HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/01/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 9, 2017
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17, January 23, and
February 6, 2017
2. 6:35 p.m. 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and
Appointed
3. 7:35 p.m. 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
4. 8:20 p.m. Beltline Station Redevelopment Process
5. 9:05 p.m. Boards & Commissions Work Plan Process
9:35 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
9:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Update
7. Public Art Update – 4800 Excelsior & Central Park West Projects
8. November 2016 Monthly Financial Report
9. Walker Street Regional Stormwater Improvement Project Update (City Project No.
4017-4000)
10. Vision St. Louis Park Update
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17, January 23, and February 6, 2017
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the
Special Study Session scheduled for January 17, the regular study session on January 23, and the
Special Study Session scheduled for February 6.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the
Special Study Session scheduled for January 17, the regular study session on January 23, and the
Special Study Session scheduled for February 6, 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – January 17, January 23 & February 6, 2017
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17, January 23, and February 6, 2017
JANUARY 17, 2017 (Tues.)
6:00 p.m. – Special Study Session – Council Chambers
Tentative Discussion Items
1. 2017 Pavement Management & Connect the Park Project – Engineering (90 minutes)
Staff will be providing City Council with an overview of the recommended design for the
2017 Pavement Management & Connect the Park Project Sidewalks segments.
JANUARY 23, 2017
6:00 or 6:30 p.m. – Joint Meeting with HRC & MAC -- Fire Station #1
FEBRUARY 6, 2017
6:00 p.m. – Closed Executive Session – Community Room
1. City Manager Evaluation – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
7:00 p.m. – Special Study Session – Community Room
Tentative Discussion Items
1. City Manager Compensation – Administrative Services (25 minutes)
Overview of how the City Manager gets paid, including state salary cap and other relevant
information.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed
Representatives
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Attached is the list of legislative priorities and issues for
Council’s annual review and discussion at the study session with Senator Ron Latz, Representative
Cheryl Youakim, Representative Peggy Flanagan, Hennepin County Commissioner Marion
Greene, and Metropolitan Council representative Gail Dorfman.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The attached documents reflect the legislative policies and
priories the Council reviewed and discussed in preparation for the meeting with our elected and
appointed representatives.
SUMMARY: Based on the Council’s study session discussions on December 19th and January
3rd, Staff has prepared the attached list of legislative priorities and issues for the discussion with
our legislators and representatives. As has been the case in previous years, as the 2017 legislative
session progresses, additional issues may come to light.
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory issues.
Administrative Services has utilized the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic Moore,
Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann and Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal, and Nauen.
Unless staff hears otherwise, we will continue to use these services in 2017. Note that Vic Moore
will be attending the study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding for our lobbyists is included in the
budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
[1]
Top 2017 Legislative Priorities
There are twenty-six issues identified in the attached 2017 Legislative Issues document broken
into four subject areas. Of all of the issues identified, what follows are the highest priorities of
the City Council:
Transportation
Request Hennepin County Support and Fund the Redesign and Reconstruction of CSAH
25 (see pg. 2)
Request Hennepin County Support and Fund the Rehabilitation/Reconstruction of
Minnetonka Boulevard (see pg. 3)
Community Development
Request technical correction to the special legislation approved in 2009 related to
extending the term of the Elmwood TIF District (see pg. 5)
Request funding for affordable housing rehabilitation and new construction in the region.
(see pg. 7)
Public Safety
Request Special Legislation (bonding) to assist in funding improvements to Water
Treatment Plant 4 (see pg. 7)
Request State funding for Police Trainee/Non-traditional Pathway Program (see pg. 8)
General
No imposition of levy limits (see pg. 11)
Continue LGA funding (see pg. 12)
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 2
[2]
City of St. Louis Park
2017 Legislative Issues
(** - Denotes High Priority Issue)
Transportation Issues
Redesign and Reconstruction of CSAH 25 (Request directed to Hennepin County) **
Issue: The City and County are working together to prepare a long term vision to transform the
CSAH 25 Corridor from the rural design through-route it is today to a multimodal urban boulevard
with well-designed landscape architecture and place-making features. The goal is to transform this
Hennepin County Road into an amenity rich, pedestrian and transit oriented, development friendly
Boulevard, between Trunk Highway 100 and France Avenue. A clear long-term vision for CSAH
25 will serve as a guide both public and private investment in this corridor. Already, the SWLRT
Beltline station, park & ride and proposed Joint Development project is beginning to transform the
west end of this corridor. The Shoreham mixed-use project is beginning transformation at the east
end and the Parkway 25 project will continue the redevelopment pattern. The new concept for
CSAH 25, when finalized, will support this change to a more urban place and provide good,
attractive access to the Beltline LRT station in St. Louis Park and the neighboring W. Lake LRT
station in Minneapolis.
Analysis: To transform CSAH 25 into an urban boulevard will require the following actions and
considerations:
A commitment from Hennepin County, with involvement from Minneapolis, to changing
the vision for the corridor.
Integration into concept plans of both the planned improvements associated with SWLRT
between Beltline Boulevard and Lynn Avenue and the West Lake Street multi-modal
transportation plan into the vision for the corridor.
Inclusion in concept plans of strong connections to existing and planned bicycle routes,
filling the existing gap in access to the Cedar Lake Trail from the north.
Consideration in concept plans of the MCES interceptor along the south side, the lack of
width on north-south streets, the frontage roadway geometry, circulation/access needs,
future land use assumptions, rail/LRT, Beltline Station area plan and design guidelines.
Addressing storm water treatment, landscape and pedestrians amenities as well as
opportunities for remnant right-of-way to be used for future development.
Consideration of the east end “triangle,” where Minnetonka Blvd, CSAH 25, France Avenue
and West Lake Street meet. This area presents both opportunities for gateway treatments
for both Minneapolis and St Louis Park as well as operational challenges for the movement
of traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists and local businesses.
Analysis of traffic operations analysis, crash/safety, 2040 forecasts (possibly interim year
related to SWLRT improvements), including review of all pedestrian- or bicycle-related
crashes. Limits of operations analysis should be the Hwy. 100 west ramp terminal to France
Avenue.
Inclusion of multimodal improvements, future intersection locations, and lane arrangement
and circulation.
Consideration of a new name for the roadway that provides a positive identity while
eliminating the currently existing address confusion. Just as CSAH 5 is also named
Minnetonka Boulevard, CSAH 25 needs a street name around which an image and identity
can be built. In the case of CSAH 25, there is added confusion because of its history of being
originally part of MN Highway 7, a name that continues to be used by many.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 3
[3]
CSAH 25 serves many important functions and is home to a surprising number of
businesses, residents and property owners. All stakeholders should be informed and
involved in the design processes from the beginning.
Development of a funding and phasing plan will be necessary. Transforming CSAH 25 will
be a large project and will take time and significant resources to implement. New
development in the corridor may be able to play a significant role in funding the
transformation, but timing will be critical for that to happen.
Position: We thank Hennepin County for their participation in the redesign process and request
the County’s support and funding for the actual rehabilitation/ reconstruction of CSAH 25 once
the schedule is determined.
Rehabilitation/ Reconstruction of Minnetonka Blvd. (Request directed to Hennepin Co.)**
Issue: Minnetonka Boulevard between Trunk Highway (TH) 169 and France Avenue is a
Hennepin County road and is one of the few continuous west-to-east roadway connections in the
City of St. Louis Park. The Minnetonka Boulevard bridge over TH 100 was reconstructed in 2015
and includes bicycle, pedestrian and intersection improvements that have greatly increased the
efficiency and safety in this segment of the corridor. The road to the west and to the east of the
new bridge is in need of rehabilitation reconstruction to ensure that it accommodates the best
facility for bicycles, pedestrians and motorists.
Analysis: In order to extend the bicycle, pedestrian and roadway enhancements that were
completed at the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge the following items would need to be addressed.
Curb height: Between TH 100 and France Avenue the road is concrete with a bituminous
overlay. While the overlay improves the ride for motorists, however, it also reduced the curb
height which places the roadway at nearly the same level as the sidewalk on the north side
of the street.
Sidewalks/Landscaping: The sidewalks require updating to meet ADA requirements for
pedestrian ramps, width, and clearance from obstructions. To increase safety and provide a
more pedestrian-friendly environment the city would like the County to move the sidewalks
away from the street and plant trees in the boulevard.
Pedestrian crosswalks: A number of pedestrian crossings should be considered for
enhancements. The addition of pedestrian refuge median or bump outs should be considered
to make the crossings safer on this four-lane road
Bike lanes: The city and county bike plan include bike lanes on this road which could be
accomplished by creating a three-lane cross section for the corridor since currently a number
of segments are not wide enough to accommodate bike lanes.
Intersection modifications: Signal systems and intersection geometrics in the corridor should
be studied and updated to include flashing yellow arrows and turn lanes as needed to improve
traffic flow.
Position: The city is requesting that Hennepin County dedicate funding for the rehabilitation/
reconstruction Minnetonka Boulevard between TH 169 and France Avenue. The design should
include facilities/space for bicycles, pedestrians, motorists and aesthetic improvements.
Southwest LRT (Request Directed to State Legislature, Met Council & Hennepin County)
Issue: The Met Council, CTIB, Hennepin County RR Authority and the Cities along the SWLRT
route very much endorse and support the SWLRT project and cobbled together a means of closing
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 4
[4]
the project funding gap this past summer. The funding solution is not the best approach but it was
the only option at the time. A better option would be beneficial to all involved.
Analysis: The funding gap of approximately $144.5 million was closed last summer and works.
All of the local funding is committed and the engineering, planning and environmental work is is
complete. Any opportunity to improve the funding mechanism for the “gap’ would be financially
beneficial for the Region and County.
Position: The City continues to strongly support the Southwest LRT Project and would support
any legislative effort by Hennepin County or the Met Council to improve on the method of funding
the project.
Transportation Funding (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: A comprehensive transportation system is a vital component in planning for and meeting
the physical, social and economic needs of our state and metropolitan region. Adequate and stable
sources of funding are necessary to ensure the development and maintenance of a high quality,
efficient and safe transportation system that meets these needs and that will position the state and
region to be economically competitive in the years ahead.
Analysis: Under current transportation financing structures, transportation needs in the
metropolitan region continue to be inadequate and underfunded. Our transportation funding system
relies primarily on local property taxes and fees and the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) for transit.
Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient and MVST receipts continue to lag behind
projections, resulting in funding levels that continually fail to meet demand. Transportation
funding and planning must be a high priority for state, regional and local policymakers so that the
transportation system can sufficiently meet the needs of the state’s residents and businesses and
its projected population growth. Funding and planning for our regional and statewide systems must
be coordinated at the federal, state, regional and local levels to optimally achieve long term needs
and goals. In addition, cities lack adequate tools and state resources for the maintenance and
improvement of municipal systems, with resources restricted to property taxes and special
assessments. Cost participation requirements have overburdened city budgets. It is imperative that
alternative revenue generating authority be granted to municipalities and state resources be made
available for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system.
Position: The city:
Supports stable and sufficient statewide transportation funding and local tools to meet the
long-term transportation system needs of the region and local municipal systems;
Supports funding to assist cities overburdened by cost participation responsibilities;
Supports state funding for state highway projects, including congestion and safety
improvements; and
Supports state financial assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction.
Transit Financing (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding
to include rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this
system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of
individual cities and counties should not be required to fund the operation of specific transit lines
or routes of service within this regional system.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 5
[5]
Analysis: MVST revenue projections have not been reliable and the Legislature has repeatedly
reduced general fund support for Metropolitan Transit. As a result, the regional transit providers
continue to operate at a funding deficit. Shifting demographics in the metropolitan region will
mean increased demand for transit in areas with and without current transit service.
Position: The city supports stable and growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget for
all regional transit providers at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital transit
needs of the region and to expand the system to areas that currently have little or no transit options.
The city also supports an increase in the regional sales tax to fund the expansion of regular route
service, the continuing capital expenses and expanded operational needs of the metropolitan transit
system, if the increase is accompanied by sufficient local controls over the collection and
expenditure of the new revenue and geographic balance is maintained in the expansion of service
to allow cities to appropriately plan for growth in population and service needs along new and
expanded transit service. The city opposes diversions of the uses of this tax for any other purposes.
