councilmember Hallfin asked about funding partners for this portion.
Councilmember Mavity arrived at 7:55 p.m.
It was the consensus of the council to not continue with agreement #2 related to the Louisiana
Beltline Trail as it is too costly.
Councilmember Brausen asked about the stairs to the Wooddale Trail underpass and if the steps
will be iron grate so the snow goes doesn’t accumulate. He also asked who maintains the steps
during the winter. Mr. Sullivan stated the steps will be concrete, and staff is discussing who will
maintain them. He added they might possibly be chained off in winter; however, they are hoping
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
there is a demand to leave them open. He added they have also discussed covering the steps with
a canopy.
Councilmember Brausen asked why steps are needed and if folks can walk on the ramps. Mr.
Sullivan stated this has been discussed; however, there have been challenges with the grade.
Councilmember Sanger stated if only 1 or 2 people use it, the cost is outrageous for the stairs.
Ms. McMonigal stated staff feels they will be able to keep it open all winter as it will allow people
to get under Wooddale and to the station quickly.
Councilmember Brausen commented that the city is building a system. Councilmember Lindberg
agreed.
Councilmember Mavity added that the stairs provide access to Wooddale from the trail, noting
that no one coming from the north uses the stairs. She stated she wants to see how this is modeled
in order to understand usage. She added she is in favor of the stairs. Ms. McMonigal stated the
stairs would give access to the regional trail and help reduce the number of folks crossing
Wooddale.
The council agreed to keep the stairs in the project at the Wooddale Trail underpass.
Councilmember Mavity asked about the width of the Beltline Trail Bridge, noting over time she
hopes to see more lanes here for bike traffic, with more commuter bikes, as well as pedestrians.
Mr. Sullivan stated most walking bridges are 10-12 feet, but this one would be wider, in order to
allow for smaller emergency vehicles and snow plows/maintenance vehicles.
Councilmember Sanger asked how folks will go from the north over the bridge. Mr. Sullivan
explained that the bridge will tie into the trail at the same location it does today, adding that the
ramp will be about 400-600 feet and go west to go east. Councilmember Sanger noted people
might not do that and instead might go down to Ottawa Avenue. She added she is concerned about
this intersection and how this can be eased. Mr. Sullivan added the only opportunity is to add stairs
on both sides at a cost of $126,000.
Councilmember Sanger stated the city has applied for a grant for Beltline improvements, and she
hopes the grant is awarded to St. Louis Park. She asked if the grant is received, to what extent that
will influence these costs.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the grant would fund enhancements to what was already being built. It
would create a trail from the old Fed Ex building to Citizens Bank on 36th Street and then east to
Lynn Avenue on CSAH #25. He noted this project is to enhance that area, and the grant would not
be for the items being discussed this evening. He added that the grant is for the creation of
periphery trails and sidewalks and to ensure that these projects would not be delayed in case the
light rail project did not get approved.
Mayor Spano noted small lifts for hauling bikes up and down stairs could be incorporated into the
project. Mr. Sullivan stated these lifts will be integrated in the stairs.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
Councilmember Brausen stated he favors all of these projects, with the exception of the one that
was removed earlier. He noted that just over 2 years ago, the cost was $200 million. Staff has done
a great job of getting a wonderful return on investment for a cost of $7 million.
Councilmember Mavity stated that as staff and council look toward the park and ride on CSAH
25, she would like to ensure the city incorporates smart urban visioning, including retail on the
first floor and not only cars and a wall of parking.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the status of the park and ride agreement. Mr. Locke stated
that staff is working with Met Council on it and will have a “letter of intent” for the city council
to consider at upcoming meetings.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the city can do an RFP for this project. Mr. Locke stated yes, this
is the plan. It will be most likely distributed early next year, and a developer would be identified
at that time. The developer would partner with the city to provide the parking ramp. He added that
a more detailed agreement would be worked out, all fitting into the timeframe for SWLRT and the
city’s requirements.
Mayor Spano stated the council is on board with the 5 projects discussed. Ms. McMonigal noted
staff will schedule time to come back with further information at a future study session.
4. PulsePoint Respond Smart Phone App
Chief Koering and Deputy Chief Wolff reported.
Chief Koering stated that earlier this year, they had attended a conference that discussed how to
do a better job of integrating police and fire. The concept of PulsePoint Respond was presented. It
is a smart phone app that creates a pre-arrival solution designed to support public safety agencies
working to improve cardiac arrest survival rates through improved bystander performance and
active citizenship.
Chief Koering added that the application empowers everyday citizens to provide life-saving
assistance to victims of sudden cardiac arrest. Application users, who are trained in CPR and are
willing to assist in case of emergency, can now be notified if someone nearby is having a cardiac
emergency and may require CPR. If the cardiac emergency is in a public place, the location aware
application will alert trained citizens in the vicinity of the need for bystander CPR. Additionally,
there is simultaneous dispatch of advanced medical care, and the citizens are directed to the nearest
location of the closest public accessible Automated External Defibrillator (AED).
Chief Koering noted that the annual cost is expected to be less than $10,000 per year. Initial
implementation and programming could be covered by a portion of the Trainer Estate funds which
were donated and earmarked for the Fire Department in 2018.
Deputy Chief Wolff stated that if approved, St. Louis Park would be the first city in Minnesota to
implement this application. He noted that in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, this application has been
in use for 4 years, and over 75% of the CPR events in public places have bystander CPR underway
when EMS/FIRE arrives. He added that the alert is similar to an Amber Alert on a smart phone.
People registered for the app, who are within a quarter of a mile of a public event, will be alerted.
The alert shows on the smart phone, along with a map and the location of the AED.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
Mayor Spano noted the $10,000 per year cost and asked if there is a down side. Deputy Wolff
stated it really is a win-win for citizens and for the city, noting in St. Louis Park there are many
healthcare workers.
Mayor Spano noted there is opportunity to certify more folks in CPR and utilize more AED’s.
Councilmember Sanger stated the city should do this and couple it with more CPR training, starting
with councilmembers.
Councilmember Mavity asked if this is something the city should also discuss with Hennepin
County to see if they help deploy this throughout the area. Chief Koering stated the use of this app
is something the community needs to own.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is in favor of it and noted the Good Samaritan laws will cover
citizen involvement, so there would be no legal issues.
Councilmember Miller noted there are many incidents that happen in private residences and asked
if the application can be used in these situations. Chief Koering stated there are legal issues, so this
application may only be used in public areas.
It was the consensus of the City Council to move forward with this proposal.
5. Possible Resolution for Council Adoption – Standing with All Members of the St.
Louis Park Community
Councilmember Mavity indicated she had drafted some language based on the Minneapolis
ordinance and distributed it to the council. She asked if this is something St. Louis Park wants to
address and make a statement as a city, in light of the political climate which is making people feel
more fearful. Councilmember Mavity noted this is a proposal. If, when and how the council decides
to do this, she thinks it is important to make a public statement, but not about being a sanctuary
city. She added that the city would leave it to the federal government to enforce the policies of
homeland security.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to adopt a resolution; however, she feels the
statement should be more general. She also suggested the council review and update the preamble
to the city charter with the intention of adding more language regarding immigration status. The
updates could be added when the revisions related to elections are incorporated.
Mayor Spano stated he would like to see more language directly from the preamble, as well, and
see this written as succinctly as possible, without getting into specifics.
Mr. Harmening stated staff will need to make sure that what council wants from a policy
perspective is consistent with what the Police Department currently does. He added that the city’s
Police Department does not proactively search out undocumented persons.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he is not in favor of doing this whatsoever, noting the council is
crossing a line into the political arena – something the council is not elected to do. He stated he
approves of how the Police Department handles these types of situations, and he would like to
know more about that. He noted this bothers him and feels this is a reaction to the recent election.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
Councilmember Brausen stated he wants more clarity. The “who we love” statement is confusing
in the draft. He stated he can be supportive of making a statement, but it seems to be stating the
obvious, because of St. Louis Park’s ongoing values and the values of the majority of the council’s
constituents.
Councilmember Hallfin asked why the city needs to reiterate it. Councilmember Brausen stated
because it is about how intrusive government will be in people’s lives if rules are handed down
from the Federal Government.
Councilmember Miller stated there seems to be a bit of a “partisan twist” to this, and it bothers
him. He would like to go back to the charter and simply say St. Louis Park has always stood with
the charter. He added that he would like to review the practices of the city’s Police Department.
Mr. Harmening stated there are a myriad of scenarios where the Police Department may have
contact with undocumented persons, and he would like to have representatives from the Police
Department attend a meeting to discuss this with the council.
Councilmember Mavity stated that according to statistics, being poor usually means you have a
criminal record. Her concern is with those who have a record of misdemeanors and how this would
be handled.
Councilmember Mavity stated she wants to be sure the bar is set high before the city starts
upsetting families, and she added she is not certain that the bar is set high enough at this point. She
added this is not about her candidate losing the election, noting it is about statements from federal
policy makers who want to ban Muslims and set up a registry, and detainment camps, and use a
deportation force. She stated this policy would be in direct response to federal policies, adding the
council needs to draw a line at the beginning and do this now.
Councilmember Lindberg stated that in terms of representing and reflecting the community,
making a statement and reaffirming our commitment is warranted. He added he wants to be
cautious that this is not a partisan reaction and noted that word choices matter. He stated reviewing
the charter is a good suggestion to start with, but he is a bit concerned about sounding political
when this should be more about the need of everyone in our community to live a safe and happy
life.
Councilmember Lindberg said he does not agree with the language used by Minneapolis, stating
it “gets into the weeds,” and St. Louis Park does not need to make these statements. He added he
would like to know the specifics of how the Police Department does their work in affirming and
building the community, noting trust is of the essence here. He asked if the city is saying we will
not cooperate with DHS, and if so, he would like to know what that would actually look like.
Councilmember Sanger stated she has concerns apart from the decision on what the council’s
action will be, adding that she is currently getting questions from the public about St. Louis Park
becoming a sanctuary city. She stated the council may need a response for residents as to the city’s
current policies and practices, and she will leave this to staff to put together.
Mr. Harmening asked who the statement’s audience would be, and if this is adopted, is it for the
general community? Councilmember Mavity answered that this is for the general community;
however, the council will need to send policy direction to staff, so there are no surprises. She added
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 9
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
if council is saying it wants a lighter touch from the Police Department and how they engage with
INS, the community will need to know this.
Mayor Spano stated the council first needs to know what the Police Department is currently doing.
Then there should be a high-level discussion. He added he wants to be careful that the council sets
the goal, and staff implements it.
Councilmember Hallfin added he does not want the statement to discuss specifically the President
Elect. He added one person e-mailed him stating the council should not be doing this as this is not
where our community is. He added he wants to confirm the existing practice of the Police
Department.
Councilmember Mavity stated that on December 8, there is a gathering at a church to discuss this
issue. She added this group has been in contact with her, and this discussion may be filling a void
the city has not addressed.
Councilmember Miller stated when Obama was elected, people were scared guns would get taken
away. This is a similar issue, and it has the potential to appear partisan.
Councilmember Lindberg stated the city may face risks in losing federal funding for taking a stance
on this.
Mayor Spano stated we do not know the answer on this yet; however, it has been stated the new
administration would take away federal funding from sanctuary cities.
Councilmember Sanger stated she is also concerned about federal funding if St. Louis Park
becomes a sanctuary city.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would like to complete the resolution by the end of the year.
It was the consensus of the City Council to have staff bring back language for this document and
more information about the Police Department’s current base practices.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Mayor Spano reported on his conversation with Katherine Arnold, chair of the Human Rights
Commission (HRC). He noted the HRC and MAC were not happy with how the city council study
session went two weeks ago, and that the groups were frustrated. He added they had come to the
meeting with a different sense about what it was going to be about. They felt there was hostility in
the room, and the council was being unreasonable about what the HRC was saying. The HRC is
writing a letter to the council, expressing their desire for further discussion on the race equity work,
with clearer expectations.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the HRC and MAC felt the purpose of the meeting was. Mayor
Spano stated they felt it was to be more of a dialogue and wanted to have more input on the race
equity content.
Mayor Spano stated he is sensing there is a growing level of frustration on their part, and they are
concerned why they were not a part of the race equity initiative sooner. The HRC and MAC are
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 10
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
also wondering why this is only being done as an internal city staff initiative and not being done
in the community. He stated they would like to have a more substantive role in this process.
Mayor Spano stated the council needs alignment and a clearer process on interaction with all of
the city’s commissions. He added that the council needs to solidify their relationships and their
understanding of each commission. Also, the council needs to have its own house to be in order.
If the council can’t have good conversations with this group, we will have a problem.
Councilmember Brausen agreed and would like real clarity of the mission of the HRC. He added
the council needs annual meetings with all commissions and to inform the HRC what the city is
doing with race equity work.
Mayor Spano added he told the HRC the council wants to be open; however, he gets upset when
folks say the council is not doing enough, and not fast enough.
Councilmember Miller stated he strongly agrees and asked about having the HRC meet with a
smaller group of council representatives and HRC representatives instead of the full groups.
Councilmember Mavity stated currently the council meets with the commissions annually, and this
needs to continue. She added, however, she does not agree with a one-off meeting.
Councilmember Sanger agreed that meeting with the full HRC is preferred; however, the council
needs a pre-arranged purpose and an agenda for the meeting. She noted the meeting purpose must
be crystal clear, with discussion on how they can get involved in the race equity discussion.
Councilmember Mavity noted the HRC coffee and culture conversations are much aligned, and it
is time to discuss their annual plan and the council’s expectations.
Mayor Spano agreed, adding that the HRC and MAC wanted to tell the council what they felt
about the race equity effort and how they could make it better. He added the council will meet with
them, but it will need to be a constructive discussion, with agenda topics from the commission,
also.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he is happy to hear from all the commissions, either with their
chairperson in a large meeting with the full commission. But the commissions need to speak with
one voice and not many differing positions.
Councilmember Mavity pointed out when the council and staff started race equity work last year,
they were going to get their house in order before they did any public conversations. So the city
will have staff trained first, by end of this year, and then decide on the process going forward. She
stated now is the time to have the public conversation.
Councilmember Brausen agreed the conversation needs to continue with the full commission and
possibly with the trainer as facilitator.
Mayor Spano stated the discussion with the HRC and MAC can be a listening session or a back
and forth dialogue. After this, there will be more public conversations, and the commission can
help the council take the next step. He will then contact the chair and state the council is open to
meeting again with a set purpose.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 11
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 28, 2016
Councilmember Mavity asked if staff can write a summary about what has already been done
regarding race equity training and where we are going, so there is some context.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will prepare this summary and the steps to get our house in order
in preparation to reach out to the community. He added the HRC and MAC can play an important
role in this discussion, as the HRC is the council’s commission and are to advise and work for the
council. He stated they are also to be a resource to the council, noting this commission is very
motivated.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. October 2016 Monthly Financial Report
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 19, 2016
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Human Resources Coordinator (Ms. Timpone),
Communications & Marketing Manager (Ms. Larson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guest: None
Election Law
Councilmember Sanger requested looking into a law that a number of cities in Maryland follow
regarding ordinances for non-citizens voting in elections. Mayor Spano commented that this
practice would be against Minnesota law, which states that a person must be a U.S. citizen and 18
years old in order to vote in elections.
1. Employee Compensation Plan Update
Mr. Harmening explained that the current citywide pay strategy and philosophy for employee
compensation plan has been in place since 1997. Because it has been so many years since the job
evaluation system and pay philosophy has been approved, the city began a compensation study in
April, 2015. Staff now has recommendations for updates to the plan for a January 1, 2017, effective
date. Mr. Harmening continued that the new philosophy will be a significant shift and will be used
to continue to hire and retain good people.
Ms. Deno added that the city is required by the Minnesota Pay Equity Act to have a job evaluation
system in order to determine the comparable value of the work performed by each class of
employee.
Ms. Timpone gave an overview of the compensation history for non-union employees. She noted
there is a 15% spread, and it takes 4-5 years to reach the maximum range of pay, and there is a
split in philosophy where non-exempt positions are at the 50th percentile and exempt positions are
at the 75th percentile. Approximately 20% of St. Louis Park employees are exempt.
Mr. Harmening stated that the city expects high performance from its employees and most are non-
exempt. He added that staff hears from employees that the city pays at an average rate but expects
the best work. With this update, each job description was reviewed and recommendations are being
developed for a pay philosophy going forward. He added that data has been reviewed in detail
across all departments. Mr. Harmening noted the recommendation for all non-union employees
(exempt or non-exempt) is a new target pay set at the 85th percentile of market maximums and
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of December 19, 2016
taking longer to reach the maximum of the range. Ms. Deno added that union pay structures must
be negotiated with each bargaining group.
Ms. Deno also noted the new program would be implemented in 2017 for non-union employees
and paid retro to January 1, adding this is in the 2017 budget.
Councilmember Lindberg stated this is an excellent plan, and agreed that not using the FLSA
classification to split how compensation is viewed is best. He added he would also like to see a
performance mechanism built into the plan.
Councilmember Sanger stated that parts of this plan make sense but asked how the non-exempt
employees will move to the same percentage points as the exempt employees. Will that lead to
many employees getting raises? She further asked if that will also lead the city to a position where
non-exempt are earning more than exempt supervisors and if this could be a problem.
Ms. Deno stated this plan will continue, just like the current plan, with normal step adjustments.
She stated that if an employee is currently at the maximum of the range, they will not be moved to
the maximum of the range in the new plan, and they would continue with progression through the
range. Ms. Deno stated that the grades were developed so employees and supervisors are not in
the same pay grade. If a non-exempt employee is earning excessive amounts of overtime, a
supervisor would watch this and manage that employee’s overtime hours.
Councilmember Sanger stated she also has concerns about not paying employees based on their
performance and asked how staff can prove employees are being paid based on their performance.
She further commented it is the wrong message to have probation periods that end. Essentially
employees should always be on probation in order to encourage them to do their best and meet the
city’s expectations.
Councilmember Miller stated he likes the overall direction the plan is headed and that it will be
competitive with other cities. He asked if pay for jobs in other cities are comparable to those in St.
Louis Park. Ms. Deno stated that in the public sector, pay information is considered public and
staff is able to find out the actual salaries of comparable jobs.
Councilmember Miller asked what the average increase is for a non-exempt employee. Ms.
Timpone stated 4% is the average increase.
Councilmember Miller stated he would like to see how staff will build merit increases into the
process and asked if other cities have merit increases. Ms. Deno stated only a few cities have merit
increases, and unions typically do not prefer merit-based increases.
Ms. Timpone added staff does look at performance, and a director can make a recommendation
not to give an increase if there are unsatisfactory performance issues.
Mayor Spano added where he works at the state they have merit pay increases and an annual review
process, which is tied to compensation.
Councilmember Mavity stated she generally supports this. She asked if staff is looking at the
process through a race equity lens and how this might impact or change the process. She also asked
when the city has high performers if step adjustments are made in order to retain those employees.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of December 19, 2016
Ms. Deno stated council has given the authority to the city manager in the past to pay up to the
maximum to high performers, and that this concept is recommended to continue. She added with
regard to race equity, the ranges are a bit wider. Staff will be looking at job descriptions, and
different kinds of experience such as outreach, working with others and multi-language abilities
to incorporate into descriptions. She added looking at job descriptions through advancing race
equity is work that has started.
Councilmember Lindberg stated it is excellent to hear about planned work in race equity.
Councilmember Brausen stated that based on what he has heard tonight, he is supportive of this
process. It will attract and retain the quality employees the city wants.
Mayor Spano also noted he is supportive of this process where employees are held to a high
standard. He added he would like staff to integrate a review mechanism in the process in order to
check in and have a discussion with council on a more regular basis. Additionally, he added that
the merit-based component is acceptable, along with the system already in place for meeting job
performance.
Councilmember Sanger stated staff needs to streamline this process, noting she is nervous about
how the city will defend itself if an employee is fired and staff cannot determine if it is clearly
related to a performance issue. She stated the city will need to have a useful tool that is consistent
and understandable to the employee.
Mayor Spano noted it is the consensus of the council to move forward with this process, and to
also add the merit component. He added that with many employee retirements coming up soon,
staff will need to figure this piece out, as well.
Mr. Harmening stated staff can bring back the final base plan for approval, and the merit piece can
be approved at a later date.
Ms. Deno added with a merit program, it might be a one-time bonus but not guaranteed year to
year. She stated staff will bring back the program for council approval to implement January 1
and will work during 2017 to build the performance measures and look at an additional merit
component.
2. Review Draft of 2017 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Mr. Harmening stated staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues and priorities which
ultimately are intended to be reviewed on January 9 with Senator Ron Latz, Representative Cheryl
Youakim, Representative Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion Green, and
Metropolitan Council representative Gail Dorfman. In preparation for that meeting, staff is asking
for council feedback on the proposed list.
Mayor Spano stated the list mentions items about transportation funding and projects. The reality
is that in January the legislature make-up will be very different, so it is hard to imagine much of
this will be funded.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of December 19, 2016
Councilmember Mavity asked what the changes are in this year’s list versus last year’s list. Mr.
Harmening stated there are updates, with the additions of water treatment plan, police safety, and
tax increment financing.
Councilmember Mavity stated this list is good, but she would like only the city’s top 3-4 priorities
to be included. She would ask Mr. Harmening to advise what these top 3-4 items would be
operationally. She added that the language on housing has not yet been approved by the full
coalition and could change. She added it would also be helpful to say to whom the items will be
directed.
Councilmember Brausen stated he liked the priorities as laid out, adding he is more optimistic on
what will be funded, especially with the budget windfall.
Councilmember Sanger stated CSAH 25 and Minnetonka Boulevard should be taken off the list
as they are not legislative issues. However, Mayor Spano stated he would like to keep them on the
list in case funding does become available.
Councilmember Sanger stated she is not clear on the section discussing SWLRT. She added that
the portion on Xcel should also note negotiating completion dates and imposing fines if work is
not completed on time. She approves of the Elmwood tax increment and water treatment sections,
but added she would prefer not including TIF on the list as it sounds like it is authorizing the tear
down of buildings.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he was fine with the list; however, Water Treatment Plant #4 and
the bonding issue need to be first and foremost as the state should be helping St. Louis Park on
these issues. He added he would like to take the item regarding opposing the expansion of legal
fireworks off the list. Mayor Spano stated the fireworks item is a public safety issue that our Fire
Chief is concerned about. Mr. Harmening added the Fire Chief wants it on the list in case he needs
to testify on this topic.
Councilmember Lindberg asked why the other fire related issue is included as it relates to 4,500
square foot homes in St. Louis Park. He asked how this could be a public safety issue when that
size home is not being built in St. Louis Park. Mr. Harmening stated the Fire Chief is often asked
to testify on this issue. Mayor Spano added that taking this topic off the list might promote building
bigger houses in St. Louis Park, as it would be a cost reduction for builders. However,
Councilmember Lindberg stated this is not pertinent as a significant legislative priority.
Mayor Spano asked if there is a push on a transportation bill if everything else will be set aside or
if there will be a bonding bill and smaller projects. He noted this will determine priorities. Mayor
Spano also asked about the Dan Patch line and if that should be added to the list, as well.
Councilmember Mavity also noted items for further discussion include smoke-related fire pits;
initiatives supporting climate change and sustainability; and distracted driving as a public safety
issue. She noted these should be on the city’s radar, as well.
Councilmember Sanger noted liquor being sold in stores on Sunday should also be included. She
added she is concerned about including redevelopment, just for the sake of redevelopment.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is in favor of adding the TIF tool to the list, as well.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of December 19, 2016
Mayor Spano asked for staff to present an updated list at the January 3rd meeting. Mr. Harmening
stated he would bring the list back for review.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
3. Agreements for SWLRT Funding and Letter of Intent for Park & Ride Site
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 19, 2016
1. Call to Order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Deputy Police Chief (Mr.
DiLorenzo), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms.
Deno), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr.
Morrison), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal),
Communications Manager (Ms. Larson), Transportation Coordinator (Mr. Iverson), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Luse and DiLorenzo family members; Members of the St. Louis Park Police Department;
Nick Mason and Joe Olson, Bicycle Alliance of MN; and Julie Eddington, Kennedy and Graven.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Retirement Recognition Resolutions for Police Chief John Luse and Deputy
Chief Kirk DiLorenzo
Mayor Spano and the City Council recognized the retirements of Police Chief John Luse
and Deputy Police Chief Kirk DiLorenzo. Both were presented with plaques thanking
them for their years of service to the city of St. Louis Park, Chief Luse for 39 years and
Deputy Chief DiLorenzo for 35 years.
Mayor Spano stated that the city has been fortunate to have both men patrolling the streets,
and he thanked them both for their many years of service and dedication to the city. He
added his interactions with both men have always been kind, professional, and warm, and
stated both have created a culture of accountability and accessibility within the police force
in St. Louis Park.
Mr. Harmening commented on his experiences when he first met both Chief Luse and
Deputy Chief DiLorenzo and expressed how much he will miss them both. He stated he is
grateful for their friendship and leadership. He noted how Deputy Chief DiLorenzo has
always provided great advice, humor and a sharp wit. Chief Luse has provided steady,
incredible leadership and has taught Mr. Harmening much about life, principles, and
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
values. He added the Chief has had a huge and lasting impact on the community, and the
city will make sure Chief Luse’s legacy lives on.
Councilmember Sanger commented on Chief Luse’s professionalism, integrity and sense
of humor, noting how this has helped generate trust within the whole community. She
stated she will miss both the Chief and Deputy Chief and wished them both well in their
retirement.
Councilmember Brausen stated he had a private meeting with both men at a celebration the
evening before and noted how both said they will miss working in St. Louis Park, and also
how proud they both are of this city. He added they have had a significant impact on the
community, and he will miss them both.
Councilmember Lindberg added the men have 74 years of combined experience and
thanked them for their leadership and strong community-oriented policing. He also thanked
them both for their service and stated the city will have big shoes to fill.
Councilmember Mavity added that both men have worked at community policing, building
relationships and connecting the community, while threading those values throughout the
city. She stated she is proud to have worked with both over the years.
Mr. Bob Gustafson, President of the St. Louis Park Rotary, thanked both men for their
service over the years. He thanked Chief Luse for his passion and support of the Rotary
and for his sense of community, giving and sharing. He stated the Chief was always there
for the Rotary, and helped to bring in speakers and to raise funds. He added that today there
are fewer than 50 cases of polio in the world because of the work of the Rotary, and the
Chief was very much a part of this work.
Ms. Julia Ross thanked both men for their commitment to the city and also to the City of
Hopkins and for their help with race and equity programs.
Chief Luse thanked everyone for their comments and thanked his wife and family for their
support. He stated that he loves the City of St. Louis Park. He added he has been blessed
to work with a great City Manager and City Council, and he has enjoyed helping to make
St. Louis Park a better place. He stated anything can happen when folks work together and
trust is built within a community. He also thanked Deputy Chief DiLorenzo for his
friendship and support over the years.
Deputy Chief DiLorenzo commented that Chief Luse has always been easy to follow, and
this has been an incredible journey. He thanked his wife and family and stated it has been
an honor and privilege to serve the City of St. Louis Park.
2b. Bicycle Friendly Community Recognition
Ms. Heiser and Mr. Iverson explained the City of St. Louis Park was awarded designation
as a “Bicycle Friendly Community”. This bronze status award is a first-time recognition
for “being a connected and engaged community.”
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
Mr. Mason and Ms. Olson, Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, presented this award to the City
Council. Mr. Mason stated that only Richfield and Edina have received this award in the
Twin Cities suburbs, so St. Louis Park is in good company. He added that the award is
about movability, sustainability and health and is also a big distinction, in light of the city’s
“Connect the Park” initiative. He congratulated the council and presented a sign to the
Mayor. He stated that he sees a great sense of community in St. Louis Park, also noting the
city’s great leadership.
Councilmember Brausen thanked Mr. Mason for presenting the city with this award and
stated the city continues to have work to do. He added this award heightens the visibility
of the efforts the city is making, even though there may be opposition at times from
residents. He thanked the folks who have been supportive and encouraged those watching
to come forward and start supporting bicycling efforts. He added the city needs everyone’s
help in this effort.
Mayor Spano added the profile of this distinction is for cities that are just beginning this
journey, adding that the city has made a commitment to this effort. He thanked Mr. Mason
and the Bicycle Alliance for the award.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Special Study Session Minutes December 5, 2016
Councilmember Lindberg requested a correction on page 4, 3rd paragraph from bottom
regarding the Elmwood development, 2nd sentence to strike the comment “…should be
encouraged by the council….” and insert “…is affordable enough for senior housing.”
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve
the December 5, 2016 City Council Special Study Session Meeting Minutes as corrected.
The motion passed 7-0.
3b. City Council Minutes December 5, 2016
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the December 5, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 16-156 and Resolution No. 16-157 to recognize Police
Chief John Luse for 39 years of service, and Deputy Chief Kirk DiLorenzo for 35
years of service.
4b. Moved to 8g.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 16-158 supporting Lisa Peilen’s reappointment to the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC).
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 16-159 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$75,443.99 for Project 4015-1100 MSA Street Rehabilitation – Walker Street / 36th
Street with Park Construction Company, City Contract No. 46-15.
4e. Authorize execution of a professional services contract with Short Elliott
Hendrickson in the amount of $244,582 for Wooddale Bridge Improvements at
Highway 7.
4f. Remove Louisiana Station Area Trail from Local Project Construction with
SWLRT.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 16-160 authorizing execution of a one (1) year contract with
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. for consultant services related to the implementation
of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
during year 2017.
4h. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 5, 2016.
Mr. Harmening asked to add an additional agenda item as 8f under Resolutions,
Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items, related to an Update on Water Treatment Plant
#4.
Councilmember Sanger also requested that Consent Calendar item 4b be removed and
placed on the Regular Agenda as item 8g, for discussion.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to add item 8f
to the Regular Agenda, and to move Consent Calendar item 4b to the Regular Agenda as
item 8g; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Conditional Use Permit – Communication Tower, City of St. Louis Park.
Resolution No. 16-161.
Mr. Pan presented the staff report. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is requested to allow
a communication tower that is 70 feet in height. The tower is needed to mount an antenna
that will collect data from water meters that the city recently installed in homes located in
the northwest portion of the city. The city is having difficulty receiving signals from many
homes in this area, and the antenna will resolve the issue. A neighborhood meeting was
conducted on November 29, 2016, and two residents attended. Staff answered questions
and also received three written comments in response to notices mailed for the
neighborhood meeting. This information is summarized in the staff report. One neighbor
attended the public hearing with questions about radio signal interference and concluded,
based on information provided by staff, that it would not be a concern. The Planning
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
Commission conducted a public hearing on December 7, 2016, and recommends approval
of the CUP.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to adopt
Resolution No. 16-161, granting a Conditional Use Permit for a 70-foot tall
communication towner, subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. 2017 Budget, Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, and 2017-2026 Capital
Improvement Plan. Resolution No. 16-162, Resolution No. 16-163, Resolution
No. 16-164.
Mr. Simon presented the staff report. He stated that information pertaining to the adoption
of the 2017 Budgets, 2017 General Property Tax and HRA levies, and 2017-2026 CIP are
included in the report to the council. Information is also provided on the tax impacts to a
residential property, and a brief discussion regarding the 2017 utility rates that were
approved on October 17, 2016.
Mr. Simon thanked the council and staff for their long-range planning work. Mayor Spano
noted the long-range planning work is something the auditors have always approved of,
and it has also been helpful with bond ratings.
Councilmember Mavity added that as council does their planning throughout the budget
process, the preliminary levy is often set higher than where it is today. As noted, the levy
is lower than projected, and that is important to keep in mind each year. We are always
looking for ways to get the best value for St. Louis Park residents. She added this budget
reflects this in a very thoughtful and strategic way.
Councilmember Sanger noted the public hearing on this topic was held two weeks ago, and
only one resident spoke at that time. She asked if anyone could speak publically at this
time. Mayor Spano stated no as the public hearing had already been held, but residents
could call staff for more information.
Councilmember Brausen asked about storm water issues, specifically where the city has
committed $1.5 million toward the Bass Lake rehab project and other money towards
Walker Lake. Mr. Simon stated that these projects will come back to council next year for
final approval.
Councilmember Brausen thanked staff for all the work put into creating and shaping the
budget, as the city continues to try to balance the needs of an aging city infrastructure and
its residents with the limited revenue resources we have.
Councilmember Brausen added that no one wants to raise taxes, and we as a council wish
that less spending would be needed, with no revenue increases. This is sadly impossible as
our community's needs grow. So council tries its best in a professional and competent
matter to balance the needs and interests of our citizens and to continue to create an
environment that works for all. Prior to today, council has spent many hours discussing
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
this budget, at times eliminating or limiting spending and at other times increasing
spending where necessary.