Community Development Issues
Elmwood TIF District Technical Correction (Request directed to State Legislature) **
Issue: A technical correction is needed to clarify that the 2009 Special Legislation extending the
duration of the Elmwood TIF district allows for the funding of public infrastructure.
Analysis: The special legislation extended the duration the Elmwood TIF District by 7 years, to
2029, to help fund redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the district. However, it did
not make it sufficiently clear that the EDA has the authority to use tax increment from the district
to fund expenses incurred for infrastructure. We need that authority clarified to complete the
Wooddale/Hwy 7 Interchange improvements.
Position: The City seeks special legislation to clarify that the 2009 Special Legislation authorizes
the EDA to use tax increment from the Elmwood district through the extended term of the district,
notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, for infrastructure serving the district.
TIF District Statutory Modifications (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) remains the most viable tool for local economic
development and community reinvestment efforts. TIF is a method local governments use to pay
for the costs of qualifying improvements necessary to create new investment, redevelopment, or
publicly-assisted housing. The financing of the qualifying improvements is paid from the increased
property taxes generated from the new development, redevelopment, or housing that would not
occur “but for” such assistance. There are steps that the State could take that would enhance the
effectiveness of TIF, leverage additional private investment and create more jobs and tax base in
communities. The current types of State-authorized TIF districts lack flexibility and do not
adequately address the varied and unique redevelopment situations found in urban communities.
Currently, the Minnesota TIF Act requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area be
found to be substandard to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. In redevelopment situations
involving only a small number of parcels, this can be an insurmountable standard to meet thus
preventing new investment from occurring.
Position: The City supports greater flexibility and the inclusion of additional uses within current
TIF districts.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 6
[6]
In particular, the City supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF District
statute requiring 50% or more of buildings within project areas be found to be substandard.
The City supports the elimination of the 5-year rule for districts that take longer to develop.
To spur additional development, the City supports lengthening the duration of Economic
Development TIF Districts to a full 10 years, or nine years from first tax increment collection.
In addition, the City supports expanding authority to allow for the establishment of Economic
Development TIF Districts for assisting with commercial project development for the
purpose of retention and expansion of existing businesses and the attraction of new business
to the state to create and retain jobs.
The City further supports the establishment of Transit Oriented TIF Districts within one-half
mile of light rail corridors and one mile from light rail corridor train stations for the purposes
of promoting economic development, redeveloping blighted areas, and the development of
housing near light rail corridors. Eligible expenditures within the district include but are not
limited to (1) the city's or authority’s share of the costs necessary to provide for the
construction of any southwest light rail transit station and related infrastructure, including
but not limited to parking facilities, including structured parking, pedestrian overpasses,
pedestrian connections, and walkways or trails; (2) infrastructure and roadway
improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer and utility
improvements; (3) land acquisition costs; (4) costs related to environmental remediation, soil
correction, demolition, and relocation; (5) site improvement costs; (6) costs incurred with
respect to the development of or rehabilitation of housing; and (7) related administrative
costs. Additionally, if two or more cities or authorities propose a joint development or
adjacent developments, the cities or authorities would be allowed to expend up to 25% of the
total revenue derived from tax increments generated from such a tax increment district to pay
for the eligible expenditures of another tax increment district located outside the city’s
corporate limits
DEED Program Funding (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: The Department of Employment & Economic Development (DEED) is critically important
in the support of communities and local economic development initiatives. DEED manages several
funding programs utilized by the City which have positively impacted St. Louis Park.
Position: The City believes that continued funding of DEED programs at the same, or an increased
level is vital to economic growth across Minnesota. The City supports legislative initiatives that
strengthen funding levels for economic development programs administered by DEED and other
state agencies such as Small Business Development Centers, the Minnesota Investment Fund, the
Job Creation Fund, Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment Grant Program, Transportation
Economic Development Program and proposed new financing tools that support development
along transit corridors.
Special Service Districts Statutory Authority (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to § 428A.101
to establish Special Service Districts. As currently written, only commercial properties can
financially participate within Special Service Districts. This is challenging for funding additional
services within mixed-use project areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established six Special
Service Districts, including multiple sections of Excelsior Boulevard. Providing infrastructure
improvements and on-going maintenance at the LRT station areas will also be a need
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 7
[7]
Position: The city supports the inclusion of multi-family housing developments as financial
participants within Special Service Districts and the establishment of Special Service Districts
around transit and LRT station areas.
Establish a TOD Affordable Housing Fund (Request directed to State Leg./Hennepin Co)
Issue: Efforts are being made to develop a corridor-wide housing strategy for the SWLRT Corridor
for providing a full range of housing options specifically within a half-mile of the station areas. The
fundamental issue with respect to the traditional approaches to infill/redevelopment and mixed-
income housing production/preservation is an absence of funds.
Position: The city supports the creation of a TOD Affordable Housing Fund and requests that
Hennepin County and the State provide a financial resource to be used to support the preservation
and creation of affordable housing along the SWLRT corridor.
Affordable Housing Financing (Request directed to State Legislature) **
Issue: Last year the Governor’s bonding package included a request for $70 million for Housing
Infrastructure (HIB) and $20 million for General Obligation (GO) Bonds for affordable housing.
GO bonds can be used to rehabilitate public housing. HIB bonds can be used to finance several
types of projects including new construction or rehabilitation of supportive and affordable housing
and preservation of existing federally subsidized rental housing.
The bonding request would help fund a number of developments that are currently in the pipeline.
This year’s “Homes for All” request aims to fund housing to serve an estimated 4,100 low-income
households around the state. The $70 million in HIB would help generate roughly 1,700 units and
the $20 million GO bond request would help preserve 2,400 units.
Position: The city supports the bonding package for $70 million for Housing Infrastructure (HIB)
and $20 million for General Obligation (GO) Bonds to fund affordable housing to serve 4,100 low
income households.
Public Safety Issues
Water Treatment Plan #4 (Request directed to State Legislature) **
Issue: On March 10, 2016, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) sent the City a Notice of
Health Advisory stating we had exceeded MDH’s Health-Based Values (HBVs) or Health Risk
Limits (HRLs) for three contaminants known as Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs): Vinyl
Chloride, Trichloroethylene, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene. These contaminants were discovered in
the water produced by Water Treatment Plant #4 located in the southeast part of the community.
Although HBVs/HRLs are advisory standards only, they are set by MDH when their research has
shown the Environmental Protection Agency’s Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are not
reflective of significant science-based health concerns. Although test results for Vinyl Chloride
(VC) were close to exceeding the EPA’s MCL, short term measures the City took last fall showed
positive results in lowering the VC levels. Fortunately, because of the proactive and frequent
testing being done by the City, in November it was discovered that the levels of Trichloroethylene
(TCE) had increased to the point of exceeding the MDH’s HRL’s. Although the levels of TCE
were well below the MCL’s and in compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, out of
an abundance of caution and to preserve the public trust in the city’s drinking water, this well and
treatment plant were taken out of service in late December, 2016.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 8
[8]
Analysis: For some time now the City has been partnering with the MPCA and MDH in designing
a permanent upgrade to WTP4 to treat the contaminants cited in the MDH advisory letter. When
constructed, the upgrades will lower all contaminants to below their respective MDH
HBVs/HRLs. The PCA is paying for the cost of designing the upgrades to the plant and has
encouraged the City to approach the state for funding to help pay for the construction of the
upgrades, which is currently estimated at $4.5 million.
Position: Given that the community’s drinking water is being impacted by a polluter from decades
ago, the City requests $2.25 million be included in any bonding bill package under consideration
in 2017 to assist with the construction of these plant upgrades later in 2017.
Police Trainee/Non-traditional Pathway Program (Request directed to State Legislature) **
Issue: The law enforcement profession has been under a microscope recently due to many high
profile incidents. Due to the city’s desire to attract police officer applicants, particularly non-
traditional candidates (people of color, females, and candidates who have other
backgrounds/degrees/work experiences), a new approach for hiring has been developed. The need
to create a wider and deeper candidate pool for Police Officers has never been greater, and the
opportunity exists to create a sustainable non-traditional pathway at this time.
Analysis: During the past 6 months a small group of police chiefs, HR managers, POST Board
staff, Hennepin Technical College staff, and Mike McGee from MNSCU; have been meeting to
discuss the possibility of creating a sustainable non-traditional pathway similar to the LETO (Law
Enforcement Training Opportunities) program operated by the Minnesota State Patrol, and with
funding support from the legislature..
The opportunity for a person to be hired as a full time “trainee” offers the non-traditional candidate
the opportunity to go to school full time as an employee of their agency; and, upon completion of
the program, begin the field training process with their employer agency. The program’s goal is
to remove barriers to the traditional hiring process so that candidates with no prior law enforcement
experience, but with at least a 2 year degree, can pursue a career in police work.
We have begun a recruiting process for this non-traditional pathway, and we hope to see our first
“class” begin their training at Hennepin Technical College next May. There are still many
challenges ahead, particularly that this must be a cooperative effort between many cities in order
for us to have enough trainees to fill a classroom. Other agencies we’ve approached to join us in
this effort express curiosity but are reluctant to commit to this pathway. Most commonly, the
concerns have to do with cost, the length of the hiring process, and the unknowns about success
rates and retention rates.
Position: Legislative support and funding for the training academy costs and the first years’ salary
would at least mitigate the financial concerns voiced by some agencies. We are not suggesting we
should abandon traditional hiring pathways for this non-traditional approach. It is likely that our
organization would continue to hire the majority of our new officers through the traditional route
for the foreseeable future. However, securing funding for this unique program would assist us in
our goal of implementing this program with other cities going forward, while also collaborating
with the city’s focus on racial equity.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 9
[9]
Revisions to Chapter 420 Firefighters Civil Service Commission (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: Current St. Louis Park Fire Department Civil Service leadership recognizes that certain
elements of the statute should be revised to match current standards, and some areas may be viewed
as unconstitutional.
Analysis: The highlighted areas include
420.03 Membership, Duties, Terms: Delete the sentence “All vacancies in the commission
shall be filled by appointment by the council within 30 days after a vacancy occurs.”
Eliminating this sentence extends the Council the flexibility to fill the position as schedules
and candidates allow.
420.04 Meetings: Eliminate the portion of the sentence that states “thereafter on the first
Monday in February of each year at which meetings: and “meetings shall be held and”.
Eliminating these portions of sentence allow for greater flexibility in meeting when schedules
allow and the location of those meetings can vary.
420.16 Certain Acts Misdemeanors: Eliminate the sentence “Any officer or employee of the
department, when operated under civil service in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter, who shall in any matter directly or indirectly solicit, receive, or pay, or be in any
manner concerned in soliciting, receiving or paying any assessment, subscription or
contribution for any party or political purpose shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject
to suspension or removal. Any person who shall solicit or receive directly or indirectly, or
be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving any assessment, contribution, or
payment for any political purpose from any officer or employee in a fire department operated
under civil service as in this chapter provided for, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” It is
viewed by Civil Service leadership that this portion is unconstitutional.
Position: Making these administrative adjustments will allow current practice to conform to the
actual statute.
Railway Safety of Hazardous Materials and Oil Train Operations (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: The current situation within St Louis Park suggests that there will be continued flow of
hazardous material commodities including but not limited to crude oil and ethanol at current or
increased levels in the future.
Analysis: The demand for these commodities and the proximity of Minneapolis to our city points
to St Louis Park as an alternative for managing heavy traffic and staging within the system. The
potential risk exists across all of the system including the BNSF, CP and TCW lines. Track
improvements that result from the SWLRT will allow for higher speeds and safer options for the
rail companies to consider through St Louis Park.
Position: The City feels discussion needs to occur at the state legislative level around the
accountability, safety and funding of accident prevention and responder training, and information
sharing. There needs to be funding for community awareness, mitigation and resiliency efforts as
well. Rail companies need to be required to share the needed information required for response
and mitigation.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 10
[10]
Support League of Minnesota Cities effort to increase general fund appropriation for LODD
deaths/disability reimbursement to local governments. (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Cities are being impacted by an unfunded mandate which requires the provision of health
insurance benefits to survivor families of volunteer firefighters that die in the Line of Duty
(LODD).