Councilmember Brausen stated the budget that council is adopting (which is spelled out in
detail in our Agenda packet in the aptly titled 2017 Budget, Final City & HRA Property
Tax Levies and 2017-2026 Capital Improvements Program) includes a tax levy of $30.2
million, with necessary increases in utility fees. With this revenue and other sources, the
city will be spending more than $34 million on capital improvements and operational
spending, broken down with $6.8 million on governmental operations (a slight decrease
from last year); $16 million on public safety; and $10.6 million on operations and
recreation. This budget will include capital spending of over $9 million on road and street
projects; $2 million on parks (including recent facilities updates this year); $1 million on
public works and sewers; $2.1 million on storm water projects; more than $3 million on
water treatment systems; and $3 million for Connect the Park sidewalks, bikeways and
trails projects.
Councilmember Brausen affirmed that adopting the budget is the single most important
task he has as a council person because council is trusted with these taxing and spending
decisions. The expenditures in the budget represent the things council views as important
in our community and worthy of tax dollars. They are expenditures that we are all expected
to share for our common need and good. Councilmember Brausen continued by stating that
he views the adopted budget as responsible and sensible, designed to continue this city's
history of reinvesting in our infrastructure and our people.
Councilmember Brausen concluded by saying that some people may object to the spending
priorities encompassed in this budget. He invited those people to share their concerns with
him by email and also to participate in the upcoming city visioning process. Many of the
current budget expenditures reflect the goals and priorities expressed to the Vision
Committee, staff and council in 2005-2006. The city is now undertaking the visioning
process again. Public participation in that process by sharing thoughts and concerns will
shape how and why decisions are made in the future. He extended an invitation for people
to participate.
Mayor Spano added the population of St. Louis Park from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, went
from 7,000 people to 47,000 people, and this is a tremendous amount of infrastructure
added over the years. He added this infrastructure is getting to be 60-70 years old, and there
are many things that need replacement. These items are outlined in the documents on the
city website for all to review at www.stlouispark.org/finance/city/budget.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 16-162 approving the 2017 budgets and 2017 final property tax levy,
Resolution No. 16-163 authorizing the 2017 final HRA levy, and Resolution No. 16-164
approving the 2017-2026 capital improvement plan.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing. Resolution No. 16-165
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
Mr. Simon presented the staff report. He noted PLACE has made application to the city for
issuance of Private Activity Revenue Bonds. Approval of the preliminary resolution is
necessary for an application to be submitted to the state for allocation of bonding authority.
The preliminary resolution is the first step in the process and does not obligate the city to
issue the bonds. That decision will depend on the successful conclusion of several other
steps, including a public hearing and finalizing and approving the project plans, TIF
request, and redevelopment contract.
Councilmember Mavity stated this project has been ongoing for the past two years or more.
It will continue to be reviewed as it is a unique project relative to the SWLRT station. She
continued that through all the community meetings, issues have been raised. It is not the
same development proposal as it was in the beginning. It needs to be the right fit and
address all community concerns and questions. She added she is glad staff pointed out there
are still many steps in the project, and voting on these bonds does not finalize the project
at this point. She continued that if this vision moves forward, now is the time to act. There
will be time to have a public hearing later in order to hear more comments.
Councilmember Brausen asked if there is a maximum number of private activity bonds the
city can issue. Ms. Eddington stated there is no maximum; however, the state gives away
allocation for these bonds in a limited supply per year. She added that on January 3, 2017,
there will be many more asking for bonds than the amount that is available. PLACE will
submit their application, and after they receive their allocation, they will need to work on
their next steps.
Councilmember Miller stated he was initially opposed to this project and is concerned
about traffic congestion, but he is not concerned any longer after seeing all the changes the
developer has made. He continued that this project gives something back to the community,
noting the plans now include wooded spaces, a coffee shop, woneruf’s, public space,
live/work units, and affordable units, as well.
Councilmember Sanger noted she is not supporting the bonds and is not supporting the
project as it is too dense for the amount of space. She continued that with the density of
300 apartments and commercial units, traffic will be an issue. Also, this is right next to the
Wooddale Avenue Bridge, which already has so many traffic issues. Adding more traffic
at this location does not seem like a good move. She added that the bridge is in need of
improvements and will require more to handle the pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated
from the project.
Councilmember Sanger added that so far she has not seen the developer offer to contribute
any money for changes that need to be made to the bridge. Additionally, she noted that
60% of the units will be “affordable” for lower income tenants. She added when you have
that high of a concentration, management will not be able to raise rent very much, which
leads to concerns about long-term maintenance issues, as well. Councilmember Sanger
added that another project completed by this same developer in California showed there
were unattended maintenance issues at that project, which does not lead to confidence that
maintenance issues would be addressed at the St. Louis Park PLACE project. She stated
for these reasons she will not support this project and will not support the private activity
revenue bonds.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
Councilmember Mavity stated she was glad Councilmember Sanger brought up the
Wooddale Bridge, noting the original design of the bridge created unsafe conditions for
pedestrians and bikers. She continued that on the consent agenda the council approved
improvements to this bridge. With or without this development, the improvements to the
bridge have been absolutely needed and required. Additionally, she stated whether or not
the PLACE project moves forward, the Wooddale Bridge is a completely separate issue
and irrelevant to this project. She thanked residents for their work on the bridge
improvements, as well as the city engineer.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to adopt
Resolution No. 16-165, providing preliminary approval to the issuance of tax-exempt
obligations under Minnesota Statues, Chapters 462C and 474A, as amended, and taking
other actions in connection therewith.
The motion passed 6-1. (Sanger opposed.)
8d. Resolution Supporting and Standing with All Members of the St. Louis Park
Community. Resolution No. 16-166.
Mr. Harmening stated that after several weeks of discussion, council directed staff to
prepare a resolution that reinforces and clearly states the council’s support for all members
of the St. Louis Park community, no matter the color of their skin; their gender; the way
they worship; where they were born; their age; their disability; their status regarding public
assistance; their marital or familial status; their sexual orientation; or any other identity. He
added that tonight this resolution is being brought forward for approval.
Councilmember Mavity added we are universally proud of our community, and this
resolution is being brought up this evening in light of the public dialogue that seems to be
polarizing folks nationally. Also, we are seeing a rise in the number of folks in our
community who are feeling less safe or less welcome. She added there is no change in
policy that this resolution is proposing, but it is just to establish or affirm we are a
welcoming and safe community for all. She added that parts of this resolution pull from
our City Charter and preamble; from endorsed policies from our Human Rights
Commission; and from the practices of our police force.
Councilmember Mavity continued that the city’s policing model is based on trust between
the members of our community and our city. This resolution is also clarifying that it is in
our public safety interest that all victims of crimes feel safe to call 911 when they need
help. Likewise, if someone is a witness to a crime, they can feel safe to report it to the
police and be a witness. Additionally, Councilmember Mavity noted she recently attended
an Allies of St. Louis Park community meeting, where folks came together to stand up and
raise these issues. They spoke about how to present this city as a welcoming community
and to present welcoming and affirming values that are longstanding and will continue into
the future in St. Louis Park.
Mayor Spano read the resolution into the permanent public record. He stated this resolution
reaffirms what we already do as a community and noted he and the council want to remind
folks of this and want people to feel safe in the City of St. Louis Park.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 16-166, supporting and standing with all members of the St. Louis Park
Community.
The motion passed 7-0.
8e. Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee Appointments.
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report, noting that out of the 23 candidates who applied
for the steering committee, 9 are being appointed and confirmed today by the council.
Mayor Spano stated this committee will serve as a liaison between the community and the
council. Councilmember Lindberg stated he is excited for this work. Councilmember
Brausen added that the applicants were very qualified. He thanked the others who applied
and stated that the council asks them to please stay engaged in other ways in this process.
Councilmember Miller added he understands there are people in the community who might
not be heard, such as the underserved or those who might not speak English well, adding
that the council wants to be certain they hear from those folks. He continued that there are
60 some families in the city’s Perspectives Program and others who the city needs to hear
from, also. He looks forward to this process.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to appoint
the following people to the Vision St. Louis Park Steering Committee: Lynette Dumalag,
Matt Flory, Amaya Fokuo, Lisa Genis, Justin Grays, George Hagemann, Rachel Harris,
Curt Rahman and Julie Sweitzer.
The motion passed 7-0.
8f. Update on Water Treatment Plant #4.
Mr. Harmening updated the council on Water Treatment Plant #4. He explained the city
has been tracking vinyl chloride (VC) levels at the plant, along with the Minnesota
Department of Health. While VC levels are under EPA requirements, the MDH has its own
standards and expressed concerns to the city about that particular plant. Staff and council
have been discussing a long-term fix for the VC issue, and in between a short-term measure
has been implemented and has been showing progress in reducing VC. Mr. Harmening said
if that were the extent of the problems, he wouldn’t be talking about changing course.
Testing has been increased significantly from quarterly to every two weeks. About two
weeks ago testing detected TCE at Water Treatment Plant #4. While below EPA limits, the
MDH has a much lower limit, and levels were above it for this chemical. This caught the
city’s attention based on concerns about that particular chemical.
Mr. Harmening explained that the city has learned that all involved agencies will likely
allow the city to take the plant out of service; therefore out of an abundance of caution and
to preserve the public’s trust, he is suggesting moving ahead with taking Water Treatment
Plant #4 out of service by January 1, 2017, until it can be upgraded. The goal is to start
construction in summer 2017, with completion in summer 2018.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
Mr. Harmening added that the city does have capacity to continue to serve the community
and also to supplement the city’s water supply from neighboring communities, if needed,
in case of emergencies. If the council is comfortable with this recommendation, then staff
will move forward.
Councilmember Miller stated that he wanted to reiterate that drinking water is the council’s
and the city’s number one priority. It is as important as policing or development. He
supports this recommendation.
Mayor Spano added this project was originally in the 2018 Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP) and was accelerated into the 2017 CIP, which was recently approved.
Councilmember Lindberg stated this makes sense and thanked staff for doing their
homework, as there were some unanswered questions, including dealing with Reilly, which
is unrelated to this particular issue but still affected by taking Water Treatment Plant #4
out of service. He stated safe drinking water is one of the highest priorities he has for the
city. He appreciated the fast work by city staff and said this makes the most sense moving
forward.
Councilmember Brausen added he relies on the professional staff, who are erring on the
side of caution and making a decision in the best interest of the city. While it comes at a
cost, the council is happy we are doing this. He also thanked citizens who are interested in
this issue, as well, adding it is good to know our community cares.
Councilmember Hallfin stated this is one of the issues that council has had to learn a lot
about. Because the council is not experts on this topic, they have to rely on city staff and
their expertise. He added that no one wants anyone to drink water that is unhealthy or
unsafe. Now that the experts are recommending to take this plant off line, the council will
do so.
Councilmember Lindberg asked that staff develop a communication plan related to this
shutdown and put it online so that everyone has easy access to the information and the
details of the process.
The council recommended staff move forward on the shutdown of Water Treatment Plant
#4 with a target date of January 1, 2017, and to expedite design and construction of planned
improvements to the water treatment plant.
8g. Accepting Report, Establishing and Approving Plans and Specifications, and
Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Replacement of the Skate Park.
Councilmember Sanger stated this item to approve plans for the new skate park and send
out bids has moved forward without input from neighbors. She asked to delay a vote on
this issue and also that the item be brought back for discussion after the neighborhood
meeting to see if people request any changes to this plan. She asked the City Attorney to
comment on the process for this change.
Mr. Mattick stated this can be moved to a later date for approval, but he was not sure about
implications to the project timeline.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 11
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 19, 2016
Ms. Walsh stated there have been ongoing meetings on the plans, and staff is now simply
asking for bids on the design. She added that once proposals come in, we can certainly still
make changes to the plans and incorporate any information from the neighbors.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the city has an established process for consulting with
neighbors, and they may have concerns about building the skate park in this location at all.
She stated the letting of bids is putting the cart before the horse, and does not contribute to
public trust. She added she prefers to delay the vote until after the neighborhood meeting.
Councilmember Mavity agreed there is a process in place for consulting with neighbors.
She added there was significant outreach done in advance of the plans, noting there were
advertisements about where the skate park would be located. There was a public meeting
on May 18. There were online and cable TV notices; flyers distributed; information in the
Sun Sailor and ECCO newspapers; and surveys where input was requested.
Councilmember Sanger thanked Councilmember Mavity for this information but stated she
still would like the neighbors who are concerned to have input.
Councilmember Lindberg asked if there would be any possible loss of funding for the
project if the timeline were delayed. Ms. Walsh stated no.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, and seconded by Councilmember Brausen to
table consideration of the resolution accepting the report, establishing and approving
plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for the replacement of the
skate park to January 16, 2017.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Spano delivered holiday greetings to all residents, stating Happy Hanukah, Merry
Christmas, and a Happy New Year to all.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Minutes: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 3, 2017
1. Call to Order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), HR Coordinator (Ms. Timpone),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: None.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
Mayor Spano stated Kenneth Tiede & the Tiede Family donated a gift in the amount of
$3,000. The gift is for a memorial bench and a tree to be placed in Wolfe Park honoring
Barbara Tiede, along with a monetary donation to be used by the Operations and Recreation
Department. Mayor Spano thanked Mr. Tiede and the Tiede family for their donation.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Study Session Minutes November 14, 2016
Councilmember Sanger requested a change on page 1, halfway down the page, which
should read: “…the city already didn’t enforce federal immigration laws.” Also on page
2, it should read: “…there are 87 counties in Minnesota…” And on page 3, on a comment
related to naturally occurring affordable housing should read: “…this could be a fund to
help maintain existing buildings or units of affordable housing.”
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve
the November 14, 2016 City Council Study Session Meeting Minutes as corrected.
The motion passed 7-0.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2017
3b. City Council Study Session Minutes November 28, 2016
Mayor Spano noted on page 3, second paragraph from the bottom, where he is referring to
upcoming construction in the council chambers, he wanted to provide more context. He
stated the carpet in the chambers is a tan color and the step is a tan color currently as well,
and he is hoping when the new carpet is installed, there will be a color of high contrast on
the step so folks who may be visually impaired will be able to see it clearly and not trip on
the step.
No motion was made to approve the minutes of November 28, 2016. The minutes will
be placed on a future agenda for formal approval.
3c. City Council Study Session Minutes December 12, 2016
Councilmember Miller requested a change on page 6, which should read: “Councilmember
Miller stated the city is trying to build a network of sidewalks, she so he is not sure why
the city….”
Mayor Spano requested a correction on page 6, in the second full paragraph, during the
conversation on Water Treatment Plant #4, a phrase should be added to the end of his
statement as follows: “…and if legally we can shut that treatment plant down…”
Councilmember Mavity noted on page 10 there is a small edit under communications and
check in related to the resolution passed. Her comment should read: “…making sure people
feel welcome in the city…”
Councilmember Sanger noted on page 9 that Councilmember Hallfin’s statement was, “…
list of usual suspects…” and not “…list of usual subjects...”
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve
the December 12, 2016 City Council Study Session Meeting Minutes as corrected.
The motion passed 7-0.
2. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of November 26 through
December 23, 2016.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 17-001 designating the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as the
City’s Official Newspaper for 2017.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 17-002 Declaring 2017 City Council Meeting Dates.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 17-003 appointing the following Councilmembers to the
Office of Mayor Pro Tem for the year 2017:
Councilmember Term of Appointment
Tim Brausen January – April 2017
Gregg Lindberg May – August 2017
Thom Miller September – December 2017
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2017
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 17-004 authorizing the installation of westbound stop sign
on 28th Street at Vernon Avenue.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 17-005 ordering the abatement of the hazardous conditions
in the building located at 2752 Hampshire Avenue South.
4g. Approve two Subordinate Funding Agreements (SFAs) between the City and Met
Council for (1) SWLRT Base Project Work – Construction and (2) City
Contribution to SWLRT.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 17-006 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $30,195.29 for the annual Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation
Project with Visu-Sewer, Inc.- Project No. 4016-3000, City Contract No. 79-16.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 17-007 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$7,398.03 for the annual Concrete Replacement Project with Concrete Idea, Inc. -
Project No. 4015-0003, City Contract No. 143-15.
4j. Authorize the City Manager to enter into contract with Invoice Cloud to provide
electronic bill presentment and payment solutions for utility bills.
4k. Adopt Resolution No. 17-008 authorizing the Hennepin County Grant Agreement
to help fund the City’s residential curbside recycling and organics recycling
programs.
4l. Adopt Resolution No. 17-009 approving acceptance of a $3,000 donation from
Kenneth Tiede and the Tiede family for the purchase and installation of a memorial
bench and tree in Wolfe Park honoring Barbara Tiede, and a general donation to
the Operations and Recreation Department.
4m. Adopt Resolution No. 17-010 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$6,613.10 for Project 4015-2000 Connect the Park Bikeway Project with Century
Fence Company, City Contract No. 86-16.
4n. Adopt Resolution No. 17-011 approving the arbitration award and labor agreement
between the city and the LELS Local #218 Police Sergeants, establishing terms and
conditions of employment for two years, from 1/1/16 – 12/31/17.
4o. Approve for filing Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes November 29, 2016.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2017 Employee Compensation
Ms. Deno presented the staff report. She noted staff’s recommendation for amending the
citywide pay philosophy document known as the Compensation Plan and setting non-union
employee compensation for 2017. This was discussed at the December 19, 2016 Special
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of January 3, 2017
Study Session, and at that time council expressed support for the new pay philosophy and
directed staff to develop a performance pay model for implementation in 2018.
Mr. Harmening added with this new model, employees are held to a very high standard and
will also be compensated at a higher than average rate. He noted that research shows it is
difficult to find good qualified employees and in order to attract and retain high-level
employees, a good compensation package is needed. He stated this is very important, and
staff would appreciate council’s support.
Ms. Deno added that this new plan will now be used as a guide going forward. All union
position compensation is negotiated.
Fire Chief Koering stated it is time to move away from the paid on call annual performance
program to a new pay structure for the city’s part-time fire staff. This structure will support
the high performers by getting them more involved in outreach and other activities. He
added compensation must be about performance and activities and not only about years of
service.
Mayor Spano stated he is supportive of this plan. It is a good opportunity to check and
make sure we are a competitive employer. He added that our city employees do a fabulous
job and should be compensated for their high level of work.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 17-012, amending the Compensation Plan, confirming a 2.75% general
increase for non-union employees effective 1/1/17; continuing participation in the
Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and eliminating the performance program for
Paid-On-Call Firefighters.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mr. Harmening stated he hoped everyone had a good New Year’s weekend.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 672: Authorize Removal of Permit Parking at 4104 Utica Ave. So.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the elimination of
permit parking restrictions in front of 4104 Utica Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with City policy.
SUMMARY: The City has a program for authorizing permit parking for residents who have a
medical need for parking adjacent to their homes. Once authorized and installed, permit parking is
maintained indefinitely. Each year, staff contacts residents who currently have permit parking to
ensure that it is still required.
We have been informed the permit parking for this property is no longer needed. Aside from
removing the signs, the final step is to rescind the original resolution authorizing the permit
parking.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of removing these controls is
minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 672: Authorize Removal of Permit Parking at 4104 Utica Ave. So.
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ELIMINATION OF
PERMIT PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN FRONT OF
4104 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 89-175
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 672
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are no longer necessary at this location.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Engineering Director is hereby authorized to remove the following traffic
controls and rescind the following resolution:
1. Rescind Resolution No. 89-175 for the existing permit parking restriction at 4104 Utica
Avenue South.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Financial Management Policies Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the updated Financial Management Policies dated
January 17, 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to update the Financial Management
Policies to current best practices and State Statutes?
SUMMARY: The City Financial Management Policies are one of the most important aspects of long-
term financial planning and continued financial management planning. Many of the updated policies
were first adopted in 2008 and a few have been updated subsequently. The policies have all been
incorporated into a single source document for ease of reference and updating. Financial management
policies play a vital role in the cities credit rating. Department Directors, our investment advisor, our
Municipal Advisor (Ehlers), and the City attorney have reviewed the updated policies.
A written report was provided to Council on December 12, 2016. A comment was received regarding
the purchasing policy and referencing an approved resolution (10-060) supporting minority-owned
business, women’s business enterprises and small businesses and is now referenced in the purchasing
policy.
Here is a summary of the recommended polices from the Government Financial Officers Association
(GFOA).
NEXT STEPS: Financial policies will be reviewed/updated on an annual basis.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Updated Financial Management Policies
Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Relative Importance of Financial Policy Types (GFOA, financial policies pg 29)
Essential policies Highly advisable policies
Fund balance and reserves Accounting and financial reporting
Operating budget Revenues
Capital budgeting and planning Internal Controls
Debt management Expenditures
Long‐range financial planning Purchasing
Investment Risk Management
Economic Development
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Financial Management Polices Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Many of the City’s financial policies were updated in 2008 with some minor
modifications subsequently. While the policies did cover all the essential policies, many of the
recommended polices where not formally included into a financial management policies document.
Similar to a “Personnel Policy” Manuel having all our financial policies included in a single source
document allows for ease of reference and updating. All changes are updates from best practices/state
statutes/city charter that work into the City’s operating practices. Our Municipal Advisor, Investment
Advisor, City Attorney and staff have review the financial management policies.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICY CHANGES:
Purpose: Added summary statement on why we have financial policies.
Objectives: Added objectives that we achieve with financial policies.
Revenue and Expenditures: Added procedures on how we estimate revenue and expenditures and
future forecasting. In addition, included a long-standing best practice of using one-time revenues for
one-time expenditures.
Cash Management: Added section that it is our goal to forecast expenditure needs to maximize
interest earnings as we currently make daily deposits.
Investments: Same policy as adopted in 2008, updated to current statutes and added section on safe
keeping requirements while keeping with the primary objective-safety of principal. Recommending
extending the maturity of investment to be increased to up to 7 years from the current policy of 5 years.
This will allow for us to go a little longer on the yield curve on our core portfolio that does not meet
daily cash flow needs. In addition, working with our investment advisor we updated the investment
diversification chart to reduce the exposure risk on different market sectors.
Fund Balance: Same policy as adopted in 2008 and revision in 2013 to reflect classifications of fund
balance and definitions. The General Fund previously had an unassigned fund balance range of 35-
50% with a target of 45%. The updated policy keeps the target of 45% but adjusts the range to 40-
50% to more align with AAA rated cities and the cash flow needs of the city. Added section on the
use of excess fund balance for one-time expenditures; likewise we added a section describing the
process to follow if fund balance falls below the 40% range and the plan to bring it back. Maintained
the fund balance policy on enterprise funds, but added sections on special revenue, capital project and
debt service funds. The special revenue, capital project, and enterprise funds relate to our long range
financial management plan.
Debt: Same policy as adopted in 2008, with revision in 2013 for post issuance compliance policy.
Added section on refunding to provide guidance and benchmarking practices on when certain
minimums are maintained to move forward with advance and cross over refunding opportunities.
Changed Financial Advisor to Municipal Advisor through the various section. Updated Debt
administration section to include current practices of continuing disclosure requirements, arbitrage,
communication and reporting.
Capital Improvements: Policy documents the capitalization thresholds that are used in preparation
of the financial statements. In addition, the policy mentions the ten-year capital improvement plan that
Council reviews on an annual basis.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Financial Management Polices Update
Risk Management: Discusses our risk management program and the relationship between deductibles
and premiums.
Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting: Policy discusses the goal to maintain the highest
standard of accounting practices, in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). In addition, we will have an annual independent audit which is required by state statute and
the charter.
Operating Budget: The Policy identifies current practices regarding the operating budget of the
City. Including presenting a balanced budget, monthly financial reporting to Council, and budget
amendments each December.
Purchasing: Same policy as adopted in 2008, with revision in 2012 for updated bidding thresholds.
Added reference and link to the environmentally preferable purchasing policy when considering
purchasing. Included a reference and link to resolution 10-060 supporting minority-owned business,
women business enterprises and small business. The updated policy incorporates the Federal grants
requirements regarding purchasing, which is required to be adopted by Council.
Financial Management Policies
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 4
i
Table of Contents
Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Revenue and Expenditure .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Cash Management ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Investments .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Fund Balance ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Debt ............................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Capital Improvements .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Risk Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 20
Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting .......................................................................................................... 20
Operating Budget ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Purchasing ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 5
1
Purpose
The City of Saint Louis Park is responsible to its citizens to manage its resources wisely and
adopting financial policies is an important step to ensure that resources are managed responsibly.
The policies provide the framework for the overall fiscal management of the city and guide the
decision-making process.
Most of the policies represent long standing principles, traditions and practices which have
guided the city in the past and have helped maintain financial stability over the past years. These
financial policies will be reviewed periodically to determine if changes are necessary.
Objectives
Providing sound principles to guide the decisions of the City Council and management.
To provide both short-term and long-term financial stability to city government by
ensuring adequate funding for providing and protecting infrastructure needed by the
community today and for years to come.
Protecting and enhancing the city’s credit rating and prevent default on any municipal
obligations.
To protect the City Council’s policy-making ability by ensuring that important policy
decisions are not constrained by financial problems or emergencies.
To create a document that staff and Councilmembers can refer to during financial
planning, budget preparation and other financial management issues.
Revenue and Expenditure
The city will provide long-term financial stability through sound short and long term
financial planning.
The city will estimate its annual revenues and expenditures in a conservative manner so
as to reduce exposure to unforeseen circumstances.
The city will project revenues and expenditures for the next ten years and will update
these projections each budget process.
Whenever user charges and fees are determined to be appropriate and the direct benefits
are identifiable, the city will establish user charges and fees at a level related to the cost
of providing the service (operating, direct, indirect, and capital). Fees will be reviewed
annually.
To the extent feasible, one-time revenues will be applied toward one-time expenditures or
placed into reserves.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 6
2
Cash Management
It is the policy of the city to pool cash balances from all funds to maximize investment
earnings. Exceptions include legal and specific practical requirements that demand
segregation of funds.
Funds received are to be deposited into an interest bearing account with the city’s
currently designated official depository by the next business day.
Cash on hand is to be kept to the minimum required to meet daily operational needs.
Investments
It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to establish guidelines for the investment of all public
funds. This policy is designed to ensure the prudent management of public funds, the availability
of operating and capital funds when needed and providing the highest investment return with
maximum security and minimum risk.
I. SCOPE
This policy applies to all financial assets of the City of St. Louis Park. While separate
investment funds are created to accommodate reporting on certain bonded indebtedness,
individual investments are purchased using a pooled approach for efficiency and maximum
investment opportunity. The City’s funds are defined in the City’s Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report and include:
General Fund;
Special Revenue Funds;
Debt Service Funds;
Capital Project Funds;
Proprietary Funds;
Internal Service Funds.
II. OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives in priority order of the City’s investment activities will be:
A. Safety of Principal
Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.
Investments shall be undertaken in a manner that seeks to ensure preservation of
capital in the overall portfolio. The objective will be to mitigate credit risk by
purchasing only highly rated securities with adequate collateral and interest rate
risk by matching maturities to cash flow needs.
B. Liquidity
The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to enable the City to meet
all operating and capital requirements that might reasonably be anticipated. A
portion of the portfolio may be placed in money market mutual funds or local
government investment pools which offer same-day liquidity.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 7
3
C. Yield
The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of attaining a market
rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account
investment risk constraints and liquidity needs. Yield is of secondary importance
compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above.
III. STANDARDS OF CARE
The prudent person standard shall be applied to the management of the portfolio. This
standard states: “Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances
then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion, and intelligence exercise in the
management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the
probable safety of their capital as well as the expected income to be derived.”
Investment officers acting in accordance with written procedures and this investment
policy and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an
individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from
expectations are reported in a timely fashion and the liquidity and the sale of securities are
carried out in accordance with the terms of this policy.
IV. INVESTMENT AUTHORIZATION
The City Treasurer is designated as the Investment Officer of the City and is responsible
for investment management decisions and activities. The Treasurer shall carryout
established written procedures and internal controls for the operation of the investment
program consistent with this investment policy. The Treasurer is authorized, as allowed
under the State Statute, to designate depositories and broker-dealers for City Funds.
V. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any city official involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business
activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or which could
impair his/her ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees shall disclose
any material interests in financial institutions with which they conduct business.
Employees and officers shall refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions
with the same individual with which business is conducted on behalf of the City.
VI. AUTHORIZED FINANCIAL DEALERS AND INSTITUTIONS
The City Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide
investment services to the City. All broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders
for investment transactions must supply the Treasurer with:
Audited financial statements and proof of National Association of Security Dealers
(NASD) certification;
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 8
4
Proof of Minnesota Registration Broker Notification and Certification form required
by Minnesota Statutes 118A prior to any investment transactions with the City. The
Broker Notification must be updated annually.
The Official Broker/Dealer Questionnaire must be on file for each broker the City is
currently doing business with.
Certification of having read the City’s investment policy and agreement to conduct
investment transactions in accordance with the policy and objectives, as well as state
statutes.
Written agreement to disclose potential conflicts of interest or risk to public funds that
might arise out of business transactions between the firm and the City.
VII. AUTHORIZED INVESTMENTS
The City will be permitted by this policy to invest funds in those security types that are
permitted by Minnesota Statue 118A. Further investment parameters can be found in
section X.
VIII. COLLATERALIZATION
Full collateralization will be required on non-negotiable certificates of deposit. All
deposits will be insured or collateralized in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter
118A.
IX. SAFEKEEPING
All trades of marketable securities will be executed (cleared and settled) on a delivery vs.
payment (DVP) basis to ensure that securities are deposited in the City of St. Louis Park’s
safekeeping institution prior to the release of funds.
If investments are held in safekeeping at a broker/dealer, they shall be kept at the
broker/dealer in the City’s name. Certificates will be held at the financial institution in the
City’s name. All securities should be a risk category one according to the Government
Accounting Standard No.3
Investments may be held in safekeeping with:
1. Any Federal Reserve Bank;
2. Any bank authorized under the laws of the United States or any state to exercise
corporate trust powers, including, but not limited to, the bank from which the
investment is purchased;
3. A primary reporting dealer in United States government securities to the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York; or
4. A securities broker-dealer or an affiliate of it, that is registered as a broker-dealer
under chapter 80A or is exempt from the registration requirements; is registered
by the securities and exchange commission; and maintains insurance through the
Security Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) or excess insurance coverage in
an amount equal to or greater than the value of the securities held.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 9
5
X. INVESTMENT PARAMETERS
The City’s investments shall be diversified as to specific maturity, issuer and institution in
order to minimize the risk to the portfolio. Investments should be purchased to match
expected cash flow needs, minimizing the market risk associated with the early sale of the
investments.
The following diversification parameters have been established and will be reviewed
periodically by the City Treasurer for all funds:
Sector
Sector
Maximum
(%)
Per Issuer
Maximum
(%)
Minimum Ratings Requirement1 Maximum
Maturity
U.S. Treasury
100%
100%
N/A
7 Years
(7 year avg.
life
for GNMA)
GNMA 40%
Other U.S. Government
Guaranteed (e.g. AID,
GTC)
10%
Federal Agency/GSE:
FNMA, FHLMC, FHLB,
FFCB 75%
40%4
N/A 7 Years
Federal Agency/GSE
other than those above 5%
Municipals (Revenue)
25% 5%
Highest ST or Two Highest LT Rating Categories
(SP-1/MIG 1, AA-/Aa3, or equivalent) 7 Years Municipals (General
Obligations)
Highest ST or Three Highest LT Rating Categories
(SP-1/MIG 1, A-/A3, or equivalent)
Collateralized Bank
Deposits 50% None, if fully
collateralized None, if fully collateralized. 7 Years
FDIC-Insured Bank
Deposits 100% FDIC limit
for insurance None, if fully FDIC-insured. 7 Years
Commercial Paper (CP) 25%2 5%3 Highest ST Rating Category by two NRSROs
(A-1/P-1, or equivalent) 270 Days
Bankers Acceptances (BA) 15% 5%3 Highest ST Rating Category by two NRSROs
(A-1/P-1, or equivalent) 270 Days
Intergovernmental Pools
(LGIPs) 100% 100%
Highest Fund Quality and Volatility Rating
Categories by all NRSROs, if rated
(AAAm/AAAf, S1, or equivalent)
N/A
Notes:
1 Rating by at least one SEC-registered Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”), unless otherwise
noted. ST=Short-term; LT=Long-term.
2 Maximum allocation to all corporate and bank credit instruments is 25% combined.
3 Maximum across all non-government permitted investment sectors (excluding Treasuries, U.S. Federal Agencies and Agency
MBS) is 5% combined per issuer.