Analysis: In 2015, while advocating for the expansion of health insurance benefits to survivor
families of Volunteer Fire fighters that die in the line of duty, the fire service agreed to support the
league’s efforts to increase state funds to reimburse local governments for these costs. Given that
our staffing model uses a mix of part time and fulltime staff working interchangeably on all types
of incidents, the City has an exposure for this expense.
Position: Support the increased funding by the legislature to create a sustainable fund that assures
the families of public safety employees are covered while minimizing the impacts on local
government by placing the burden on them to cover the costs.
Oppose statutory prohibition on residential fire sprinklers (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: The Appellate Court struck down the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) adoption
of the latest International Residential Code (IRC). The IRC is for building new single-family and
duplex homes, which had a provision for residential fire sprinklers in newly constructed one- and
two-family homes that were 4,500 sq. feet and larger.
Analysis: The sprinkler provision was challenged as whether it was done legally and appropriately.
The requirement to build these homes safer is no longer in effect. The sobering reality is that, in
terms of fire safety, the most dangerous place to be is at home. And most often the victims of fire
are the younger and older among us, who have a more difficult time getting out in an emergency
situation.
The facts are clear: Residential fire sprinklers save lives. Fire sprinklers are cost-effective. In
Minnesota recent studies show the cost of installing residential fire sprinkler systems averages
$1.15 per sprinklered square foot, or approximately 1% of new home construction.
Position: Oppose efforts to prohibit future adoption of the Residential fire sprinkler code.
Oppose expansion of legal fireworks. (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: There is a continued effort to expand the sale and use of a wider variety of fireworks
Analysis: A bill has been proposed in the past which would prohibit cities from banning the sale
of exploding fireworks. As proposed, exploding fireworks would be available for purchase from
June 1 to July 7 of each year. In the city of St. Louis Park, where both business and residential
properties are in close proximity, there is an unacceptable level of risk given that many of these
are wood frame combustible construction, non-sprinkled and high occupancy.
There is an inherent danger in aerial fireworks which cause a number of injuries and pose a serious
fire risk. Fireworks injuries in 2015 were the highest they have been in the last 10 years. 43% of
the fireworks injuries in the past ten years happen to people 1-19 years of age (children, teens, and
young adults). Fire damage due to fireworks in 2014 was $1.75 million.
Position: Oppose the expansion of legal fireworks in Minnesota to include “aerial and audible”
(HF1089/SF465).
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 11
[11]
Unfunded mandate in need of full funding: MN Statute 299A.465 Continued health
insurance coverage for peace officer or firefighter disabled in the line of duty (Request
directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Cities are required to continue payment of health insurance for peace officers or firefighters
disabled in the line of duty. The determination must be made by the executive director of the Public
Employees Retirement Association (PERA) or by the executive director of the Minnesota State
Retirement System.
Subd. 1(d) - The employer is responsible for the continued payment of the
employer's contribution for coverage of the officer or firefighter and, if applicable,
the officer's or firefighter's dependents. Coverage must continue for the officer or
firefighter and, if applicable, the officer's or firefighter's dependents until the officer
or firefighter reaches or, if deceased, would have reached the age of 65. However,
coverage for dependents does not have to be continued after the person is no longer
a dependent.
Subd. 4. Public employer reimbursement.
A public employer subject to this section may annually apply by August 1 for the
preceding fiscal year to the commissioner of public safety for reimbursement to
help defray a portion of its costs of complying with this section. The commissioner
shall provide an equal pro rata share to the public employer out of the public safety
officer's benefit account based on the availability of funds for each eligible officer,
firefighter, and qualifying dependents. Individual shares must not exceed the actual
costs of providing coverage under this section by a public employer.
Position: The City of St. Louis Park does not have issues with this type of program. The questions
come with the interpretation of “in the line of duty” and also with funding of this unfunded
mandate.
The city has six former public safety employees who qualify for continued payment of health
insurance. In some cases, there were questions about the intent of this language as it relates
to the term “injury in the line of duty.” For example, should a slip and fall in the office be
considered “in the line of duty?”
The city has only been partially reimbursed for the cost of this mandate, and requests that
this program be fully funded by the state.
General Issues
Levy Limits (Request directed to State Legislature) **
Issue: During the 2008 legislative session, levy limits were imposed for three years (2009-2011)
on cities over 2,500 in population.
A one-time levy limit was applied to taxes levied in 2013, payable in 2014, only. This was in effect
for all counties with a population of 5,000 and over and cities with a population of 2,500 and over.
All cities with a population less than 2,500, all towns and all special taxing districts were exempt
from the limits.
Levy limits replace local accountability with a state judgment about the appropriate level of local
taxation and local services. Additionally, state restrictions on local budgets can have a negative
effect on a city’s bond rating due to the restriction on revenue flexibility.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 12
[12]
Position: St. Louis Park opposes efforts to establish a levy limit or other proposed restrictions for
local government budgets. Based on our legislative policies that strongly support local budgetary
decision making, St. Louis Park opposes levy limits of any type.
Local Government Aid (Request directed to State Legislature) **
Issue: St. Louis Park supports the LGA program as a means of ensuring all cities are able to
provide basic services without over-burdening the property tax system. In 2003 St. Louis Park
had its entire LGA allocation cut – approximately $2 million/yr. Several years ago a portion of
this cut was restored – approximately $500,000/yr. This funding has been extremely helpful,
particularly related to replacing aging infrastructure and equipment.
Position: St. Louis Park strongly opposes reductions of LGA
Legal Notices – Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication (Request directed to State
Legislature)
Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local
newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions (cities,
counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating that all
such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website).
Position: The city continues to support the elimination of this requirement, which would save cities
thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs. Publishing legal notices on the city website instead
allows the potential to reach a much greater audience in St. Louis Park than via the local
newspaper, which only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses working
with the city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different publications.
The city is currently publishing its legal notices at www.stlouispark.org in addition to publishing
them in the official newspaper.
Emerald Ash Borer – (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is the most destructive and economically costly forest pest ever
to invade North America. Ash trees killed by EAB become brittle very quickly and will begin to
fall apart and threaten overhead cables and power lines, vehicles, buildings and people. Few cities
are prepared and no city can easily afford the costs and the liability threats resulting from EAB.
Peer-reviewed studies have confirmed that a coordinated, landscape-based strategy is more cost
effective than fighting EAB city by city.
Position: St. Louis Park supports state funding to provide technical assistance and matching grants
to communities for EAB management/removal costs and related practices.
Xcel Energy Utility Relocation (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Xcel Energy has utility infrastructure in the public right-of-way. It’s often necessary for
Xcel to relocate their infrastructure in order for the city to complete construction projects. When
it’s not done in a timely manner it delays the completion of city projects, which in turn generates
downtime charges that the contractor passes on to the city.
Analysis: During the design of city infrastructure projects, the city tries to avoid requiring Xcel to
relocate their facilities, however many times it is necessary. Understanding that Xcel needs time
to plan for this work, Xcel is notified of the annual Capital Improvement Plan in the fall of the
year preceding construction. In January of the year of construction, staff has a meeting with all
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 13
[13]
utilities to review impacts. Also, plans are sent to all utilities indicating areas where there is a
potential conflict with their facilities. Staff will meet individually with Xcel during the design to
discuss the conflicts and their schedule. Even with these efforts, Xcel’s utility relocations have
delayed a number of projects in the city. In 2015, a sidewalk project on Texas was supposed to be
completed by Labor Day but Xcel did not complete their work until mid-October. Due to the warm
weather last fall, the contractor was able to complete the project the week of Thanksgiving.
However, weather is not always on our side. Additionally, the contractor asked for $22,000 in
downtime charges due to the delays incurred on this project. The city does not have the same
experiences with other private utility providers.
Position: The city supports legislation that requires Xcel Energy to complete their relocation work
in a timely manner to avoid delays and additional cost on city-led infrastructure projects, with
remedies in place if they do not meet their commitments.
Ranked Choice Voting for School Districts (Request directed to State Legislature)
Issue: Under current law, school districts are not allowed to use ranked choice voting (RCV) as a
means to elect board members. For those cities that choose to use RCV, the ballot becomes a bit
more complicated if school districts are not allowed to use this tool.
Position: The City supports legislation that would make it permissible for school districts to use
ranked choice voting as a means to elect board members.
Automated Vehicles – (Request directed to the Met Council)
Issue: Automated vehicles are those in which at least some aspect of a safety-critical control
function (e.g., steering, throttle, or braking) occurs without direct driver input. Automated vehicles
may be autonomous (i.e., use only vehicle sensors) or may be connected (i.e., use communications
systems such as connected vehicle technology, in which cars and roadside infrastructure
communicate wirelessly).
Automated vehicles have the potential to bring about transformative safety, mobility, energy, and
environmental benefits to the surface transportation system. These benefits could include crash
avoidance, reduced infrastructure needs, energy consumption and vehicle emissions, reduced
travel times, improved travel time reliability and multi-modal connectivity, and improved
transportation system efficiency and accessibility, particularly for persons with disabilities and the
growing aging population. Automated vehicles could also transform the private use of land in
terms of reducing parking needs – surface or structured parking. Automated vehicle technologies
are becoming some of the most heavily researched automotive innovations. Currently, some
automated vehicle technologies are available, but are only a fraction of what will be available in
the future.
Position - MnDOT is undertaking research and planning related to automated/autonomous
vehicles. The Met Council is asked to work with MnDOT as a part of planning for the impact
these types of vehicles will have on the region, particularly from a transportation and land use
perspective.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: 2017 Legislative Priorities and Issues – Meeting with Elected and Appointed Representatives Page 14
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the proposed 2017 Connect the Park standalone
sidewalk, trail and bikeway projects, discuss staff recommendations, and provide direction to staff
related to the proposed projects and potential impacts.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should staff move forward with installation of the sidewalk,
bikeway, and trail segments, identified in the Connect the Park Capital Improvement Plan?
SUMMARY: The Engineering Department has been working on the design of several sidewalk,
trail and bikeway segments proposed to be constructed in 2017. These segments are included in
the Connect the Park Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The segments listed in this report represent
various stand-alone segments not associated with the City’s annual pavement management
program in the Sorensen Neighborhood and along Utica Avenue. Those sidewalk segments will
be brought forward for Council discussion at the January 17 Special Study Session.
Connect the Park is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add sidewalks, trails, and
bikeways throughout the community. To date the City has constructed 4.8 miles of sidewalks, 1.6
miles of trails and 6.2 miles of bikeways as part of the Connect the Park CIP. Overall this
represents 38%, 47% and 19% (respectfully) of the overall planned improvements.
2017 will be the third year of sidewalk and trail construction and the second year of installing
bikeway in the community. This report will provide an overview of the sidewalk, trail and bikeway
construction for 2017.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan for 2017. The preliminary cost estimate for the Connect the Park project
is estimated at $1,130,000. Funding will be provided by General Obligation Bonds. Additional
information on the breakdown of the funding can be found in the remainder of the report. A final
estimate will be provided at the February 6 City Council meeting.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2017 Connect the Park Map
Prepared by: Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer
Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: 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 spacing, Connect the Park seeks to address gaps located within existing sidewalk
infrastructure. These gap segments are sidewalks that exist on part of a block, but end before
connecting to another cross street or continuing sidewalk segment.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: City staff held several public open houses, facilitated presentations,
and on site resident visits to address specific concerns throughout 2016. Correspondence received
from the open houses and other forms of communication after the meetings will be available in the
final council report.
Kickoff Meetings
The first round of kickoff meetings for 2017 Connect the Park projects were held in August 2016.
The intent of these meetings were to introduce nearby residents and community members to the
projects.
The meeting for bikeways and trail was held on August 4, 2016 at St. Louis Park High School.
The meeting was attended by 21 people. Staff facilitated a presentation that covered high-level
topics including: the background of Connect the Park; bikeway facility types and associated
impacts; bikeway and trail construction; and project schedules.
The meeting for sidewalks was held on August 10, 2016 at St. Louis Park City Hall. The meeting
was attended by approximately 20 people. Staff facilitated a presentation about Connect the Park
background, design considerations, what to expect during construction, and project schedules.