4 Maximum exposure to any one Federal agency, including the combined holdings of Agency debt is 40%.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 10
6
XI. REPORTING AND REVIEW
A. The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with the parameters
outlined in this policy. The portfolio will be designed with the objective of
obtaining a rate of return throughout budgeting and economic cycles,
commensurate with the investment risk constraints and cash flow needs.
B. The City’s investment policy shall be adopted by resolution by the City Council.
The City’s investments shall be reported to the City Council quarterly. The
information reported to the City Council should include:
1. A listing of individual securities held at end of reporting period.
2. A listing of investments by maturity date.
3. The percentage of the total portfolio in each type of investment.
4. Rate of return for quarter.
5. Market to market analysis.
C. Interest earned on investments shall be allocated to various funds based on each
fund’s average monthly cash balance.
XII. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Specific investment parameters for the investment of public funds by the City are found in
Minnesota Statutes Chapters 118A.
XIII. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
A. Interest Allocation
The general fund shall be allocated a management fee equal to three percent of the
total net investment earnings of the investment pool, excluding investments related
to the Economic Development Authority.
B. Amendments
Any changes must be approved by City Council.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 11
7
Fund Balance
The purpose of the fund balance policies is to establish appropriate fund balance levels for each
fund that is primarily supported by property tax revenues or user fees. These policies will ensure
that adequate resources are available to meet cash flow needs for carrying out the regular
operations of the City, as well as to meet the fund balance requirements identified in the City’s
Long Range financial Management Plan.
The City Council authorizes the Chief Financial Officer and/or City Manager to assign fund
balance that reflects the City’s intended use of those funds. When both restricted and unrestricted
resources are available for use, it is the City’s policy to first use restricted resources, and then use
unrestricted resources as they are needed. When unrestricted resources are available for use, it is
the City’s policy to use resources in the following order; 1) committed 2) assigned 3) unassigned.
These fund balance classifications apply only to Governmental Funds, not Enterprise Funds.
A. Classification of Fund Balance/Procedures
1. Nonspendable
Amounts that cannot be spent because they are not in a spendable form or are
legally or contractually required to be maintained intact. Examples are inventory or
prepaid items.
2. Restricted
Amounts subject to externally enforceable legal restrictions. Examples include
grants, tax increment and bond proceeds.
3. Unrestricted
The total of committed fund balance, assigned fund balance, and unassigned fund
balance:
Committed fund balance – amounts that can be used only for the specific
purposes determined by a formal action of the government’s highest level of
decision-making authority. Commitments may be changed or lifted only by the
government taking the same formal action that imposed the constraint
originally.
Assigned fund balance – amounts intended to be used for a specific purpose;
intent can be expressed by the government body or by an official or body to
which the governing body delegates the authority.
Unassigned fund balance – residual amounts that are available for any purpose
in the general fund. The General fund should be the only fund that reports a
positive unassigned fund balance amount. This classification is also used to
account for deficit fund balances in other governmental funds.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 12
8
A. General Fund
The city will maintain an unassigned General fund balance of not less than 40-50%
of subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures with a target of 45%; however, this
need could fluctuate with each year’s budget objectives.
Annual proposed General fund budgets shall include this benchmark policy.
Council shall review the amounts in fund balance in conjunction with the annual
budget approval, and make adjustments as necessary to meet expected cash-flow
needs.
In the event the unassigned General fund balance will be calculated to be less than
the minimum requirement at the completion of any fiscal year, the city shall plan to
adjust budget resources in the subsequent fiscal years to bring the fund balance into
compliance with this policy.
The City Council may consider appropriating (for authorized purposes) year-end
fund balance in excess of the policy level or increasing the minimum fund balance.
An example of preferred use of excess fund balance would be for one-time
expenditures, such as:
1. to fund one-time capital items
2. to fund a one-time (non-recurring) expenditure or grant match
opportunity
3. to provide catch-up funding or long-term obligations not previously
recognized
4. to fund a one-time unplanned revenue shortfall
5. to fund an unplanned expenditure due to an emergency or disaster
6. to retire existing debt
7. to fund policy shifts by other governmental entities having a
negative impact on the city
Appropriation from the minimum fund balance shall require the approval of the
City Council and shall be used only for non-recurring expenditures, unforeseen
emergencies or immediate capital needs that cannot be accommodated through
current year savings. Replenishment recommendations will accompany the
decision to utilize fund balance.
At the discretion of the City Council, fund balance may be committed for specific
purposes by resolution designating the specific use of fund balance and the amount.
The resolution would need to be approved no later than the close of the reporting
period and will remain binding unless removed in the same manner.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 13
9
B. Enterprise Funds
These funds were established to account for the operation of Water, Sewer, Solid Waste,
and Storm Water operations which are designed to be self-supporting from user charges.
1) Water Utility
This fund is used to account for the provision of water services to the customers of the
City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This
fund is financed predominantly through user charges.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Water Utility Fund
in the range of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a
significant source of revenue in the Water Utility Fund comes from user charges,
maintaining an unrestricted net position that is equal to at least 35-50% of the
subsequent year’s expenditures ensures that sufficient resources are available to fund
basic City functions between receipts of user charges. In addition, due to the mature
water infrastructure within the City, a higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to
address any potential issues.
2) Sewer Utility
This fund is used to account for the provisions of sewer services to the customers of
the City. All activities necessary to provide this utility to the customers are
administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This fund is financed
predominantly through user charges.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Sewer Utility Fund
in the range of 35-50% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Since a
significant source of revenue in the Sewer Utility Fund comes from user charges,
maintaining an unrestricted net position that is equal to at least 35-50% of the
subsequent year’s expenditures ensures that sufficient resources are available to fund
basic City functions between receipts of user charges. In addition, due to the age of
sewer infrastructure within the City, a higher percentage of fund balance is prudent to
address any potential issues.
3) Solid Waste Utility
This fund is used to account for the provisions of solid waste services to the customers
of the City related to collection, disposal and recycling of solid waste. This fund is
financed predominantly through user charges and investment income.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Solid Waste Utility
Fund in the range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due to
less volatility, an unrestricted net position percentage is justifiable. This will ensure
that sufficient resources are available to fund basic Solid Waste activities.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 14
10
4) Storm Water Utility
This fund is used to account for the provision of storm water to the customers of the
City related to administration, operations, maintenance, billing and collection. This
fund is financed predominantly through user charges and investment income.
The City will strive to maintain an unrestricted net position in the Storm Water Utility
Fund in the range of 25-40% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. Due to
less volatility, an unrestricted net position percentage is justifiable. This will ensure
that sufficient resources are available to fund basic Storm Water activities.
C. Special Revenue Funds
The city will maintain reserves in the Special Revenue funds at levels sufficient to
provide working capital for current expenditure needs plus an amount that is estimated
to be needed to meet legal restrictions, requirements by external funding sources and/or
pay for future capital projects. Future capital projects must be identified and quantified
in a written plan for the fund, which shall be included in the city’s annual CIP and in
congruence with the long range financial management plan.
D. Debt Service Funds
The city will maintain reserves in the Debt Service funds at levels sufficient to provide
working capital for current debt service expenditure needs plus an amount that is
estimated to be needed to meet legal restrictions and requirements by external funding
sources.
E. Capital Project Funds
The city will maintain reserves in the Capital Project funds at levels sufficient to
provide working capital for current expenditure needs plus an amount that is estimated
to be needed to meet legal restrictions, requirements by external funding sources and/or
pay for future capital projects. Future capital projects must be identified and quantified
in a written finance plan for the fund, which shall be included in the city’s annual CIP
and in congruence with the long range financial management plan.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 15
11
Debt
It is the policy of the City of St. Louis Park to establish guidelines for the use of debt in
financing capital acquisitions, repayment of debt, and management of the overall level of debt in
the city.
A. Credit Ratings: The City of St. Louis Park seeks to maintain the highest possible credit
ratings for all categories of short- and long-term General Obligation debt that can be achieved
without compromising delivery of basic City services and achievement of adopted City policy
objectives.
The City recognizes that external economic, natural, or other events may from time to time
affect the creditworthiness of its debt. Nevertheless, the Mayor and City Council are
committed to ensuring that actions within their control are prudent and consistent with the
highest standards of public financial management, and supportive of the creditworthiness
objectives defined herein.
B. Financial Disclosure: The City is committed to full and complete financial disclosure, and
to cooperating fully with rating agencies, institutional and individual investors, City
departments and agencies, other levels of government, and the general public to share clear,
comprehensible, and accurate financial information. The City is committed to meeting
disclosure requirements on a timely and comprehensive basis.
Official statements accompanying debt issues, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports,
and continuing disclosure statements will meet (at a minimum) the standards articulated by
the Municipal Standards Rulemaking Board (MSRB), the Government Accounting
Standards Board (GASB), the National Federation of Municipal Analysts, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The Finance Department shall be responsible for ongoing disclosure to established national
information repositories (NRMSRs) and for maintaining compliance with disclosure
standards promulgated by state and national regulatory bodies.
C. Debt Capacity: The City will keep outstanding debt within the limits prescribed by State
statute and at levels consistent with its creditworthiness objectives.
D. Purposes and Uses of Debt
The City will normally rely on existing funds, project revenues, and grants from other
governments to finance capital projects such as major maintenance, equipment acquisition,
and small development projects. Debt may be used for capital projects only when a project
generates revenues over time that are used to retire the debt, when debt is an appropriate
means to achieve a fair allocation of costs between current and future beneficiaries.
a. Asset Life: The City will consider the use of debt for the acquisition,
development, replacement, maintenance, or expansion of an asset only if it has a
useful life of at least five years. Debt will not be issued for periods exceeding the
useful life or average useful lives of the project or projects to be financed.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 16
12
b. Project Financing: In general, the City expects to make a cash contribution to any
project with an expected useful life of less than 10 years, rather than relying on
100% debt financing.
c. Debt Standards and Structure
Debt will be structured for the shortest period consistent with a fair allocation of
costs to current and future beneficiaries or users. Debt will be structured to achieve
the lowest possible net cost to the City given market conditions, the urgency of the
capital project, net revenues expected from the project (if any), and the nature and
type of security provided. Moreover, to the extent possible, the City will design the
repayment of its overall debt so as to recapture rapidly its credit capacity for future
use. The City shall strive to repay at least 50 percent within ten years.
d. Backloading: The City will seek to structure debt with level principal and interest
costs over the life of the debt. "Backloading" of costs will be considered only when
natural disasters or extraordinary or unanticipated external factors make the short-
term cost of the debt prohibitive, when the benefits derived from the debt issuance
can clearly be demonstrated to be greater in the future than in the present, when
such structuring is beneficial to the City’s overall amortization schedule, or when
such structuring will allow debt service to more closely match project revenues
during the early years of the project’s operation.
E. Refundings:
a. Advance refunding bonds shall not be utilized unless present value savings of
4% to 5% of refunded principal is achieved and unless the call date is within 3
years. The state law minimum is 3% of refunded principal. Bonds shall not be
advance refunded if there is a reasonable chance that revenues will be sufficient
to pre-pay the debt at the call date.
b.Current refunding bonds shall be utilized when present value savings of 3% of
refunded principal is achieved or in concert with other bond issues to save costs
of issuance.
c. Special assessment or revenue debt will not be refunded unless the Chief
Financial Officer determines that special assessments or other sufficient
revenues will not be collected soon enough to pay off the debt fully at that call
date.
F. Debt Administration and Practices
In general, City debt will be issued through a competitive bidding process. Bids will be
awarded on a true interest cost basis (TIC), providing other bidding requirements are
satisfied. In the event that the City receives more than one bid with identical TICs, the tie
may be broken by a flip of a coin.
a. Municipal Advisor: The City will retain an external municipal advisor, selected
by the City’s Finance Division of the Administrative Services Department. The
utilization of the municipal advisor for particular bond sales will be at the discretion
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 17
13
of the Chief Financial Officer on a case by case basis and pursuant to the municipal
advisory services contract. The municipal advisors will have comprehensive
municipal debt issuance experience with diverse financial structuring requirements
and pricing of municipal securities.
b. Bond Counsel: The City will retain external bond counsel for all debt issues. No
debt will be issued by the City without a written opinion by bond counsel affirming
that the City is authorized to issue the debt, stating that the City has met all state
constitutional and statutory requirements necessary for issuance, and determining
the debt’s federal income tax status.
c. Fiscal Agents: The Finance Division will utilize a fiscal agent on all City
indebtedness. Fiscal agent fees for outstanding bonds will be paid from the Bond
Interest and Redemption Fund, unless specified otherwise by the Chief Financial
Officer.
d. Disclosure: The city shall comply with SEC rule 15(c)2(12) on primary and
continuing disclosure. Continuing disclosure reports shall be filed no later than 180
days after receipt of the city’s annual financial report.
e. Arbitrage: The city shall complete an arbitrage rebate report for each issue no less
than every five years after its date of issuance.
f. Communication: The city will maintain frequent and regular communications
with bond rating agencies about its financial condition and will follow a policy of
full disclosure in every financial report and bond prospectus. The city will comply
with Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting requirements.
g. Reporting: The City will report at least annually the outstanding bonds to the City
Council.
G. Post Issuance Debt Compliance Policy
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) issues tax-exempt governmental bonds
(“TEBs”) to finance various public projects. As an issuer of TEBs, the Issuer is required by
the terms of Sections 103 and 141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the “Treasury
Regulations”), to take certain actions after the issuance of TEBs to ensure the continuing tax-
exempt status of such bonds. In addition, Section 6001 of the Code and Section 1.6001-1(a)
of the Treasury Regulations impose record retention requirements on the Issuer with respect
to its TEBs. This Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt
Governmental Bonds (the “Policy”) has been approved and adopted by the Issuer to ensure
that the Issuer complies with its post-issuance compliance obligations under applicable
provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 18
14
1. Effective Date and Term. The effective date of this Policy is the date of approval
by the City Council of the Issuer (November 5, 2012) and this Policy shall remain in effect
until superseded or terminated by action of the City Council of the Issuer.
2. Responsible Parties. The City’s Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer (the
“Compliance Officer”) shall be the party primarily responsible for ensuring that the Issuer
successfully carries out its post-issuance compliance requirements under applicable
provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations. The Compliance Officer will be assisted
by the staff of the Issuer and other officials when appropriate. The Compliance Officer of
the Issuer will also be assisted in carrying out post-issuance compliance requirements by the
following organizations:
(a) Bond Counsel (as of the date of approval of this Policy, bond counsel for the Issuer
is Kennedy & Graven, Chartered);
(b) Municipal Advisor (as of the date of approval of this Policy, the municipal advisor
of the Issuer is Ehlers & Associates, Inc.);
(c) Paying Agent (the person, organization, or officer of the Issuer primarily
responsible for providing paying agent services for the Issuer); and
(d) Rebate Analyst (the organization primarily responsible for providing rebate analyst
services for the Issuer).
The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for assigning post-issuance compliance
responsibilities to members of the Finance Department and other staff of the Issuer, Bond
Counsel, Paying Agent, and Rebate Analyst. The Compliance Officer shall utilize such other
professional service organizations as are necessary to ensure compliance with the post-
issuance compliance requirements of the Issuer. The Compliance Officer shall provide
training and educational resources to Issuer staff responsible for ensuring compliance with
any portion of the post-issuance compliance requirements of this Policy.
3. Post-Issuance Compliance Actions. The Compliance Officer shall take the
following post-issuance compliance actions or shall verify that the following post-issuance
compliance actions have been taken on behalf of the Issuer with respect to each issue of
TEBs:
(a) The Compliance Officer shall prepare a transcript of principal documents (this
action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel).
(b) The Compliance Officer shall file with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”),
within the time limit imposed by Section 149(e) of the Code and applicable Treasury
Regulations, an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligations, Form 8038-
G (this action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel).
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 19
15
(c) The Compliance Officer shall prepare an “allocation memorandum” for each issue
of TEBs in accordance with the provisions of Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-6(d)(1),
that accounts for the allocation of the proceeds of the tax-exempt bonds to expenditures not
later than the earlier of:
(i) eighteen (18) months after the later of (A) the date the expenditure is paid, or (B) the
date the project, if any, that is financed by the tax-exempt bond issue is placed in service; or
(ii) the date sixty (60) days after the earlier of (A) the fifth anniversary of the issue date of
the tax-exempt bond issue, or (B) the date sixty (60) days after the retirement of the tax-
exempt bond issue.
Preparation of the allocation memorandum will be the primary responsibility of the
Compliance Officer (in consultation with the Municipal Advisor and Bond Counsel).
(d) The Compliance Officer, in consultation with Bond Counsel, shall identify
proceeds of TEBs that must be yield-restricted and shall monitor the investments of any
yield-restricted funds to ensure that the yield on such investments does not exceed the yield
to which such investments are restricted.
(e) In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall determine
whether the Issuer is subject to the rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code with
respect to each issue of TEBs. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer
shall determine, with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer, whether the Issuer is eligible
for any of the temporary periods for unrestricted investments and is eligible for any of the
spending exceptions to the rebate requirements. The Compliance Officer shall contact the
Rebate Analyst (and, if appropriate, Bond Counsel) prior to the fifth anniversary of the date
of issuance of each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and each fifth anniversary thereafter to arrange
for calculations of the rebate requirements with respect to such TEBs. If a rebate payment
is required to be paid by the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall prepare or cause to be
prepared the Arbitrage Rebate, Yield Reduction and Penalty in Lieu of Arbitrage Rebate,
Form 8038-T, and submit such Form 8038-T to the IRS with the required rebate payment. If
the Issuer is authorized to recover a rebate payment previously paid, the Compliance Officer
shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Request for Recovery of Overpayments Under
Arbitrage Rebate Provisions, Form 8038-R, with respect to such rebate recovery, and submit
such Form 8038-R to the IRS.
4. Procedures for Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections. The Compliance Officer
shall institute such procedures as the Compliance Officer shall deem necessary and
appropriate to monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs issued by the Issuer, to verify that
certain post-issuance compliance actions have been taken by the Issuer, and to provide for
the inspection of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds. At a minimum, the
Compliance Officer shall establish the following procedures:
(a) The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs to:
(i) ensure compliance with the expenditure and investment requirements under the temporary
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 20
16
period provisions set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-2(e); (ii) ensure
compliance with the safe harbor restrictions on the acquisition of investments set forth in
Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-5(d); (iii) ensure that the investments of any yield-
restricted funds do not exceed the yield to which such investments are restricted; and
(iv) determine whether there has been compliance with the spend-down requirements under
the spending exceptions to the rebate requirements set forth in Treasury Regulations,
Section 1.148-7.
(b) The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of all bond-financed facilities in
order to: (i) determine whether private business uses of bond-financed facilities have
exceeded the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code as a result of leases
and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights
agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to
nongovernmental persons; and (ii) determine whether private security or payments that
exceed the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code have been provided by
nongovernmental persons with respect to such bond-financed facilities. The Compliance
Officer shall provide training and educational resources to any Issuer staff who have the
primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of bond-financed
facilities with regard to the limitations on the private business use of bond-financed facilities
and as to the limitations on the private security or payments with respect to bond-financed
facilities.
(c) The Compliance Officer shall undertake the following with respect to each
outstanding issue of TEBs of the Issuer: (i) an annual review of the books and records
maintained by the Issuer with respect to such bonds; and (ii) an annual physical inspection
of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds, conducted by the Compliance
Officer with the assistance with any Issuer staff who have the primary responsibility for the
operation, maintenance, or inspection of such bond-financed facilities.
5. Record Retention Requirements. The Compliance Officer shall collect and retain
the following records with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and with respect to the
facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds: (i) audited financial statements of the
Issuer; (ii) appraisals, demand surveys, or feasibility studies with respect to the facilities to
be financed with the proceeds of such bonds; (iii) publications, brochures, and newspaper
articles related to the bond financing; (iv) trustee or paying agent statements; (v) records of
all investments and the gains (or losses) from such investments; (vi) paying agent or trustee
statements regarding investments and investment earnings; (vii) reimbursement resolutions
and expenditures reimbursed with the proceeds of such bonds; (viii) allocations of proceeds
to expenditures (including costs of issuance) and the dates and amounts of such expenditures
(including requisitions, draw schedules, draw requests, invoices, bills, and cancelled checks
with respect to such expenditures); (ix) contracts entered into for the construction,
renovation, or purchase of bond-financed facilities; (x) an asset list or schedule of all bond-
financed depreciable property and any depreciation schedules with respect to such assets or
property; (xi) records of the purchases and sales of bond-financed assets; (xii) private
business uses of bond-financed facilities that arise subsequent to the date of issue through
leases and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 21
17
agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to
nongovernmental persons and copies of any such agreements or instruments; (xiii) arbitrage
rebate reports and records of rebate and yield reduction payments; (xiv) resolutions or other
actions taken by the governing body subsequent to the date of issue with respect to such
bonds; (xv) formal elections authorized by the Code or Treasury Regulations that are taken
with respect to such bonds; (xvi) relevant correspondence relating to such bonds; (xvii)
documents related to guaranteed investment contracts or certificates of deposit, credit
enhancement transactions, and financial derivatives entered into subsequent to the date of
issue; (xviii) copies of all Form 8038-Ts and Form 8038-Rs filed with the IRS; and (xix) the
transcript prepared with respect to such TEBs.
The records collected by the Issuer shall be stored in any format deemed appropriate by
the Compliance Officer and shall be retained for a period equal to the life of the TEBs with
respect to which the records are collected (which shall include the life of any bonds issued
to refund any portion of such TEBs or to refund any refunding bonds) plus three (3) years.
6. Remedies. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall
become acquainted with the remedial actions under Treasury Regulations, Section 1.141-12,
to be utilized in the event that private business use of bond-financed facilities exceeds the de
minimis limits under Section 141(b)(1) of the Code. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the
Compliance Officer shall become acquainted with the Tax Exempt Bonds Voluntary Closing
Agreement Program described in Notice 2008-31, 2008-11 I.R.B. 592, to be utilized as a
means for an issuer to correct any post-issuance infractions of the Code and Treasury
Regulations with respect to outstanding tax-exempt bonds.
7. Continuing Disclosure Obligations. In addition to its post-issuance compliance
requirements under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations, the Issuer
has agreed to provide continuing disclosure, such as annual financial information and
material event notices, pursuant to a continuing disclosure certificate or similar document
(the “Continuing Disclosure Document”) prepared by Bond Counsel and made a part of the
transcript with respect to each issue of bonds of the Issuer that is subject to such continuing
disclosure requirements. The Continuing Disclosure Documents are executed by the Issuer
to assist the underwriters of the Issuer’s bonds in meeting their obligations under Securities
and Exchange Commission Regulation, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.15c2-12, as in effect and
interpreted from time to time (“Rule 15c2-12”). The continuing disclosure obligations of the
Issuer are governed by the Continuing Disclosure Documents and by the terms of Rule 15c2-
12. The Compliance Officer is primarily responsible for undertaking such continuing
disclosure obligations and to monitor compliance with such obligations.
8. Other Post-Issuance Actions. If, in consultation with Bond Counsel, Municipal
Advisor, Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer
determines that any additional action not identified in this Policy must be taken by the
Compliance Officer to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of any issue of governmental
bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall take such action if the Compliance Officer
has the authority to do so. If, after consultation with Bond Counsel, Municipal Advisor,
Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer determines that
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 22
18
this Policy must be amended or supplemented to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of
any issue of governmental bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall recommend to
the City Council that this Policy be so amended or supplemented.
9. Taxable Governmental Bonds. Most of the provisions of this Policy, other than the
provisions of Section 7, are not applicable to governmental bonds the interest on which is
includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. On the other hand, if an issue
of taxable governmental bonds is later refunded with the proceeds of an issue of tax-exempt
governmental refunding bonds, then the uses of the proceeds of the taxable governmental
bonds and the uses of the facilities financed with the proceeds of the taxable governmental
bonds will be relevant to the tax-exempt status of the governmental refunding bonds.
Therefore, if there is any reasonable possibility that an issue of taxable governmental bonds
may be refunded, in whole or in part, with the proceeds of an issue of TEBs, then for purposes
of this Policy, the Compliance Officer shall treat the issue of taxable governmental bonds as
if such issue were an issue of TEBs and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of
this Policy with respect to such taxable governmental bonds. The Compliance Officer shall
seek the advice of Bond Counsel as to whether there is any reasonable possibility of issuing
TEBs to refund an issue of taxable governmental bonds.
10. Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds. If the City issues bonds to finance a facility to be owned
by the City but which may be used, in whole or in substantial part, by a nongovernmental
organization that is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(a) of the Code
as a result of the application of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code (a “501(c)(3) Organization”),
the City may elect to issue the bonds as “qualified 501(c)(3) bonds” the interest on which is
exempt from federal income taxation under Sections 103 and 145 of the Code and applicable
Treasury Regulations. Although such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds are not governmental bonds,
at the election of the Compliance Officer, for purposes of this Policy, the Compliance Officer
shall treat such issue of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as if such issue were an issue of tax-exempt
governmental bonds and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of this Policy with
respect to such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. Alternatively, in cases where compliance activities
are reasonably within the control of the relevant 501(c)(3) Organization, the Compliance
Officer may determine that all or some portion of compliance responsibilities described in
this Policy shall be assigned to the relevant organization.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 23
19
Capital Improvements
The city will maintain buildings, infrastructure, utilities, parks, facilities, and other assets in a
manner that protects the investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs.
The Chief Financial Officer will annually prepare and submit to the City Council a Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) for the next ten fiscal years and in congruence with the Long Range
Financial Management Plan.
At a minimum, the CIP will include a description of the proposed improvement, the estimated
cost, timing and potential sources of funding. If applicable, the CIP will identify implications for
the operating budget created by the proposed improvement.
The city will maintain a system of capital charges for sanitary sewer, storm water, and water
services. The charges will be collected when undeveloped land is platted and when new users
connect to the system. Revenues from the capital charges will be accumulated and used to pay
for the capital investment related to the maintenance and expansion of the utility systems.
The city will strive to maximize the revenues collected from capital charges in order to protect
existing utility users from bearing the costs associated with growth.
The city will maintain an equipment acquisition and replacement program. The city will
annually update the plan to provide funding for all equipment purchases over $25,000 to be made
in the next ten fiscal years. The city shall attempt to fund the program without the use of debt. It
is recognized that State imposed levy limits may create the need to incur debt for equipment
acquisition.
The city will prepare an on-going plan for the reconstruction of all city streets. The city will
provide a sustainable source of funding for the street reconstruction program. The city will
annually prepare cash flow projections for street reconstruction projects to ensure adequate and
ongoing funding.
Capital Assets and Capitalization Thresholds
A capital asset is a tangible asset that has a life expectancy of more than one year. For financial
statement reporting purposes, the city reports capital assets in the following categories and has
established a capitalization threshold for each category:
Capitalization
Category Threshold__
Land All
Buildings $5,000
Other Improvements $25,000
Machinery and equipment $10,000
Vehicles $10,000
Infrastructure $250,000
Construction in progress Accumulate all costs and capitalize
if over $100,000 when completed
Other assets $5,000
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 24
20
Another criterion for recording capital assets is capital-related debt. Capital assets purchased
with debt proceeds should be capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful life.
The amount to record for a capital asset is any cost incurred to put the asset into its usable
condition. Donated capital assets should be reported at fair value at the time of acquisition.
Risk Management
1. The city will maintain a Risk Management Program that will minimize the impact of
legal liabilities, natural disasters or other emergencies through the following activities:
Loss Prevention. Prevent negative occurrences.
Loss Control. Reduce or mitigate expenses of a negative occurrence.
Loss Financing. Provide a means to finance losses.
Loss Information Management. Collect and analyze relevant data to make
prudent loss prevention, loss control and loss financing decisions.
2. The city will maintain an active Safety Committee comprised of city employees.
3. The city will periodically conduct educational safety and risk avoidance programs,
through its Safety Committee and with the participation of its insurers, within its various
departments.
4. The city will maintain the highest deductible amount, considering the relationship
between cost and the city’s ability to sustain the loss.
Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting
The city will establish and maintain the highest standard of accounting practices, in
conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The city will attempt to maintain the GFOA Certificate of Excellence in Financial
Reporting.
The city will arrange for an annual audit of all funds and account groups by independent
certified public accountants or by the State Auditor’s Office.
Regular monthly reports present a summary of financial activity by major type of funds
as compared to budget. Department directors will review monthly reports comparing
actual revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amounts. Any negative variance in any
revenue or spending category (Personal Services, Supplies, Other Charges and Services,
Capital Outlay) for their department as a whole projected to exceed $10,000 by year-end
will be reported in writing to the Chief Financial Officer and the City Manager.
Operating Budget
The City Manager, when submitting the proposed budget to the City Council, will submit
a balanced budget in which appropriations will not exceed the total of the estimated
General fund revenue and the fund balance available after applying the General Fund
Reserve Policy.
The city may annually appropriate a contingency appropriation in the General fund
budget to provide for unanticipated expenditures of a non-recurring nature.
In the event there is an unanticipated shortfall of revenues in a current year budget, the
Chief Financial Officer may recommend the use of a portion of the General fund balance,
not to exceed the amount of available cash or reserved for working capital or already
appropriated to the General fund current budget.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 25
21
The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of buildings and equipment, and for
their orderly replacement.
The Chief Financial Officer will prepare regular monthly reports comparing actual
revenues and expenditures to the budgeted amount. All significant variances will be
summarized in a written report to the City Manager and City Council.
The operating budget will describe the major goals to be achieved and the services and
programs to be delivered for the level of funding provided.
Before adding a new program or service, the city will consider the cost benefit analysis of
using outside contractors versus in-house provided services.
The city will not sell assets or use one-time accounting principle changes to balance the
budget for any fund.
The city will provide ample time and opportunity for public input into its budget setting
deliberations each year, including any required public hearings.
Directors will be responsible for administration of their departmental operating budget.
Requests for budget adjustments must be submitted and approved before any program
incurs cost overruns for the annual budget period.
The budget shall be adjusted as needed to recognize significant deviations from original
budget expectations. The council shall consider budget amendments each December.
Budget amendments are intended to recognize changes made by the council during the
year, to reflect major revenue and expenditure deviations from budgeted amounts, and to
consider year-end budget requests. Budget amendments are not intended to create a
budget that matches budgeted revenues and expenditures to actual revenue and
expenditures.
Administrative budget amendments may be made throughout the year by department
directors to adjust line item budgets within their department as long as the total
departmental budget does not change. These line item budget changes exclude personal
service and capital outlay categories. Administrative budget admendments must be
requested in writing and approved by the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.
Purchasing
Purpose
To provide a guide for general purchasing, contracts and professional services. Purchasing for
the City of St. Louis Park is established by the City Council under the City Charter, the City
Code and State Statute. This is intended as a guide; questions regarding this document should be
directed to the Chief Financial Officer or City Manager.
Policy
To ensure that the goods and services required by the City are obtained using established
procedures that comply with all legal requirements for public purpose expenditures while
promoting fair and open competition to ensure public confidence in the procurement process,
ensure fair and equitable treatment of vendors who transact business with the City, and provide
safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 26
22
I. Responsibility
a. The City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City and has the authority
to approve purchases up to $100,000 per the City Charter and State Statute. The
City Manager has delegated the authority to approve purchases up to $50,000 to
the Chief Financial Officer and Directors. Purchases in excess of $100,000
typically require Council approval and usually require competitive bid letting.
b. The City Manager shall identify Directors or other staff who shall be responsible
for each fund or department in the annual budget. These individuals shall be
responsible for compliance with the annual budget and for all expenditures for
their departments and funds. The responsibility lies with each department to keep
the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer informed of purchases.
c. Directors or their designee are responsible to follow purchasing regulations and
procedures such as, but not limited to: obtaining bids or quotes, maintain records
of bids or quotes in accordance with records retention requirements, place actual
orders, receive and verify deliveries, and approve invoices for payment.
General Purchasing Required Approvals
Contract or
purchase
amount
Documentation Director Chief
Financial
Officer
City
Manager
Council
Less than
$5,000
Open Market Or
Designee
Less than
$25,000
2 or more quotes if
practical
X X
$25,000-
$50,000
2 or more quotes or
sealed bids –
competitive bidding
is allowed but not
required.
X X
$50,000-
$100,000
2 or more quotes or
sealed bids –
competitive bidding
is allowed but not
required.
X X X
$100,000+ Competitive bids
required
X X X X
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 27
23
II. General purchasing
a. Under City Charter and Ordinance, it has been determined purchasing will follow
the Uniform Municipal Contracting Law, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.345.