Two Wheels on 28th
The City of St. Louis Park, with assistance from Hennepin County, put on a bikeway
demonstration project along 28th Street on September 18th from 1:00 – 4:00 pm. This event, called
Two Wheels on 28th, allowed community members to experience a temporary bikeway. White
duct tape and spray chalk was used to create bike lanes and bike symbols between the North Cedar
Lake Regional Trail and Birchwood Park. 179 people officially attended the event, and 131
surveys were received.
A summary of the event and feedback received was provided to the city council as a report on the
October 10, 2016 Study Session Agenda.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Preliminary Design Meetings
The second round of meetings was held in October and November 2016. The intent of those
meetings was to present preliminary designs for each project and gain feedback from attendees in
an open house format style meeting.
The preliminary design of the Utica Avenue trail was discussed in conjunction with the 2017
Pavement Management meeting on October 25. The bikeway meeting was held on November 17th,
and the sidewalk meeting was held on December 6. All meetings were held at St. Louis Park City
Hall. Between 20 and 30 people attended each meeting.
Final Design Meetings
A final design meeting will be held on Thursday, January 12, 2017 for all standalone 2017 Connect
the Park projects. This meeting will not feature a staff presentation. The intent of this meeting is
to share staff recommended designs and receive feedback from attendees.
PROPOSED 2017 CONNECT THE PARK PROJECTS
Table 1 summarizes each project outlined in this report. Overall, there are 3,617 feet (0.69 miles)
of sidewalk, 1,293 feet (0.24 miles) of new trail and 15,068 feet (2.85 miles) of bikeway
recommended for construction in 2017.
Table 1: 2017 Connect the Park Projects
Project Location Project Extents Length (ft) Cost
Sidewalks
Xenwood Avenue 27th Street to 29th Street 1,300 $330,000
36 1/2th Street Monterey Drive to Excelsior Blvd 1,457 $125,000
Barry Street
Highway 100 to 26th Street 860 Alt 1: $145,000
Alt 2: $112,000
Trail
Utica Avenue 27th Street to North Cedar Trail 1,293 $180,000
Bikeways
28th Street Virginia Ave to Utica Avenue Ave
(including parking bays) 9,625 $255,000
Texas Avenue Minnetonka Blvd to 28th Street 1,253 $37,000
Texas Avenue, Lake
Street, Rhode Island
Avenue
Highway 7 to Cedar Lake Regional
Trail 2,890 $40,000
33rd Street Virginia Ave to Rhode Island Ave 1,300 $18,000
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
2017 Connect the Park Project
SIDEWALK SEGMENT: Xenwood Avenue – 27th Street to 29th Street
Project Overview: This sidewalk was not originally identified in the Connect the Park plan,
but was requested through a resident petition to complete an existing sidewalk gap. It is
proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk
segments.
Community Significance: Completing this gap will establish a continuous sidewalk
connection between 27th Street and Minnetonka Boulevard along Xenwood Avenue. In
addition it connects to the Birchwood Park Trail at 28th Street.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. Staff has
also met with several residents on site to discuss specific concerns.
Design: The sidewalk is proposed to be 5 feet wide and will feature a 5-6 foot boulevard on
the west side of Xenwood Avenue. The boulevard shrinks to 4 feet in areas to avoid trees and
to minimize impacts along the hill south of 28th Street. The trail approach west of 28th Street
is proposed to be reconstructed to better align with the crosswalk and sidewalk on the south
side of 28th. At 27th Street, an ADA pedestrian ramp will be constructed on the northwest
corner of the intersection to allow pedestrian movement to cross to the sidewalk on the east
side of Xenwood Avenue north of 27th Street. All existing pedestrian ramps approaching
intersections will be upgraded to ADA standards.
There are 6 trees that have been identified for removal along Xenwood Avenue for the
construction of this segment of sidewalk. There is retaining wall proposed in front of several
homes on Xenwood south of 28th Street.
Walk Type: This is proposed to be a neighborhood sidewalk and would be maintained by
residents for snow removal.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the sidewalk is $330,000. Refined
estimates will be available with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the
other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments. Completed by late summer 2017.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
SIDEWALK SEGMENT: 36 1/2th Street – Monterey Drive to Excelsior Blvd
Project Overview: This sidewalk was identified in the Connect the Park Plan. It is planned
to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments.
Community Significance: This corridor features higher density residential, but currently
does not have a sidewalk. The installation of sidewalk on this street will connect two high
volume roads – Monterey Drive and Excelsior Boulevard – and will provide a safe, dedicated
pedestrian space to walk to destinations such as Wolfe Park, Excelsior & Grand, businesses
on Excelsior Blvd, and the Rec Center.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. Staff
has also met with several residents on site to discuss site specific concerns.
Design: This sidewalk is proposed to be 5 feet wide and will feature a 5 foot boulevard along
the north side of 36 1/2th Street. At the intersection of 36 1/2th and Monterey, the sidewalk
will pair with a proposed pedestrian crossing solution over Monterey. This is planned to
include a rapid rectangular flashing beacon (RRFB) and a bollard protected median refuge
area.
There are 9 trees that will need to be removed along 36 1/2th Street for the construction of
this segment of sidewalk.
Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the
City for snow removal.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the sidewalk is $125,000.
Refined estimates will be available with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the
other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments. Construction of the sidewalk corridor is
planned to be completed by late summer 2017. The RRFB crossing over Monterey Drive
will be installed before June 1, 2017.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
SIDEWALK SEGMENT: Barry Street – Highway 100 to 26th Street
Project Overview: This sidewalk is identified in the Connect the Park plan. It is planned
to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments.
Community Significance: This corridor is an important connection for the Fern Hill
neighborhood. Barry Street carries approximately 3650 vehicles/day and abuts both Beth El
Synagogue and Benilde-St. Margaret’s School. This sidewalk will provide pedestrian access
from Fern Hill to sidewalks on the Highway 100 frontage road, which connect to the North
Cedar Lake Regional Trail. In addition, the sidewalk and crossing enhancement will provide
pedestrian space for students year round.
Public Process: Staff has held three public open houses to discuss issues and concerns.
Staff have also met with residents from Princeton Court Townhomes, as well as
representatives from Beth-El and Benilde-St. Margaret’s, to discuss the sidewalk and
potential crossing enhancements.
Design: Potential sidewalk designs for both sides of Barry Street have been created;
Alternative 1: Sidewalk design on the east and north side of Barry Street would feature a
5-foot sidewalk with a boulevard 4-5 feet wide. The sidewalk is proposed to meander around
a large oak tree that is located west of Princeton Court Townhomes and a retaining wall in
this location. This design would remove 15 trees, many of which are located between Barry
Street and the Benilde-St. Margaret’s main parking lot area. This construction would also
require the elimination of the existing berm in this location. Since the berm and tree
plantings were required as part of the Conditional Use Permit associated with Benilde-St.
Margaret’s, a variance may be needed. In addition, permanent easements would be required
from both Princeton Court Townhomes and Benilde-St. Margaret’s, as there currently is not
enough room to construct a sidewalk within city right-of-way.
Alternative 2: Sidewalk design on the west and south side of Barry Street would feature a
5-foot sidewalk with a boulevard 4-5 feet wide. This design would remove 8 trees which
are currently located between the Beth-El parking lot and Barry Street.
Impact comparisons between the two designs are shown in Table 2.
Crossing Enhancements: There is an existing crosswalk over Barry Street located on the
west end of this sidewalk segment. This crosswalk connects the frontage road sidewalk to
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
the sidewalk leading to the pedestrian bridge over Highway 100. Staff is recommending
the installation of an RRFB to enhance the crossing location.
Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the
City for snow removal.
Cost: The cost of each sidewalk alternative:
Construction Schedule: This sidewalk is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the
other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk segments. Construction is planned to conclude in late
summer 2017.
Alternative 1
(East-North Alternative)
Alternative 2
(West-South Alternative)
Trees Removed 15 8
Permanent Easement Needed Yes Yes
RRFB Crossing Yes Yes
Other Considerations CUP variance needed Eruv, light relocations
Estimated Project Cost
$145,000 $112,000
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
TRAIL SEGMENT: Utica Avenue – 27th Street to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
Project Overview: This trail was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This project is
planned to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park sidewalk
projects. However, there is right- of- way acquisition necessary which may delay the
construction start.
Community Significance: Utica Avenue features several high-density apartment buildings
and does not currently feature non-motorized infrastructure. A trail in this location will
connect the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to the Birchwood neighborhood and the
pedestrian bridge over Highway 100 near 27th Street. It will also connect with the proposed
bikeway along 27th Street.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss the project.
Design: The trail is proposed on the west side of Utica Avenue. It will be 8 feet wide and
will feature a 5-foot grass boulevard. It will connect to several existing trail segments located
in front of the Luther Auto dealership and the recently completed New Horizons daycare.
The pavement on the existing trail near Luther Auto is proposed to be reconstructed for
smoother biking & walking surface. The trail will need to cross over 23rd Street to access
the North Cedar Lake Trail, and retaining walls will be needed in this area.
There are 25 trees that will need to be removed to construct the trail along Utica Avenue,
most of them on the north side near the connection with the North Cedar Lake Trail. Several
permanent easements will be required – engineering staff is working through the acquisition
process.
Trail Type: This is proposed to be a community trail and would be maintained by the city
for snow removal.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the trail is $180,000. Refined
estimates will be available with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: If easements can be acquired in a time-appropriate manner, this
trail is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
sidewalk segments. Construction is planned to conclude in fall 2017.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: 28th Street Corridor- Virginia Avenue to Highway 100
Project Overview: This 1.5 mile bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park
plan. This bikeway is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017
Connect the Park bikeway segments.
Segment Breakdown: This corridor has three distinct segments. Each of these
individual segment is described in detail on the following pages.
28th Street – Virginia Avenue to Louisiana Avenue
28th Street – Louisiana Avenue to Dakota Avenue
28th Street, Blackstone Ave, 27th Street – Dakota Ave to Utica Ave
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for the entire 28th Street Corridor
from Virginia Avenue to Utica Avenue is estimated at $330,000. This estimate includes
the cost of the parking bays adjacent to Ainsworth Park. Refined estimates will be available
with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: Bikeway striping will be installed by mid-summer 2017.
INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT INFORMATION:
28th Street – Virginia Avenue to Louisiana Avenue
Community Significance: 28th Street west of Louisiana Avenue is a continuous, east-
west neighborhood corridor in the Texa Tonka neighborhood. This corridor connects to the
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail at Virginia Avenue and connects to several city parks. A
bikeway in this location will provide a safe connection for bicycle movement into the city
neighborhoods from the regional trail system.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. The
city also hosted the “Two Wheels on 28th” bike demonstration event on 28th Street to gain
more public feedback on the proposed bikeway.
Design: Dedicated bike lanes are proposed for 28th Street west of Louisiana Avenue. 28th
Street in this segment is 35-ft wide between Texas Avenue and Louisiana Avenue, and 40-
ft wide between the regional trail and Texas Avenue. The street will feature 6-foot bike
lanes, 10.5-foot drive lanes, and a 1-foot buffer space between the drive and bike lanes.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
Existing on-street parking is proposed to be removed for the majority of the corridor to
accommodate the bike lanes. To address parking needs at Ainsworth Park, two parking
bays are proposed to be constructed that will allow parking in this area. These parking bays
will accommodate 18 cars. There are approximately 4 trees that will need to be removed
to construct the parking bay.
As part of this effort, an enhanced warning system is proposed to be installed to alert drivers
of the at-grade trail crossing over Virginia Avenue.
The bikeway will become a “Share the Road” design between Louisiana Avenue and
Maryland Avenue to maintain the existing eastbound left turn lane. Colored sharrow
markings are proposed to call attention to the bikeway in this location.
28th Street – Louisiana Avenue to Dakota Avenue
Community Significance: 28th Street between Louisiana Avenue and Dakota Avenue is
a continuous, east-west neighborhood corridor in the Bronx Park neighborhood. This
corridor connects several neighborhoods and provides a dedicated bikeway near Peter
Hobart Elementary School. A bikeway in this location will provide a safe connection for
bicycle movement into the city neighborhoods from the regional trail system.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. The
city also hosted the “Two Wheels on 28th” bike demonstration event on 28th Street to gain
more public feedback on the proposed bikeway.
Design: Dedicated bike lanes are proposed for 28th Street between Louisiana Avenue and
Dakota Avenue. 28th Street in this segment is 35-ft wide. The street will feature 6-foot bike
lanes, 10.5-foot drive lanes, and a 1-foot buffer space between drive and bike lanes.
Existing on-street parking is proposed to be removed in this segment to accommodate the
bike lanes.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
28th Street, Blackstone Ave, 27th Street – Dakota Ave to Utica Ave
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This
segment is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
bikeway segments.
Community Significance: The corridor between Dakota Avenue and Utica Avenue is an
east-west neighborhood corridor in the Birchwood neighborhood. This corridor connects
several neighborhoods and provides a designated bikeway near Peter Hobart Elementary
School. It will also connect to the proposed Utica Avenue trail which will connect to the
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns. The
city also hosted the “Two Wheels on 28th” bike demonstration event on 28th Street and at
Birchwood Park to gain more public feedback on the proposed bikeway.
Design: Due to low traffic volumes in this area, this corridor will feature a “share the road”
situation. There are no parking restrictions proposed.
Since 28th Street ends at Alabama Avenue, the Connect The Park plan originally showed
the bikeway going through trails near Birchwood Park, along 28th Street and Webster
Avenue before connecting to 27th Street. After receiving public meeting feedback, staff
evaluated different routing options for the bikeway. Staff recommends placing the bikeway
on Blackstone Avenue due to low traffic volumes and easy wayfinding due to the “L”
intersection at 27th Street.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 13
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: Texas Avenue – Minnetonka Boulevard to 28th Street
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This
segment is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
bikeway segments.
Community Significance: Texas Avenue is a major north-south corridor that spans the
majority of St. Louis Park. The corridor between Minnetonka Boulevard and 28th Street
continues the bikeway on Texas Avenue south of Minnetonka Boulevard that will be
installed as a part of the reconstruction project. With bikeways proposed on 28th Street,
this short segment will connect North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to TexaTonka businesses
and the Texas Avenue bikeway.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns.
Design: Dedicated bike lanes are proposed for Texas Avenue in this segment. The street
in this area is 44-ft wide. Since this width is too narrow to accommodate parking on both
sides of street, on-street parking is proposed to be restricted on the east side. The street will
feature 5-foot bike lanes, 11-foot drive lanes, one 8-foot parking lane on the west side, and
2-foot buffer spaces between the drive lanes and bike lanes.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for this section of bikeway is
$40,000. Refined estimates will be available with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: Bikeway striping is anticipated to be installed by mid-summer
2017.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 14
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: Texas Ave, Lake Street, Rhode Island Avenue – Highway 7 to Cedar
Lake Regional Trail
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan. This
segment is planned to be implemented in conjunction with the other 2017 Connect the Park
bikeway segments.
Community Significance: Texas Avenue is a major north-south corridor that spans the
majority of St. Louis Park. The corridor between Highway 7 and the Cedar Lake Regional
Trail continues the bikeway on Texas Avenue north of Highway 7 that is part of the
reconstruction project. This segment will provide bicycling connections from the Cedar
Lake Regional Trail to Knollwood Mall and the Texas Avenue bikeway.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns.
Design: Texas Avenue from Highway 7 to Division Street will feature dedicated bike
lanes. On-street parking will be restricted in this segment. Texas Avenue between Division
Street and Lake Street is the city border with Hopkins. Due to this, the east side of the street
will feature dedicated bike lanes, while the west side will feature a “share the road”
condition. Parking will be restricted on the east side of Texas Avenue in this segment.
Connect The Park identified a bikeway along Brookview Avenue and Edgebrook Drive to
connect to the trail. After receiving public feedback, staff evaluated different routing
options for the bikeway. Staff recommends placing the bike route on Lake Street and Rhode
Island to avoid a large hill located at the corner of Edgebrook and Brookview. The bikeway
in this section would be a “Share the Road” situation and would not include parking
restrictions.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for this section of bikeway is
$37,000. Refined estimates will be available with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: Several other projects are proposed in this area in 2018, including
a potential Hopkins-led reconstruction project on Texas Avenue, a MnDOT-led Highway
7 resurfacing project, and a Metropolitan Council-led forcemain project. Staff will continue
an open dialogue with these various agencies on the scheduling of this segment in order to
optimize costs and minimize impacts.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 15
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
BIKEWAY SEGMENT: 33rd Street – Virginia Avenue to Rhode Island Avenue
Project Overview: This bikeway corridor was identified in the Connect the Park plan.
Community Significance: 33rd Street is an east-west corridor that crosses Texas Avenue
at a signal. This short section of bikeway would connect Oak Hill Park and Aquila Park,
and provide bike connection to the Texas Avenue bikeway.
Public Process: Staff has held three public meetings to discuss issues and concerns.
Design: Due to low traffic volumes, this segment is proposed as a “Share the Road”
bikeway. Sharrow pavement parkings and associated signage would be installed. There are
no parking restrictions proposed.
Cost: The current preliminary engineering cost estimate for this section of bikeway is
$20,000. Refined estimates will be available with the final Council report.
Construction Schedule: Bikeway striping is anticipated to conclude in mid-summer 2017.
This segment is proposed to be installed in conjunction with the Texas Avenue
reconstruction project.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 16
Title: 2017 Connect the Park Construction Project Update
IMPACTS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF ENTRY: The proposed sidewalk and trail
construction activities for 2017 are challenging to build in a fully developed community. The
design and implementation of these segments require flexibility in design standards and
creativity in design alternatives. Each sidewalk segment is unique and requires its own set of
design solutions to minimize and mitigate impacts.
The designs presented to the residents and in this report acknowledge that tree loss and temporary
impacts to private property are two very sensitive issues. The proposed design endeavors to
balance the need for increased pedestrian facilities within the City with the impacts to residents
who live along these proposed sidewalks, trails and bikeways.
Utica Avenue trail will require a number of permanent easements for installation of the trail.
Staff will to begin the acquisition process of said easements when this segment is approved.
If these projects are approved, staff will work with residents to obtain the easements and right of
entry documents necessary to construct the various sidewalk and trails.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: These projects are included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program for 2017. Funding will be provided by General Obligation Bonds.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will be holding the final public open house on January 12, 2017. The
feedback and comments heard at that meeting will be brought forward to the public hearing in
February.
The schedule to facilitate construction of these segments in 2017 is as follows:
Council Study Session January 9, 2017
Final Public Open House January 12, 2017
Public Hearing and Project Report February 6, 2017
Council Awards Construction Bids March 2017
Construction April to November 2017
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Beltline Station Redevelopment Process
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed process for identifying and selecting a developer
for the redevelopment of the Beltline Station Site acceptable?
SUMMARY: Since the beginning of the SWLRT design process the City and EDA have sought
to facilitate transit oriented development (TOD) at the Beltline Station and minimize, if not
eliminate, the land area dedicated to Park & Ride facilities. To accomplish that goal, the EDA/City
will need to take a series of actions and enter into agreements over the next 2-4 years regarding a
Beltline Station Park & Ride facility and the adjacent redevelopment site. The EDA took a key
step last week at the 1/3/17 meeting when it approved a Letter of Intent with the Metropolitan
Council. In the next 18 months at least seven other key EDA/City actions will be needed; these
include:
1. Conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP) process to identify and select a developer for the
Beltline Station Redevelopment Site and Park & Ride facility.
2. Enter into Preliminary Development Agreement with the selected developer.
3. Draft and enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council regarding the construction
of the Beltline Station Park & Ride facility;
4. Draft and enter into a Park & Ride operation and maintenance agreement;
5. City actions necessary to secure clear title to the property currently used for CSAH 25;
6. Establish a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District;
7. Enter into a Purchase & Redevelopment Contract with the selected developer.
The focus of this study session discussion is item #1 noted above. The development goals/vision,
selection criteria and methodology and draft schedule is attached. The intent is to distribute the
RFP by the end of March, select a developer this summer and work through the land use/zoning
and public financing approvals through the following winter. The target for initial construction to
commence would be summer 2018.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Beltline Station Concept Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager, EDA Executive Director
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Beltline Station Redevelopment Process
DISCUSSION
Proposed Request For Proposals (RFP)
To identify and select a developer for the redevelopment of the Beltline Station Site and
construction of the Park & Ride facility, development plans are proposed to be solicited through a
Request For Proposals (RFP) process. Staff is currently in the process of finalizing the RFP
document. Once completed, the RFP will be distributed to area development firms and publicized
through local business media as well as the City’s web site. The EDA’s proposed objective is to
seek a developer or development team to construct a signature mixed-use, transit-oriented,
sustainable development (consisting of multi-family housing, commercial office and retail space,
and public parking ramp). The project should embrace the location’s direct multi-modal
transportation access, optimize the property’s development potential and be consistent with the
Beltline Area Framework & Design Guidelines. The goal is to have the RFP completed and
disseminated by the end of March and a developer selected during the summer.
Two specific elements of note included in the RFP are as follows:
Conceptual Redevelopment Plan
The City has prepared a Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for the proposed site at the future
SWLRT Beltline Station located at the intersection of Beltline Blvd and CSAH 25 (attached) that
depicts the development potential of the site and illustrates key elements desired at the Beltline
Station Site. The City envisions a signature development on the site that is vibrant, cohesive,
mixed-use, transit-oriented and sustainable.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Beltline Station Redevelopment Process
The following components are envisioned on Parcels A and B:
Multi-story, multifamily, mixed-use (commercial and residential), mixed-income,
buildings. The illustrative Concept Plan depicts more than 180 dwelling units. Proposals,
at a minimum, must meet the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy which requires at least
10% of the units shall be reserved for households at 60% Area Medium Income (AMI), or
8% of the units shall be reserved for households at 50% Area Medium Income (AMI). The
period of affordability for these units shall be at least 25 years.
Minimum of at least 8,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space.
Parking sufficient to serve the needs of the proposed redevelopment primarily located
below buildings or in structures.
The following component is envisioned on the SE corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Blvd (Parcel
C):
A multi-story office building of at least 80,000 square feet containing ground floor
retail/service spaces. Structured underground parking may be included but is not required.
The following components are envisioned on Parcel D:
A separate, multi-story structured parking facility for a Metropolitan Council Park & Ride
located adjacent to the Beltline SWLRT Station. The structure may be constructed to
accommodate both the required parking for the proposed office building and 268 Park &
Ride spaces required by the Metropolitan Council. Substantial funding for the parking
structure to be provided by a federal CMAQ grant, the Metropolitan Council, and the City.
The selected project does not need to precisely meet the parameters outlined in the Concept Plan.
Redevelopment proposals with alternative mixes of uses consistent with the underlying principles
of TOD sustainable development that supports and benefit from the proximity of SWLRT and the
regional trail and integrates well with the city’s network of streets and sidewalks are welcome. All
proposals are expected to provide strong pedestrian connections, an amenity-rich pedestrian
environment and attractive, creative architecture.
Beltline Area Framework & Design Guidelines (2012)
The Beltline Area Framework & Design Guidelines envision the Beltline area as a transit-oriented
community hub for jobs, neighborhoods, and recreation. The Beltline area is anticipated to be
unique with a well-defined sense of identity with strong connections to both local and regional
destinations. The Framework identified 10 guiding principles for the Beltline Station Area, which
are:
1. Create a unique sense of identity for the Beltline area
2. Weave together the distinct Beltline districts
3. Increase street connectivity and mobility
4. Assure superior walking and biking accessibility
5. Foster the Beltline area as a growing regional employment center
6. Capture the value of transit
7. Promote transit-oriented development
8. Create a connected network of great public spaces
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Beltline Station Redevelopment Process
9. Advocate for a convenient, safe and pleasant transit station center
10. Manage parking effectively.
The preferred future land use pattern for the Beltline area is envisioned as a complementary mix
of distinct districts that are woven together as an urban center. The city expects business and
residential expansion in the area, and envisions the Beltline area will evolve into a walk/bike-
friendly area that makes it very convenient and safe to get to the future Beltline Transit Station as
well as the many other destinations in the Beltline area.
The Framework envisions the area east of Beltline Blvd. and west of Lynn Ave., as a higher density
mixed-use area with strong pedestrian connections to the Beltline Transit Station. Since the area
is somewhat separated from adjacent areas, this area should allow taller buildings to support higher
density development close to the station.
Private Development Design Guidelines are identified to promote the development of a transit-
oriented urban center that helps develop the street as a “place” by creating an identifiable Beltline
district. Buildings located on CSAH 25 and Beltline should be sited near the street to the greatest
degree possible and building corners at primary intersections should be prominent. Emphasis is
focused on pedestrian activity and an attractive public realm, and vertical integration of
complementary uses within buildings is encouraged.
Proposal Selection Process
All complete redevelopment proposals will be evaluated by an internal selection team comprised
of staff engaged in the development planning process. Submittals will be evaluated on the
following criteria:
I. Site and building plans (degree to which proposal reflects Beltline Area Framework &
Design Guidelines; integrates with the station area, pedestrian connections and
surrounding neighborhood; and exhibits site synergies and efficient design) (up to 25
points)
II. Project Program (evaluation of the proposed commercial and residential uses and mixed
uses as well as amount of affordable housing above city requirements) (up to 20 points)
III. Development team (overall experience of company and project principals with similar
projects and the type of development being proposed; financial and team member
capacity to implement proposal; previous experience of development team working
together; and accessibility of development team to work with the community, staff, and
decision makers to refine project plans) (up to 20 points)
IV. Economic Impact (proposed property purchase price, anticipated growth in taxable
market value and employment (both quantity and quality of new positions) (up to 15
points)
V. Community Benefits (connectivity of proposed project to the surrounding area; quality
of public spaces (including gathering areas/plazas, green space, landscaping, public art)
and inclusion of development elements of benefit to the community (up to 10 points)
VI. Sustainability (compliance with the city’s Green Building Policy and inclusion of green
building elements above city requirements such as on-site energy generation, waste
reduction, and measures to reduce trip generation) (up to 10 points)
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Beltline Station Redevelopment Process
Developer Selection and Project Approval Process
The City anticipates a multi-stage process to identity the preferred developer and required
approvals to proceed with construction.
Stage 1 Developer Selection & Preliminary Development Agreement
City staff will review all Proposals and invite up to four responders to present to the
EDA during the second quarter of 2017. The EDA will discuss the merits of each
proposal and may identify a preferred developer with which to enter into a
Preliminary Development Agreement*.
Outcome: City announces Preferred Developer by the end of second quarter 2017. EDA enters
into a Preliminary Development Agreement with Developer.
Stage 2 Due Diligence & Project Planning
Developer begins site and project due diligence process and begins preparing detailed
parking ramp, site and building plans in anticipation of zoning and redevelopment
contract approvals.
Outcome: Developer obtains preliminary project approvals by early 2018.
Stage 3 Planning and Public Financing Approvals
The Developer files formal applications to secure planning approvals and public
financing for the project. Stage
Outcome: All public approvals should be obtained by spring/summer 2018.
Stage 4 Real Estate Transaction
The real estate closing should occur within four weeks of the final rezoning or site
approvals.
Outcome: Property closing anticipated within four weeks of final public approvals.
Stage 5 Construction Commencement
Outcome: Construction begins within four weeks of the property closing.
Preliminary Development Agreement*
Upon selection, it is expected that the developer, EDA, and City would enter into a Preliminary
Development Agreement. The purpose of which is to formalize the respective parties’ obligations
as well as their respective responsibilities relative to further defining the project consistent with
the parties’ mutual objectives. Under the agreement the parties would agree to work cooperatively
towards defining the Redevelopment and its components (including the Park & Ride facility)
determining their financial feasibility, the infrastructure necessary to service them, and the approvals
necessary to bring them to fruition, as well as to negotiate in good faith toward a definitive Purchase
and Redevelopment Contract and a related planning development contract regarding the
Redevelopment and Park & Ride facility. Additionally, the developer would be provided with
exclusive rights to negotiate acquisition of the subject properties with the EDA and the City as well
as formal permission to access the property in order to conduct its due diligence. Further included
in the agreement would be an outline for applying for land use and zoning changes as well as tax
increment financing.
JANUARY 22, 2016 PERFORMANCE
DRIVEN DESIGN.
BELTLINE STATION JOINT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
N
Total Project Boundary:
Total Area: 286,987 Sq. Ft. (6.59 Acres)
Existing Bank Property Boundary:
Total Area: 66,693 Sq. Ft. (1.53 Acres)
“EDA Site” Property Boundary:
Total Area: 123,193 Sq. Ft. (2.83 Acres)
Existing R.O.W.
1” = 100’-0”
SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
JOINT DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY CONCEPT FIGURES:
ST. LOUIS PARK EDA PROPERTY CONCEPT FIGURES:
PROGRAM TYPE CALCULATIONS
OFFICE SPACE LEVEL 1: 20,000 SF
LEVEL 2: 20,000 SF
LEVEL 3: 20,000 SF
LEVEL 4: 20,000 SF
TOTAL: 80,000 SF
PARKING*
REQUIREMENTS:
268 PARK & RIDE
280 OFFICE USE
(at 3.5 spaces/1000 sf)
548 TOTAL
LEVEL 1: 128 SPACES
LEVEL 2: 128 SPACES
LEVEL 3: 142 SPACES
LEVEL 4: 142 SPACES
STREET: 8 SPACES
TOTAL: 548 SPACES
PROGRAM TYPE CALCULATIONS
RESIDENTIAL UNITS STRUCTURE 1 (101,150 SF):
97 UNITS
STRUCTURE 2 (90,585 SF):
86 UNITS
TOTAL: 183 UNITS
FIRST FLOOR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE 1: 8,150 SF
TOTAL: 8,150 SF
PARKING*
REQUIREMENTS:
183 RESIDENTIAL
(at 1 space/dwelling)
33 COMMERCIAL
(at 1 space/250 sf gfa)
216 TOTAL
STRUCTURE 1: 128 SPACES
STRUCTURE 2: 126 SPACES
STREET: 27 SPACES
TOTAL: 281 SPACES
(65 REMAINING SPACES FOR
ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL PARKING
AND GUEST PARKING)
0 50 100
EXISTING CONDITIONS
6-LEVEL MIXED USE
BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
GREEN ROOF AS
RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
66' INTERNAL ROAD
R.O.W.
GREEN ROOF AS
RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
SWLRT BELTLINE STATION
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
CONNECTION
EXISTING R.O.W.
PROPERTY LINE
NORTH CEDAR LAKE
REGIONAL TRAIL
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL/
COMMERCIAL CORNER
WITH OUTDOOR AMENITY
SPACE
RIGHT-IN ONLY ACCESS
FROM EASTBOUND CSAH
25
RIGHT-IN ONLY ACCESS
FROM NORTHBOUND
BELTLINE BLVD
5-LEVEL BUILDING
(STRUCTURE 2):
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
FIRST-LEVEL PARKING
ACCESS
SECOND-LEVEL PARKING
ACCESS
4-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING
OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE
FOR OFFICE BUILDING
USERS
SKYWAY CONNECTION
FROM PARKING RAMP TO
OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP
WITH TWO-LEVEL ARCADE
ALONG BELTLINE BLVD
FACADE; ONE LEVEL OF
RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW
GRADE
COMMUTER PLAZA WITH
A VARIETY OF AMENITIES,
INCLUDING FLEXIBLE
SEATING, ENHANCED
PLANTINGS, AND A
STORMWATER FEATURE
ACCESS BRIDGE TO
PARKING RAMP FROM
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
CONNECTION
STORMWATER TREATMENT
AND GARDEN SPACE
ENHANCED CORNER WITH
LANDSCAPING AND WATER
FEATURE
SIDEWALK WITH
LANDSCAPED BOULEVARD
BUFFER
CSAH 2
5
ENTIRE SITE:
286,987 SF (6.59 ACRES)
EXISTING BANK PROPERTY:
66,693 SF (1.53 ACRES)
EXISTING ST. LOUIS PARK EDA PROPERTY:
123,193 SF (2.83 ACRES)
EXISTING ROAD R.O.W.:
97,101 SF (2.23 ACRES)
*a transit credit of
15% reduction from
code requirements can
be applied to certain
parking requirements
on siteBELTLINE BLVDJOINT DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY
ST. LOUIS PARK EDA
PROPERTY
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Beltline Station Redevelopment Process Page 6
JANUARY 22, 2016 PERFORMANCE
DRIVEN DESIGN.
BELTLINE STATION JOINT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
CSAH 254-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING SKYWAY CONNECTION FROM PARKING
RAMP TO OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP WITH TWO-LEVEL ARCADE ALONG BELTLINE
BLVD FACADE; ONE LEVEL OF RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE
6-LEVEL MIXED USE BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL UNITS, INTEGRATED PARKING
VIEW FROM PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER CSAH 25
MASSING MODEL FROM SOUTHWEST MASSING MODEL FROM NORTHEAST
6-LEVEL MIXED USE BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
6-LEVEL MIXED USE BUILDING (STRUCTURE 1):
FIRST FLOOR RETAIL
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
SWLRT BELTLINE STATION
SWLRT BELTLINE STATION
NORTH CEDAR LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL
NORTH CEDAR LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL
5-LEVEL BUILDING (STRUCTURE 2):
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
5-LEVEL BUILDING (STRUCTURE 2):
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INTEGRATED PARKING
4-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL OFFICE BUILDING
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP WITH TWO-LEVEL
ARCADE ALONG BELTLINE BLVD FACADE; ONE
LEVEL OF RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE
4-LEVEL PARKING RAMP WITH TWO-LEVEL
ARCADE ALONG BELTLINE BLVD FACADE; ONE
LEVEL OF RAMP PARTIALLY BELOW GRADE
ACCESS BRIDGE TO PARKING RAMP FROM
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CONNECTION
ACCESS BRIDGE TO PARKING RAMP FROM
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CONNECTION
GREEN ROOFS AS RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
GREEN ROOFS AS RESIDENT AMENITY SPACE
RETAIL/COMMERCIAL CORNER WITH OUTDOOR
AMENITY SPACECSAH 25BEL
T
L
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
BELTL
I
N
E
B
L
V
D
ACCESS BRIDGE TO PARKING RAMP FROM
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CONNECTION
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 4)
Title: Beltline Station Redevelopment Process Page 7
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Boards & Commissions Work Plan Process
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This item was prepared in response to Council direction to
develop a formal annual work plan process for the city’s advisory boards and commissions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council agree with the proposed annual work plan process
for the boards and commissions identified?
SUMMARY: The City Council directed staff to implement a standard process and format for
boards and commissions to follow for the development of annual work plans. Boards and
commissions serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. Annual work plans ensure that the
priorities of the City Council and each board or commission are aligned and that the City has the
appropriate resources in place to support the work of boards and commissions. Ensuring each
board and commission has a clear understanding of their charges and direction will allow each
group to operate more efficiently and effectively. The proposed process will also provide
opportunities for more meaningful communication and collaboration between the Council and
each board/commission.
Staff is proposing that boards and commissions focus on drafting their work plans during the
summer months for the following year. The Council will meet with the chairs and staff liaisons
from each board and commission during the months of June and July to identify the priorities and
focus of the proposed work plans for the following year. Each board and commission will then
use the direction provided by the Council to develop their work plans. The Council will review
draft work plans in September, suggest any final revisions, and give final approval in November.
Work plans go into effect January 1 of each year.
The following boards and commissions will be subject to the proposed work plan process: Board
of Zoning Appeals, Environment and Sustainability Commission, Housing Authority, Human
Rights Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Planning Commission, Police
Advisory Commission, Telecommunications Advisory Commission.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Work Plan Summary/Instructions
Work Plan Template
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Boards & Commissions Work Plan Process
DISCUSSION
What is the purpose of the annual work plan?
- Annual work plans ensure that the priorities of the City Council and each board or
commission are aligned and that the City has the appropriate resources in place to support
the work of boards and commissions.
- The annual work plan process enables boards and commissions to propose their goals and
initiatives for the upcoming year and provides the City Council with the opportunity to
review, comment, and discuss the information with each board/commission before giving
final direction on priorities.
Which boards/commissions will participate in the work plan process?
- Board of Zoning Appeals, Environment and Sustainability Commission, Housing
Authority, Human Rights Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission,
Planning Commission, Police Advisory Commission, Telecommunications Advisory
Commission.
What is the Council’s role in the development of the work plan?
- The Council provides specific work plan direction to the boards and commissions by using
a Council Charge System that has been incorporated into the work plans.
What is the Council Charge System?
- The Council Charge is a guide to provide clear and specific direction to boards and
commissions.
- Council Charge is given in instances when Council tasks a board or commission with an
initiative.
- Staff liaisons ensure Council identifies the charge level of the task to be communicated
back to the board or commission.
Charge 1 Study and
Report
• Board/Commission is asked to study a specific issue or event and
report its findings to City Council
Charge 2 Review and
Comment
• Board/Commission is asked to review a specific policy issue and
to seek comments from each individual member of the group to
pass on to City Council for further consideration.
• Member comments will be included in any Staff Report
• No vote is taken by the Board or Commission.
• No official Board/Commission recommendation is provided to
City Council.
Charge 3 Review and
Recommend
• Board/Commission is asked to review a specific policy issue and
to issue a recommendation on the issue to the City Council.
• Member comments will be included in any Staff Report. A
majority vote is necessary for a recommendation to be formally
submitted to City Council.
Charge 4 Review and
Decide
• Board/Commission is asked to study, review, and decide on an
issue.
• The group’s decision will be the City’s official position on the
matter unless the issue is formally considered and reversed by a
majority vote of City Council.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Boards & Commissions Work Plan Process
What is the format of the work plan?
- The format of the work plan will be standardized for each board/commission.
- The work plan has three main sections:
o New Initiative – This section will outline any new initiatives the board/commission
would like to pursue during the upcoming year.
o Ongoing Responsibilities – This section will document the board or commission’s
ongoing responsibilities. This may include items that are repeated on a regular or
annual basis, or regulatory functions that are delegated to the board or commission.
o Other Ideas for Current or Future Years – This section will serve as a “parking lot”
for ideas that were considered during the work planning process. Ideas that the
board/commission wants to hold for consideration for future years will also be
included in this section.
- Due to the varying scope of work performed by each board/commission, the proposed
format allows for customization in a way that is still standardized. For example, some
boards and commissions have few ongoing responsibilities and most of their work will fall
into the initiatives category. Other boards and commissions have significant ongoing
responsibilities and may only be able to tackle one or two new initiatives each year.
How will Council review and approve the work plans?
- The Council will meet with the chair and staff liaison of each board/commission during the
months of June/July. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and identify proposed
new initiatives and ongoing responsibilities for the upcoming year.
- Each board and commission will then use the direction provided by the Council to develop
a draft work plan.
- The Council will review draft work plans in September and suggest final revisions, as
needed.
- Work plans will be formally approved at a regularly scheduled Council meeting in
November.
When do work plans take effect?
- Work plans take effect on January 1 of each year.
How can work plans be modified after they have been approved by Council?
- Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:
o Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session
o If immediate approval of the proposed modification is needed, the board or
commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for
Council approval at a Council meeting.
o The City Council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.
Next Steps:
- If Council agrees with the proposed work plan process, staff will prepare instruction
materials for each board/commission Chair for distribution at the annual meeting scheduled
for February 27. At that meeting the Council can introduce the work plan initiative and
“kick-off” the new process.
- Staff will schedule the individual meetings for chairs and staff liaisons with the Council in
June/July.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Boards & Commissions Work Plan Process
WORK PLAN SUMMARY
WORK PLANS
Purpose. Annual work plans ensure that the priorities of the City Council and Boards and
Commissions are aligned and that the City has the appropriate financial and staff resources to
support Board and Commission work.
Annual Cycle. Board and Commissions should focus on drafting their work plans during the
summer months for the following year. The Council meets with Board and Commission Chairs
and Staff Liaisons during the months of June and July to discuss and identify proposed new
initiatives and ongoing responsibilities for the upcoming year. Draft work plans will be submitted
to the Council for review during the month of September. The Council will formally approve the
work plans at a regular meeting in November. Work plans go into effect January 1 for the
remainder of the calendar year.
Annual Work Plan Calendar
January: Annual Work Plan Begins
June-August: Proposed Work Plan drafted by Boards and Commissions
September:
Draft plans
submitted and reviewed by the City Council
November: Formal Council approval of Work Plans
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Title: Boards & Commissions Work Plan Process
Format. The work plan has three main sections. Each Board or Commission’s approved work
plan will be posted on the City’s website.
Some boards and commission have few ongoing responsibilities and most of their work will fall
into the initiatives category. Other Boards and Commissions have significant ongoing
responsibilities and may only be able to tackle only one or two new initiatives each year.
Council Review and Approval. The Council schedules a meeting in June/July to meet with
Board and Commission Chair regarding their proposed work plan. The purpose of the meeting is
to review the Board or Commission proposed new initiatives and ongoing responsibilities for the
upcoming year. The Council also reviews any ideas discussed by the Board or Commission but
not placed on the work plan. In September the Council will review the draft work plans and have
additional discussions about city -wide priorities, the budget and the allotment of staff time. It is
possible that the Council will add, delete or re-prioritize items on board or commission work plans
based on these discussions. The Council will approve and return work plans to Boards and
Commissions during the month of November.
Mid-Year Modifications. Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three
ways:
• Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.
• If immediate approval is important, the Board or Commission can work with their Staff
Liaison to present a modified work plan for Council approval at a Council meeting.
• The City Council can direct a change to the work plan.
• Outline any new initiatives the Board or Commission would like to pursue during the upcoming year.
1. New Initiative
• Document the Board or Commission’s ongoing responsibilities. Ongoingresponsibilities include items that are repeated on a regular or annualbasis, or regulatory functions that are delegated to the Board orCommission.
2. Ongoing Responsibilities
• “Parking lot” for ideas that were considered during the work planningprocess. Ideas that the Board and Commission wants to hold forconsideration for future years should also be included in this section.
Other Work Plan Ideas Considered for Current or Future Years
Board/Commission: 2017 Annual Work Plan Proposal * Staff Liaisons need to complete columns related to budget and staff support * Return to Melissa Kennedy by: TBD Definitions: New Initiative – not on previous work plan Continued Initiative – carried over from a previous work plan with a revised target completion date Ongoing Responsibility – annually on the work plan and may or may not have a target completion date Initiative Council Charge ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) ☐ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Staff Liaison Comments: Click here to enter text. City Manager Comments: Click here to enter text. Progress Report: Click here to enter text. Initiative Council Charge ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) ☐ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Staff Liaison Comments: Click here to enter text. City Manager Comments: Click here to enter text. Progress Report: Click here to enter text. Initiative Council Charge ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) ☐ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Staff Liaison Comments: Click here to enter text. City Manager Comments: Click here to enter text. Progress Report: Click here to enter text. Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Boards & Commissions Work Plan ProcessPage 6
Initiative Council Charge ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) ☐ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Staff Liaison Comments: Click here to enter text. City Manager Comments: Click here to enter text. Progress Report: Click here to enter text. Initiative Council Charge ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) ☐ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Staff Liaison Comments: Click here to enter text. City Manager Comments: Click here to enter text. Progress Report: Click here to enter text. Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Proposed Month for Joint Work Session (one time per year, up to 60 minutes) Council Comments: Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 5) Title: Boards & Commissions Work Plan ProcessPage 7
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a list of
2017 exemptions to the Zero Waste Packaging ordinance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Due to limited options available at this time, staff will be
allowing three exemptions in 2017 to the Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance. Does Council require
additional information?
SUMMARY: The Zero Waste Packaging program went into effect on January 1, 2017. Over the
past several months staff has conducted extensive outreach and education to impacted businesses
to ensure awareness and evaluate compliance with the new ordinance requirements. As a result of
this outreach and education process, staff has determined a need to add temporary exemptions for
1) Asian takeout pails; 2) hot cup lids; and 3) portion cups & lids. All of these have limited options
for alternatives that are compliant with the ordinance in 2017. Details are provided in the
discussion section of the report. These exemptions will be reviewed annually to determine if
additional products are available that comply with the ordinance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2017 Approved Acceptable Material and Exemption List
(updated)
Prepared by: Emily Barker, Solid Waste Program Specialist
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Update
DISCUSSION
Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Update
The Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2017. A detailed report of
outreach activities made by city staff was provided in the December 5, 2016, Special Study Session
report. In summary, the following outreach occurred in 2016:
February – Educational letter was sent to food establishments, as well as to corporate
headquarters, informing the impacted businesses of the ordinance.
April – Second educational letter was sent as follow-up notice. Included was an invitation
to the Packaging Fair in May.
May – Packaging Fair was held at Beth El Synagogue.
August – Staff held ten educational sessions, hosted by impacted food establishments.
September – Two educational open house events were held at the MSC.
October through December – Staff made direct visits to approximately 75 businesses that
had not attended any of the above mentioned previous events or sessions.
Through these outreach efforts and conversations with businesses, staff was made aware of three
additional packaging items that have limited options for alternatives that are compliant with the
ordinance. Therefore, staff is adding the following items to the attached “2017 Acceptable
Materials & Exemption List.” These exemptions will be for 2017 only. Any extension of
exemptions will be reviewed and shared with the Council on a yearly basis.
1. Asian takeout pails: Plastic-lined paper, fold-top style (e.g. Chinese takeout boxes) – This
specific shape and size has very limited commercially available alternatives. While staff
identified two companies that make a compostable option of this shape/size, they are only
special order, requiring high quantity purchases and ongoing commitment to the product,
requirements that are not possible for most of the small restaurants that use them.
2. Hot cup lids: Rigid polystyrene (#6, PS) – While there are hot cup lids that are recyclable
polypropylene (#5, PP) and compostable (PLA), functionality varies. At this time, the
malleability of PP and PLA when hot is much greater than PS, making safety a concern
when it comes to hot beverages.
3. Portion cups (2 ounce or smaller) and lids: Rigid polystyrene (#6, PS) – Compliant
alternatives are available, but functionality varies depending on use and the opportunity to
properly collect for recycling is limited.
o Recyclable options – Available, but recyclability is limited due to food contamination
and size. If these cups aren’t mostly empty (common with condiments) they are too
dirty to recycle. Additionally, small items like portion cups are difficult for recycling
facilities to sort properly, often ending up in the trash or as a contaminant in glass.
o Compostable – Available, but functionality varies depending on use. Compostable
plastics cannot be used for hot condiments, such as nacho cheese.
While staff believe these additional exemptions are necessary at this time, staff are also concerned
about potential contamination of onsite recycling and organics recycling bins, as well as curbside
collection programs, if customers do not understand these items must be placed in the trash.
Therefore, a provision is being included which requires any food establishment that opts to utilize
temporarily exempt packaging materials to inform customers that the items are not recyclable or
compostable. The business must clearly indicate to customers that the items must be placed in the
garbage. This shall be done in print, such as: on menus; posted signage; or directly on the
packaging.
St. Louis Park Public Works Division • 7305 Oxford St., St. Louis Park, MN 55426
www.stlouispark.org • Phone: 952.924.2562 • Fax: 952.924.2560 • TTY: 952.924.2518
Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
Ordinance No. 2485‐15
2017 Acceptable Materials & Exemption List
(Revised 1/03/17)
Acceptable Recyclable Packaging Materials – The following materials meet the definition for
“Recyclable Packaging” in subsection 12.202(f)(2) of the ordinance.
1. Plastic
a. Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE)
b. High Density Polyethylene (#2 HDPE)
c. Polypropylene (#5 PP)
2. Metal
a. Aluminum (foil and containers)
Acceptable Compostable Packaging Materials – The following materials meet the definition for
“Compostable Packaging” in subsection 12.202(f)(3) of the ordinance.
1. Paper
a. Unlined/uncoated paper products
b. Unlined/uncoated butcher paper
c. Unlined/uncoated parchment paper
2. Certified Compostable (must be BPI Certified Compostable or Cedar Grove Accepted)
a. Paper
b. Plastic
c. Bagasse
d. Bamboo
Temporarily Acceptable Packaging Materials (Exempt) – The following materials do not meet
the definitions for “Zero Waste Packaging” in subsection 12.202(f). However, these items are
exempt from the ordinance until January 1, 2018, to allow time for development of acceptable
alternatives.
1. Paper food wraps: Plastic or foil‐lined (e.g. fast food wrappers)
2. Asian takeout pails: Plastic‐lined paper, fold‐top style (e.g. Chinese takeout boxes)
3. Hot cup lids: Rigid polystyrene (#6, PS)
4. Portion cups (2 ounce or smaller) and lids: Rigid polystyrene (#6, PS)
Food establishments that chose to utilize any of these temporarily exempt items must provide
information to customers to clearly indicate these items cannot be recycled or composted, and
must be placed in the garbage. This must be done in print, for example on menus, posted signage,
or directly on the packaging.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Update Page 3
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Art Update – 4800 Excelsior & Central Park West Projects
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to update the Council
on the 4800 Excelsior and Central Park West public art projects. Please inform staff of any
questions or concerns you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Both the 4800 Excelsior and Central Park West developments will incorporate
artwork on the property and the developers have signed contracts with artists.
The public art project committee for the 4800 Excelsior development site selected Lisa Elias as
the artist for the project site. The property owner commissioned Elias Metal Studio to design,
produce and install a wall relief and bike rack sculpture(s) on the south side of the building outside
of the Fresh Thyme market. Lisa’s idea for the artwork at this location is nature inspired with vines,
blossoms and leaves envisioned for this piece. The budget for this project is $59,000, which
includes costs for materials, installation and artist fees. Lisa has been connected to a Friends of the
Arts staff person to assist with coordinating and implementing community engagement related to
her work.
The Central Park West public art project committee met on Thursday, September 22 to interview
three finalists and review their proposals for the civic space area. James Brenner was selected by
the project committee as the artist for this site. James Brenner Sculpture has since entered into a
contract with the Central Park West development owner. The budget for this project is $150,000
which includes artist fees, labor, installation and material. James’s piece will include a dynamic
combination of materials, including stainless steel, wood, glass, water and light. This piece will be
available for public enjoyment year-round and was created to be an iconic piece for this area.
James is creating a plan for the community engagement component of the project.
Both art works will be privately owned and maintained by the development owners.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 4800 Excelsior Artist Previous Work Samples
Images of Central Park West Proposal
Prepared by: Breanna Freedman, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: Lt. Chad Kraayenbrink
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Public Art Update – 4800 Excelsior & Central Park West Projects
Lisa Elias Concept Sketch & Previous Work Examples
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Public Art Update – 4800 Excelsior & Central Park West Projects
James Brenner Proposed Artwork for Central Park West
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: November 2016 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of November, General Fund
expenditures total approximately 87.1% of the adopted annual budget, which is more than 4%
under budget. Also, Licenses and Permits and Intergovernmental revenues are both exceeding
their total annual budget for the year. The attached analysis provides details on some specific
variances.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures – General Fund
Budget to Actual – Enterprise Funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Title: November 2016 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included
in this report.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
General Fund
Actual expenditures should generally run at about 92% of the annual budget at the end of
November. General Fund expenditures are running under budget at approximately 87.1% of the
adopted budget in November. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to
the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes, State aid
payments and seasonal revenues for recreation programs. A few comments on specific General
Fund variances are noted below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues have been running ahead of budget throughout the year and are
exceeding the total annual budget by nearly 20% in November.
Intergovernmental revenue is exceeding budget at 106% because the Police State Aid ($437,558)
and Highway User Tax ($594,572) revenue received were both more than what was expected.
Expenditures:
Communications & Marketing is running a slight overage at 93.7% because of the timing of
some larger printing & publishing expenditures.
The Recreation Center is at 95.3% due to the typical higher seasonal expenditures for temporary
employees and pool supplies from the summer months.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,755 $5,276 $7,921 $10,378 $12,716 $15,696 $18,755 $21,622 $24,394 $26,785 $29,691
Budget $2,840 $5,680 $8,521 $11,361 $14,201 $17,041 $19,882 $22,722 $25,562 $28,402 $31,243 $34,083
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures ‐General Fund
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Title: November 2016 Monthly Financial Report
Utility Funds
Revenues:
The user charges utility revenue in each fund is below 92% due to the timing of the billing
cycles. Revenue lags one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind
for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. Entries are made at the end of the
year to recognize billed revenue for the full year.
Other revenue is exceeding budget in the Water Fund due to delinquent utility certification fees
assessed in October and additional permit and antenna lease revenues.
Other revenue in the Solid Waste Fund relates to grants from Hennepin County for recycling and
organics, and the amount received is more than what was budgeted.
Expenses:
Personal services are exceeding budget in the Water and Sewer Funds, but are under budget in
the Solid Waste and Storm Water Funds. This is due to staff time being recorded to the area
being worked, which doesn’t always reflect in the current budget. Total personal services in the
four funds combined is on budget at 91% for the year.
Supplies & non-capital is exceeding budget in the Solid Waste Fund because of a $41,000
purchase of organic bags for resale to residents paid in October.
Services & other charges in the Sewer Fund are at 109% because the annual budgeted amount for
the Met Council waste water service charge did not reflect an increase in the fee from $307,654
in 2015 to $348,097 in 2016, the amount has been adjusted in the 2017 budget.
Capital outlay will vary during the year based on timing of projects and when expenditures are
incurred. The $1.7 million of capital outlay expense in the Water Fund is primarily for the water
meter replacement project.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of November 30, 201620162016201420142015201520162016 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget Nov YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ 22,653,095$ 23,597,282$ 12,541,362$ 11,055,920$ 53.15% Licenses and Permits2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 4,312,700 3,496,177 4,188,833 (692,656) 119.81% Fines & Forfeits320,150 369,545 320,200 263,951 341,200 244,610 96,590 71.69% Intergovernmental1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 1,669,395 1,419,017 1,508,694 (89,677) 106.32% Charges for Services1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 2,116,313 1,956,593 1,864,213 92,380 95.28% Miscellaneous Revenue1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 1,357,373 977,546 898,705 78,841 91.93% Transfers In1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,867,398 1,872,581 1,707,366 165,215 91.18% Investment Earnings 150,000 119,831 140,000 68,908 140,000 92,368 47,632 65.98% Other Income17,950 13,306 17,900 61,025 27,450 19,543 7,907 71.20% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 254,891 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 34,370,158$ 34,082,737$ 23,065,693$ 11,017,044$ 67.68%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 1,012,841$ 1,037,235$ 959,123$ 78,112$ 92.47% Finance876,216 873,987 912,685 902,901 933,624 786,269 147,355 84.22% Assessing559,749 560,979 602,299 601,687 641,038 556,002 85,036 86.73% Human Resources693,598 788,823 805,929 857,950 748,718 693,538 55,180 92.63% Community Development1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 1,207,425 177,611 87.18% Facilities Maintenance1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 1,072,749 1,115,877 967,404 148,473 86.69% Information Resources1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 1,374,074 1,564,128 1,343,206 220,922 85.88% Communications & Marketing566,801 562,063 635,150 571,815 608,228 570,132 38,096 93.74% Community Outreach8,185 6,680 24,677 22,380 25,587 21,264 4,323 83.10% Engineering506,996 223,491 492,838 381,148 549,251 453,377 95,874 82.54%Total General Government7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 8,051,233$ 8,608,722$ 7,557,741$ 1,050,981$ 87.79% Public Safety: Police7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 8,248,745$ 8,698,661$ 7,903,395$ 795,266$ 90.86% Fire Protection3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 3,759,386 4,030,153 3,590,066 440,087 89.08% Inspectional Services2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 2,002,445 2,216,075 1,892,019 324,056 85.38%Total Public Safety13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 14,010,577$ 14,944,889$ 13,385,479$ 1,559,410$ 89.57% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 220,963$ 20,341$ 91.57% Public Works Operations2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 2,388,560 2,907,781 2,276,803 630,978 78.30% Organized Recreation1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 1,360,454 1,431,260 1,288,816 142,444 90.05% Recreation Center1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 1,575,042 1,602,935 1,527,053 75,882 95.27% Park Maintenance1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 1,513,700 1,634,249 1,484,698 149,551 90.85% Westwood531,853 508,576 564,055 560,744 576,173 496,088 80,085 86.10% Natural Resources433,750 379,193 472,049 377,617 479,408 314,423 164,985 65.59% Vehicle Maintenance1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 1,118,048 1,358,946 1,031,623 327,323 75.91%Total Operations & Recreation9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 9,107,547$ 10,232,056$ 8,640,466$ 1,591,590$ 84.45% Non-Departmental: General 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 123,720$ 30,351$ 27,821$ 2,530$ 91.66% Transfers Out- 1,050,000 - 2,194,245 - - - 0.00% Contingency195,860 13,834 177,984 14,438 266,719 79,224 187,495 29.70%Total Non-Departmental199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 2,332,403$ 297,070$ 107,045$ 190,025$ 36.03%Total General Fund Expenditures30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 33,501,760$ 34,082,737$ 29,690,731$ 4,392,006$ 87.11%Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: November 2016 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of November 30, 2016Current BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetNov Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 5,967,419$ 4,722,278$ 1,245,141$ 79.13% 6,404,588$ 5,414,014$ 990,574$ 84.53% 3,295,700$ 2,498,731$ 796,969$ 75.82% 2,717,638$ 2,223,129$ 494,509$ 81.80% Other 265,000 456,903 (191,903) 172.42% 30,000 16,184 13,816 53.95% 101,000 167,643 (66,643) 165.98% - - - Total operating revenues 6,232,419 5,179,181 1,053,238 83.10% 6,434,588 5,430,198 1,004,390 84.39% 3,396,700 2,666,373 730,327 78.50% 2,717,638 2,223,129 494,509 81.80%Operating expenses: Personal services 1,285,538 1,230,548 54,990 95.72% 571,540 672,098 (100,558) 117.59% 536,896 428,224 108,672 79.76% 689,746 478,361 211,385 69.35% Supplies & non-capital 544,300 194,183 350,117 35.68% 64,550 28,722 35,828 44.50% 130,600 141,515 (10,915) 108.36% 30,100 3,782 26,318 12.57% Services & other charges 1,659,607 1,403,931 255,676 84.59%4,168,158 4,531,986 (363,828) 108.73% 2,558,367 1,859,743 698,624 72.69% 589,664 223,177 366,487 37.85% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,489,445 2,828,661 660,784 81.06% 4,804,248 5,232,806 (428,558) 108.92% 3,225,863 2,429,482 796,381 75.31% 1,309,510 705,320 604,190 53.86%Operating income (loss)2,742,974 2,350,520 392,454 85.69% 1,630,340 197,393 1,432,947 12.11% 170,837 236,891 (66,054) 138.66% 1,408,128 1,517,808 (109,680) 107.79%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income - - - 10,000 6,550 3,450 65.50% 18,000 15,265 2,735 84.80% 24,000 17,802 6,198 74.17% Other misc income- - - - - - 2,500 2,500 - 100.00%- - - Interest expense/bank charges(241,416) (284,982) 43,566 118.05% (16,414) (18,386) 1,972 112.01% (11,000) (13,442) 2,442 122.20% (51,535) (37,017) (14,518) 71.83% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(241,416) (284,982) 43,566 118.05% (6,414) (11,836) 5,422 184.53% 9,500 4,322 5,178 45.50% (27,535) (19,215) (8,320) 69.78%Income (loss) before transfers2,501,558 2,065,538 436,020 82.57% 1,623,926 185,557 1,438,369 11.43% 180,337 241,213 (60,876) 133.76% 1,380,593 1,498,593 (118,000) 108.55%Transfers inTransfers out(567,429) (520,143) (47,286) 91.67% (776,357) (711,661) (64,696) 91.67% (220,611) (202,227) (18,384) 91.67% (303,949) (278,620) (25,329) 91.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)1,934,129 1,545,395 388,734 79.90% 847,569 (526,104) 1,373,673 -62.07% (40,274) 38,986 (79,260) -96.80% 1,076,644 1,219,973 (143,329) 113.31%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,801,000) (1,708,261) (2,092,739) 44.94% (1,860,000) (507) (1,859,493) 0.03% (2,500) - (2,500) 0.00% (2,533,000) (189,749) (2,343,251) 7.49%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,866,871) (162,867) (1,704,004