This allows the City Manager the authority to incorporate changes to our
purchasing limitations in accordance with MN Statutes. City Manager may
develop a process which may be more restrictive than State Law, but may not be
less restrictive. A "contract" (general purchasing) means an agreement entered
into by a municipality for the sale or purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or
the rental thereof, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or
personal property.
b. Capital item purchases that have been authorized by the City Council through
either the budget process or the Capital Improvement Plan approval may be made
using these guidelines. If an item has not been specifically approved during these
annual processes, then they must be taken back for explicit approval.
c. When purchasing use the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy. The
policy can be found at the following link: O:\CITYWIDE\SHARE\EP3
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy .
d. When purchasing, reference resolution 10-060 supporting minority-owned
business, women’s business enterprises and small business in contracting,
professional services and purchasing. The resolution can be found at the
following link: O:\CITYWIDE\RECORDSLIBRARY\Resolution
Council\2010\10-060.pdf .
III. Purchases less than $5,000.
If the amount is below $5,000, the purchase may be made in the open market.
Department Directors may authorize any person in their department to make purchases at
this level.
IV. Purchases less than $25,000.
If the amount is estimated to be greater than $5,000 up to $25,000, the contract may be
made by quotation or in the open market. If the contract is made upon quotation it
shall be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations.
V. Purchases from $25,000-$100,000.
If the amount is estimated to exceed $25,000 but not to exceed $100,000, the contract
may be made either by upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation, by obtaining two or
more quotations for the purchase or sale when possible and without advertising for bids
or otherwise complying with the requirements of competitive bidding.
VI. Purchases in excess of $100,000.
Sealed bids shall be obtained by public notice for major purchases with final award by
the City Council. Bids must be advertised in the city’s legal newspaper, publicly opened
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 28
24
and approved by Council resolution. There are some exceptions to this law, including
contracts that are funded in part by special assessments as set forth in M.S, 429.041,
subd.1. Questions about this process or thresholds should be directed to the City’s Chief
Financial Officer.
Exceptions to Competitive Bidding
The following are some of the more common exceptions to the competitive bidding
requirements:
Contracts less than $100,000
Cooperative purchasing organizations
Intergovernmental contracts
Noncompetitive supplies and equipment
Real estate purchases
Professional services including:
o Architectural
o Auditing
o Engineering
o Legal
o Group Insurance
o Banking Services
o Investment Services
o Financial Service Providers
o Construction Management
o Surveying
o Emergency Purchases
Contractor’s Bond
The city is required to obtain both a payment and performance bond for all public work
contracts over $100,000. Payment and performance bonds protect the city as well as
subcontractors and persons providing labor and materials. When the public work
contract is let, the amount of the bond needs to be equal to the contract price. If the
contract price increases due to change orders, unforeseen conditions, cost overruns or any
other reason after the contract is signed, the city has the option of increasing the amount
of the contractor’s bond. Consideration may be given for the percentage of the contract
that is complete in relation to the contractor’s bond and the increase in the contract price.
VII. Professional Services
Contracts for professional services in excess of $100,000 shall be submitted to the City
Council for approval. The term “Professional Services” applies to all advisory services
such as, but not limited to: auditing, engineering, financial, legal, personnel, technical,
training, or other services. Contracts for professional services shall be made only with
responsible consultants who have the capability to successfully fulfill the contractual
requirements. Consideration shall be given to their past performance and experience,
their financial capacity to complete the project, the availability of personnel, and other
appropriate criteria. The nature of the professional service is typically written as a
request for proposals (RFP).
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 29
25
Required Approvals
Professional
service
Documentation Director City
Manager
Council
Up to $50,000 2 or more quotes if possible X
$50,000-$100,000 Multiple quotes recommended X X
$100,000+ Multiple quotes recommended X X X
VIII. Emergency Purchases
Minnesota Statute §12.37 gives the City the ability to declare an emergency situation for
a limited period of time. During such an emergency, the City is not required to use the
typically mandated procedures for purchasing and contracts. Emergency purchases
require approval by the City Manager, Chief Financial Officer and, when necessary
because of the dollar amount, formal City Council action. An emergency purchase is
defined as one where an immediate response is required to protect the health, welfare or
safety of the public or public property.
IX. Conflicts of Interest
Minnesota State Statutes §471.87 and §471.88 prohibit the purchase of goods and
services wherever a conflict of interest may exist. City of St. Louis Park Personnel Rules
require employees to disclose to their immediate supervisor any personal financial
interest in the selling or buying of goods or services for the City of St. Louis Park. No
purchase orders, contracts or service agreements shall be given to an employee of the
City or to a partnership or corporation of which an employee is a major stockholder or
principal. No employee shall enter into the relationship with a vendor where the
employee's actions are, or could reasonably be viewed as, not in the best interests of the
City. If any employee becomes involved in a possible conflict situation, the employee
shall disclose the nature of the possible conflict to his or her supervisor and to the City
Manager. The City Manager shall promptly notify the individual in writing of an
approval or disapproval of the activity. If disapproved, the employee shall remove
himself or herself from the conflict situation.
X. Federal purchases
Under uniform grant guidance (2 CFR 200.317–326) there are additional procurement
requirements that need to be considered when making purchases related to a federal
program. Five procurement methods are identified including: micro-purchase (<$3,500),
small purchase procedures (<$150,000), sealed bid (>$150,000), competitive proposal
(>$150,000), and noncompetitive proposal (>$3,500). The general purchasing policy
addresses many of these requirements and the City will also consider the full
requirements in relation to each method as described in 2 CFR. The micro-purchase
threshold which is set by Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR Subpart 2.1 is subject
to change with inflation. The City will follow changes to thresholds as modifications
occur. When practicable, micro-purchasing will be distributed among qualified suppliers.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 30
26
XI. Other
This document is not intended to cover all purchasing situations and regulations. For
instance, purchases needed for emergency operations should follow procedures set out in
the Emergency Plan and other regulations as approved by the City Manager or designee.
If there are questions regarding purchasing, they should be directed to your Director or
the Chief Financial Officer.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Financial Management Policies Update Page 31
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Construction of an Outdoor Skate Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing advertisement for bids
for the construction of an outdoor skate park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to proceed with this project?
SUMMARY: New equipment to replace the existing skate park has been planned for in the Capital
Improvement Plan. The Operations & Recreation Department will be collaborating with the
Engineering Department on this project at Carpenter Park. The Engineering Department will be
constructing an underground storm water detention system underneath the skate park. Construction
would occur in 2017. The next step in the process is to solicit bids from skate park vendors.
PUBLIC PROCESS: The public process for this project has included meeting with the skate park
users and meeting with the residents near Carpenter Park. At a public meeting on May 18, 2016
residents who were skate park users voted on the location of the skate park and indicated their
preference for Carpenter Park. The marketing for this meeting included social media, paper and
electronic flyers distributed directly to schools and local businesses, articles in the ECHO
newspaper (St. Louis Park High School newspaper) and Sun Sailor, Cable TV and the city’s
website, emailed and called 25+ survey users and posted in the May 2016 Park Perspective.
A public meeting was held on Wednesday, January 11, 2017 with residents located near Carpenter
Park to discuss the storm water retention system and the skate park. Although the residents
commented that they are in support of the skate park, they had some concerns about adding to
parking congestion and loss of green space. Staff informed residents that the green space is not
actively used and non-programmable due to the flooding and wet conditions. Staff and skate board
users present at the meeting shared that the users of the skate park do not generally drive to the
park. Parking at the skate park in years past has typically consisted of 4-5 cars at a time. If this
new use at Carpenter Park does create in an increase in parking demands, there is the ability to add
8-10 parking spots along the frontage road.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Replacement of the skate park equipment has
been approved in the Capital Improvement Plan and is estimated at $200,000 of city funds. Staff
has been informed that the City will be receiving a grant from the Hennepin County Youth Sports
Facilities grant for $100,000 to help fund the skate park.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Construction of an Outdoor Skate Park
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The outdoor skate park was originally due for replacement prior to
construction the ROC. Staff delayed the replacement while securing a permanent location. The
skate park has been temporarily relocated to Nelson Park. Staff conducted a public meeting to
obtain a preferred new location for the skate park. The users voted in favor of Carpenter Park.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The Operations & Recreation Department will be
collaborating with the Engineering Department on this project. The Engineering Department will
be constructing an underground storm water detention system underneath the skate park.
Construction would occur in 2017.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Below are the different marketing mediums staff used to inform residents
regarding the public meeting on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 where citizens voted on the permanent
location of the skate park.
Website calendar article: http://www.stlouispark.org/events-calendar/1687_ci.html.
Website slider May 5 – 18, 2016 linking to web calendar.
Three Facebook posts and four twitter tweets inviting the public to the location meeting.
The location invitation was displayed on the televisions at city hall and The Rec Center;
on the iPads located outside meeting rooms at city hall; and on cable TV.
The location invitation flyers were distributed to St. Louis Park elementary, middle and
high schools electronically and via paper flyer where required.
Email with invitation flyer sent to contacts at Groves School and Benilde-St. Margaret
School.
Email with invitation flyer sent to Erik’s Bike Shop and 3rd Lair Indoor Skate Park.
Communication with City of Skate regarding the location meeting.
Coverage in the ECHO newspaper (St. Louis Park High School newspaper).
Invitation was printed in the Sun Sailor on May 8, 2016.
Cable TV show “Life in the Park” aired the invitation on May 12.
Staff emailed and called 25+ survey respondents to personally attend the location meeting.
Posted invitation flyers at current and temporary skate park locations.
The invitation was posted in May 2016 Park Perspective as part of ROC article.
A public meeting was held on Wednesday, January 11, 2017 to discuss the storm water retention
system and the skate park. The residents commented that they were supportive of the skate park
and were concerned primarily with parking and loss of green space. Staff informed residents that
the green space is not actively used and non-programmable due to the flooding and marshy
conditions. Staff also commented that the users of the skate park do not generally drive to the park.
They typically ride their bikes, use their skate boards or get dropped off. Staff will assess the needs
of the parking situation once the skate park is established. There is an opportunity to create an
additional 8-10 parking stalls along the frontage road on the south side of the park if the need for
additional parking arises. Carpenter Park shares a parking lot with City Hall. There is typically
parking available for park use on nights and weekends since the City Hall use is primarily during
the week days.
NEXT STEPS: The next step in the process is to solicit bids from skate park vendors. Staff is
asking City Council to authorize the bid process to solicit vendors for the skate park. Recreation
Staff will be asking City Council to approve the bid recommendation at their meeting on March 6,
2017.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Construction of an Outdoor Skate Park
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTDOOR SKATE PARK
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report related to
replacement of the skate park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. Such replacement as proposed is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the
Project Report.
2. The proposed project, is in our CIP as Project No. 21155649.
3. The advertisement for bids for the replacement of an outdoor skate park, as prepared under
the direction of the Recreation Superintendent and Park Superintendent, or designee, are
approved.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper, an advertisement for bids for the making of said replacement under said-
approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10)
days prior to the date and time of receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state the
date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered
unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the
City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
5. The Recreation Superintendent and Park Superintendent, or designee, shall report the bid
recommendation to the City Council at their meeting on March 6, 2017.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2017
Thomas Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acquisition of Easements for W. 37th St. and Bridge Reconstruction Project No. 4017-
1700
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the quick take
condemnation procedure for public purposes for the W. 37th Street Road and Bridge
Reconstruction Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to continue the process for constructing
this improvement?
SUMMARY: The W. 37th Street Project is scheduled for construction in 2017. Easements are
needed for the construction of this project due to an increase in the height of the top of the bridge
by 3 feet. Our right of way consultant, WSB, is recommending we start the quick take process on
the 6 properties on which we need easements in order to keep the project on schedule. To start
this process the City Council must pass the attached resolution which authorizes the City Attorney
to initiate the proceedings. Approval by quick take is only being recommended to insure that the
City will have access to the property when needed so the project can remain on schedule. Note that
this same approach has been used for other projects undertaken by the City including the Hwy 7
and Louisiana Ave project. At this time negotiations are going well with the property owners and
staff is optimistic that the easements can be acquired without using condemnation. Staff is
anticipating that the plans will be completed by the first part of February which will allow
construction to begin in May of 2017. The road and bridge will be open to normal traffic by
November of 2017, with final project close out in spring of 2018.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The initial offer to obtain the easements for
the W. 37th Street project is $87,925. This amount could increase depending on whether the offers
are accepted by the property owners. The 2017 CIP for this project included the cost for
acquisition.
This project is included in the City’s adopted 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The
work will be paid by using Federal Funds, Pavement Management, General Obligation Bonds (for
Connect the Park sidewalk and fiber), Sanitary Sewer Utility, Stormwater Utility and Water Utility
Funds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Acquisition of Easements for W. 37th St. and Bridge Reconstruction Project No. 4017-1700
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The bridge on W. 37th Street over Minnehaha Creek is scheduled to be
reconstructed in 2017. This bridge was inspected in 2011 and the inspection revealed the need for
replacement. The existing bridge is a channel span bridge and is no longer recommended by
MnDOT due to their many structural and maintenance issues. The plan is to remove the existing
vehicle and the existing pedestrian bridge and replace them with one new bridge that has sidewalk
on both sides.
During preliminary design our consultant WSB and Associates determined that the bridge would
need to be raised to meet the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources. The estimated
raise of the bridge is approximately 3 feet. Raising the bridge requires road reconstruction between
Boone Avenue and Aquila Avenue to connect the new bridge into the existing infrastructure.
Easement Acquisition:
Temporary and permanent easements are needed to construct this project. The elevation of the top
of the new bridge will be 3’ higher than the top of the existing bridge. In order to connect the new
bridge and roadway to the adjacent properties, temporary easements will be required to gain access
to private property for the duration of construction. When the project is complete, these easements
will terminate and the properties will retain the same ownership rights as they have today. A
permanent easement is needed near the intersection of Aquila and W. 37th Street. The sidewalk in
this area does not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. This upgrade to the
sidewalk is not possible within the existing right of way; therefore a permanent easement will be
acquired.
WSB has completed appraisals for the properties which need easements and the City Assessor has
reviewed them for accuracy. Offer letters have been sent to these property owners. Recent
discussions with the property owners are going well but we are asking for approval to start the
quick take condemnation process due to a 90 day delay from the time the process is initiated to the
time when the City would have access to the property. Approval of the resolution will allow for
condemnation by the quick take method in the event that acquisitions do not occur in a timely
manner. Staff’s intent is to acquire the easements through negotiation and use condemnation only
if needed.
Below is the list of the 6 properties along with the initial offers sent to the property owners to
obtain easements.
Parcel Address Owner Offer
1 3670 Aquila Ave. S. Gateway Knollwood, LLC $20,025
2 3630 Aquila Ave. S. Knollwood Mall, LLC $1,000
3 8900 State Highway 7 Dayton-Hudson Corporation $27,325
4 8700 State Highway 7 Koehler Associates Limited Partnership $31,400
5 8600 State Highway 7 Minnesota Federal Savings and Loan Ass. $4,050
6 8530 State Highway 7 Lindsay-Knollwood 2, LLC $4,125
Total: $87,925
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Acquisition of Easements for W. 37th St. and Bridge Reconstruction Project No. 4017-1700
Proposed Schedule:
The following is the proposed project schedule:
1. Condemnation begins January 2017
2. Final plans complete February 2017
3. Advertise for bid February 2017
4. City access to easement areas April 2017
5. Construction May – Oct 2017
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Title: Acquisition of Easements for W. 37th St. and Bridge Reconstruction Project No. 4017-1700
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION
OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park does hereby determine that it
is necessary and for a public use and purpose to acquire fee title and/or permanent and temporary
easements over the property legally described on the attached Exhibit "A", subject to engineering
modifications, if any, for purposes in connection with the West 37th Street Bridge and Approach
Project; and
WHEREAS, City staff and consultants have and will continue to work with the property
owners to acquire the necessary property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that construction timing makes it necessary to acquire
the necessary fee title and/or easements as soon as possible in order for the project to proceed in
an efficient, cost effective and expeditious manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota:
1. That the City Attorney is authorized to commence eminent domain proceedings
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire the necessary fee title and/or permanent
and temporary easements over the properties identified on the attached Exhibit “A”, subject to
engineering modifications, if needed.
2. That the City Attorney is authorized to acquire the necessary property interests pursuant
to the “quick take” provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 117.042.
3. That the Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute all documents
necessary, in the opinion of the City Attorney, to effect the acquisition of the necessary property
interests.
4. The City is obtaining appraisals of the property being acquired. The Council hereby
authorizes the City Engineer to approve the appraisals and staff to negotiate with the property
owners relating to the acquisition of the property and to acquire the property for the appraised
values.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Title: Acquisition of Easements for W. 37th St. and Bridge Reconstruction Project No. 4017-1700
EXHIBIT “A”
Parcel 1
Lot 2, Block 1, Knollwood Mall 1st Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 2
Park, Knollwood Mall 1st Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 3
Lot 3, Block 1, Target Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 4
That part of Tract X, Registered Land Survey No. 1058, lying Westerly of a line erected
perpendicular to the Northerly line of said Tract X, from a point thereon distant 268.76 feet
Westerly from the most Northerly corner of said Tract X, as measured along said Northerly line,
except the Easterly 130 feet thereof, and except that part thereof which lies Westerly of the
following described line:
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Tract X; thence on an assumed bearing of North 79
degrees 08 minutes 30 seconds East along the Northerly line of said Tract X, a distance of 25.00
feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 25 degrees 57 minutes 15
seconds West to the Westerly line of said Tract X and there terminating.
All in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 5
That part of Tract X, except that part thereof lying Easterly of a line erected perpendicular to the
Northerly line of said Tract X, from a point on said Northerly line distant 268.76 feet Westerly
from the most Northerly corner of said Tract X as measured along said Northerly line, lying
Easterly of a line drawn parallel with said last described perpendicular line and distant 130 feet
Westerly therefrom, in Registered Land Survey No. 1058, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 6
Par 1: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Pure’s Knollwood Addition lying Westerly of a line 87.00 feet
Easterly of, as measured at right angles to the Westerly line of said Lot 1, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
Par 2: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Pure’s Knollwood Addition lying Easterly of a line 87.00 feet
Easterly of, as measured at right angles to the Westerly line of said Lot 1, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
¥f¤
")20¬«7AQUILAAVESZINRANAVES YUKONAVES35TH ST W
36TH ST W WYOMINGAVESBOONEAVES34 1/2 ST W
XYLONAVESYUKONAVESVIRGINIAAVESDIVISION STPHILLIPS PKWY37TH ST W
A Q U I L A A V E S T O W B H W Y7
S E R V I C E D R H I G H W A Y 7KNOLLWOODMALLACCESRDBOONEAVESUTAHAVES
P R IV A T E R DPRIVATERDPRIVATERD
0 250 500 750 1,000Feet
¯
Legend
37th Street Construction Area
¥f¤37th Street Bridge Construction Area
City Limits
37th St. W. Bridge and Street Construction Area
Knollwood Mall
Target
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Acquisition of Easements for W. 37th St. and Bridge Reconstruction Project No. 4017-1700 Page 6
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Kauffman Foundation for Travel Expenses
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary
donation from Kauffman Foundation in the amount of $1382.02 for travel and conference
registration expenses of Mayor Jake Spano to attend the 2016 Mayor’s Conference on
Entrepreneurship that was held in St. Petersburg, FL on November 30 – December 2, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to accept the donation for travel and
conference registration expenses?
SUMMARY: Mayor Jake Spano was invited to attend the 2016 Mayor’s Conference on
Entrepreneurship and have his travel and conference registration expenses paid for by Kauffman
Foundation.
Kauffman Foundation is a non-profit, private foundation based in Kansas City, MO whose vision
is to foster "a society of economically independent individuals who are engaged citizens,
contributing to the improvement of their communities". Its grant making and research activities
are focused on two areas: advancing entrepreneurship and improving the education of children and
youth.
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. Donations are treated as a gift to the
city and need to be a resolution adopted by the City Council acknowledging that attendance at this
event serves a public purpose and that the gift is accepted.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donation from Kauffman Foundation for Travel Expenses
RESOLUTION NO. 17- ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1382.02 FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance
of donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, the funds are for employee travel and conference registration for
participating in the 2016 Mayor’s Conference on Entrepreneurship; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Kauffman Foundation for inviting Mayor Jake
Spano to participate in this conference.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 17, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
October 19, 2016, 6:30 p.m. Meeting
Rec Center
1. Call to Order
Ms. Foulkes, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
Commission members present: Rich Bluma, George Foulkes, Sarah Foulkes, George Hagemann
and Peter May.
Commission members absent: Elizabeth Griffin, Edward Halvorson and Tiffany Hoffmann.
Staff present: Rick Beane, Park Superintendent, Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary, Cindy
Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation and Jason West, Recreation Superintendent.
2. Presentations
None.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. September 7, 2016
Commissioner Hagemann requested an addition on page 5, second paragraph under
Member Communication, last sentence, add “A committee, including…” prior to
“Friends of the Arts, will view…”
It was moved by Commission member Hagemann, seconded by Commission member G.
Foulkes to approve the April 20, 2016 meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 5 – 0.
4. New Business
a. Splash Pad Water Spray Feature Update (Rick Beane)
Mr. Beane provided a visual of the three elements that will be changed out in spring of
2017: Aim N Spray, Disc-o-Twist and Shower Water Dome. The city will work with
Aquatic Recreation Company (ARC), as they provided the original features for the splash
pad. The splash pad has been in existence since 2004 and there are limitations on what
can change due to space and water, explained Mr. Beane. The splash pad is open
Memorial Day through Labor Day. The equipment includes a computer time clock which
allows the water features to begin at 10 a.m. when a visitor touches a bollard. The feature
will then run for 45 minutes each time the bollard is touched. This occurs until 8 p.m.
daily.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 19, 2016
The splash pad experienced over use issues so staff implemented staff present and group /
non-resident fees. Mr. Foulkes inquired if the fees pay for the staff person present to
which Mr. Beane concurred. The splash pad is filtered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It
hosts an in ground tank so is treated as a pool (water is filtered, treated and reused). This
assists with minimal water usage. Ms. Walsh added that staff from Parks and The Rec
Center are collaborated to ensure chemical checks are completed daily.
b. 2016 CIP Overview (Rick Beane)
Mr. Beane provided Commissioners with a city map and reviewed the 2016 Capital
Improvement Projects:
A camera system was installed in the main area of the Aquila building and parking lot,
fiber optic was installed (Wi-Fi) along with an automated door system. Buildings are
currently locked for the winter so will begin using the automated door system in 2017.
Park building cameras and key fob were installed at Louisiana Oaks Park. The
building can be automatically locked and unlocked at designated times which is
typically from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., seven days a week, May through mid-October.
The building is not open beginning in mid-October as park use is minimal and the
pipes may freeze if the door is left open. Louisiana Oaks Park building also has public
Wi-Fi. Mr. May inquired if the park building at Nelson Park is automated to open also
as the building is directly on bike path. It is, Mr. Beane advised.
The fencing and poles around the fields at Carpenter Park are being replaced.
The scoreboard at Carlson field in Cedar Knoll Park is being replaced and upgraded
with LED lights.
Trail lights at Wolfe Park are being updated to LED lights as time permits. LED make
a big difference as they provide more light but save on electricity and maintenance is
less due to less bulb changes.
Mr. Beane explained the playground equipment replacement process to the
Commission. The playgrounds replaced in 2016 included Wolfe Park, Jersey Park and
Justad Park. Two of the three old playgrounds were able to be reused through Kids
Around the World. The playground at Nelson Park was scheduled to be replaced in
2016 in collaboration with the school district. The district’s design and construction
season ended so they will partner on the replacement next year.
The city has budgeted $5,000 annually to replace the lights at Oak Hill Park with LED
lights. The lights are turned on the evening before Thanksgiving and are lit until mid-
February (or later depending on weather).
Trail sealcoating will occur next year. Sealcoating extends the longevity of the trail
system. There are a variety of products which can be used as sealcoating but must be
careful what is used. Ms. Walsh advised Three Rivers Park District is trying various
products. Staff will communicate with Three Rivers on what worked best prior to
purchasing product next year.
The hockey rink and fields were regraded this year at Birchwood Park; seeding will be
completed next year.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 19, 2016
Ms. Walsh explained 95% of Capital Improvement Projects are funded from the Park
Improvement Fund. The fund receives park dedication fees to create new parks or
redevelop existing parks. Redevelopment also provides park dedication fees which are
viewed by the Commission for approval. The fund receives a tax levy of $810,000 and
any park dedication fees annually. Staff submits a 10 year capital improvement plan
annually but focus on the first three to five years. Certified staff inspect the 42
playgrounds annually which assist in determining when replacement is needed. Mr.
Beane indicated in 2002, six to eight playgrounds were being replaced annually as they
were not ADA compliant. Projects may be moved to different years based on needed
compliance, safety issues, etc.
c. Facility Planning (Jason West)
Ms. Walsh advised the Girls Fastpitch Association has asked the City Council for new
fields. Council created a task force to review the needs and desires of the Fastpitch
Association. Ms. Griffin, who was very involved in youth associations when her children
were younger, has agree to lead the Task Force. The City Council would like two
commissioners from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission to join two
Fastpitch board members and school district members to become part of the Task Force.
The Task Force would then make recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Hoffman
volunteered to serve on the task force.
In 2015, the Fastpitch Association approached the city asking for designated fastpitch
fields or a complex, Mr. West advised. Mr. West and Mr. Beane, along with members of
the Fastpitch Association, toured various areas in St. Louis Park. Following the tour,
Pennsylvania Park was the focus to make a designated fastpitch field. In the summer of
2016, a Twins grant was received for the addition of a dugout, batting cage, water
fountain, storage container and the purchase of temporary fencing for the outfield. Mr.
Foulkes inquired how the additional amenities would affect cricket playing at
Pennsylvania Park. Mr. Beane indicated they were playing cricket inside the new batting
cages so a lock has been added. No comments have been received from cricket players.
Mr. Foulkes feels the cricket community would not reserve a field nor call the city. Ms.
Foulkes has seen the cricket group using the Middle School. It appears the cricket group
is patient and waits until fastpitch players are off the field before using, Mr. West
indicated. The Association utilized Pennsylvania Park in the summer and has asked for a
fastpitch complex. The Task Force will be utilized to review what may be displaced from
the requested complex. Mr. Beane emphasized the Association really wants their own
fastpitch complex. The Task Force will obtain information on what defines a complex
and work with the city toward a solution.
It was moved by Commission member G. Foulkes and seconded by Commission member
Hagemann to appoint Commission members Elizabeth Griffin and Tiffany Hoffman as
representatives of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission on the Task Force to
review the Fastpitch Associations’ request for additional space.
The motion passed 5 – 0.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 19, 2016
d. Recycling in the Parks Program Statistics (Rick Beane)
The program coordinator, Kala Fisher, provided statistics of the recycling in the parks
program per Mr. Beane. Approximately 19 parks offered yellow barrels for recycling for
the past eight to nine years. The program has been successful but not all parks had the
recycling barrels. Comments were received asking for more recycling in parks. Ms.
Fisher applied for and received a grant from Hennepin County for additional recycling
containers and added staff time. The received grant assisted in the purchase of 100 blue
and labeled recycling containers enabling us to provide recycling in all of our park areas.
The program is very successful. Maintenance staff debags the recycling and Randy’s
Sanitation sorts. The city pays approximately $1,200 per year for the materials to be
recycled which removes a lot of material from the waste system. The recycling in the
park program will continue through the winter also and city budget will pay for staffing.
Mr. Beane mentioned there are few park systems in the metro area that have recycling
options in parks.
Ms. Walsh inquired on the average garbage that is collected in the parks. Mr. Beane
advised an average year is 180 tons of garbage, a lot of which is dog waste. Recycling in
the parks removes six to eight tons of material from garage.
5. Old Business
a. Outdoor Facility Naming Update (Cindy Walsh)
The City Council chose the Recreation Outdoor Center (ROC) as the new name for the
outdoor facility, Ms. Walsh advised and showed the new logo created by Nemer Fieger.
Council members discussed the benefits of each name presented prior to their decision.
Once the logo specifications are received from Nemer Fieger, signage will be ordered.
Ms. Walsh indicated a majority of the project is ahead of schedule, except the roof will
be delayed. Staff is hoping to open the facility for skating early December. Staff will
meet with the Hockey Association to obtain the dates/times they will use it then will set
the open skating schedule for the public. Open public skating, broomball league and
broomball tournaments will be offered. There will be some challenges maintaining the
ice without a roof if it snows, but staff has a plan in place for clearing the facility. Social
medial will assist in advertising of the opening.
The structural steel components of the roof (the arches and beams) which are custom to
the facility, are delayed. The steel provides support for the beams that support the glulam
roof. It is anticipated the roof will be added in February and the facility will be complete
prior to the Ice Cream Social held in May. The tentative plan is to host the grand opening
before the Ice Cream Social in the ROC.
b. Commission Sponsored Appreciation Luncheon (Sept. 20) Recap
Ms. Voelker provided a list of items and quantities provided at the 2016 luncheon, which
members reviewed. Mr. Beane advised staff really appreciated the luncheon and thanked
the Commission. It was nice the Police Departments’ bike patrol attended also as they
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 19, 2016
assist staff by monitoring the parks and trails. Mr. Hagemann indicated the bike patrols
expressed their appreciation in being included. Ms. Walsh advised staff will supply
compostable products and containers for future luncheons.
6. Staff Communication
Ms. Walsh communicated the St. Louis Park Police Department, along with other cities, are
trying methods to recruit different types and ages of officers. With this, the city is beginning a
new program. Ms. Walsh advised if Commissioners know of anyone interested in being an
officer, they should contact the Human Resources Department.
7. Member Communication
Mr. Hagemann advised of a public hearing held to discuss the proposed improvements to Texas
Avenue including the addition of bike lanes. The proposed project is to reconstruct the street and
sidewalks, replace streetlights and add bike lanes. At the public hearing, staff presented two
options being considered: parking on one side of the road with two bike lanes on the other side
or widen road by two feet to include parking and bike lanes on both sides. Many people worked
with staff on this link and the importance of creating a safe environment for bicyclists.
Approximately 27 people attended to comment on the bike lanes; 12 for the proposal and 15
residents opposed. Staff did great job of providing thoughtful alternatives and will meet with
people as part of connect the park segments. The City Council feels it is an important link and an
overall community asset.
Ms. Foulkes feels some of resistance comes from abusive bikers and inquired where bike patrols
are located. Ms. Walsh indicated bike patrols monitor various areas including crossings (such as
Belt Line Boulevard crossing). Mr. Hagemann feels the patrols could enforce various areas but
patrolling crossings to encourage good behavior has shown to be more effective. There was a
brief discussion after the Council meeting to encourage positive actions. Mr. May feels there is
confusion as in other cities, traffic needs to stop for pedestrians and bicycles in crossings. On
some of the main trails in St. Louis Park, bikes and pedestrians should stop at the crossings. Mr.
Bluma feels drivers need to be educated not to stop for bikes at crossings. Mr. Foulkes
commented on the danger when one vehicle on a four lane road stops and the vehicle in the other
lane doesn’t. Mr. May shared on a busy road in Tuscan the bikes need to go to center median,
make right turn inside median, then make left turn which slows bicyclists down. Mr. Hagemann
advised Council discussed that option but not enough space in that area.
The Arts and Culture Grant Committee will meet on October 20, 2016, Mr. Hagemann advised,
to review the grant applications. Recommendations from the committee will be presented to the
City Council at a Council meeting in November.
Mr. Foulkes commented the cameras added to Westwood Hills Nature Center assisted in
catching a graffiti tagger. Mr. Beane provided additional information on the incident.
8. Other / Future Agenda Items
The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 7, 2016.
City Council Meeting of January 17, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Page 6
Title: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 19, 2016
9. Adjournment
It was moved by Commission member Hagemann and seconded by Commission member G.
Foulkes to adjourn at 7:57 p.m.
The motion passed 5 - 0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: January 17, 2017
Boards and Commissions: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Reappointment of Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to reappoint Bob Tift to the Fire Civil Service
Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2019.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to reappoint Bob Tift to serve another term
on the Fire Civil Service Commission?
SUMMARY: The Fire Civil Service Commission is regulated by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 420.
Section 420.03 states that “all vacancies in the commission shall be filled by appointment by the
council within 30 days after the vacancy occurs”. Bob Tift’s term on the Fire Civil Service
Commission expired on December 31, 2016. He has communicated with staff that he wishes to be
reappointed to a new term on the Fire Civil Service Commission.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None.
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager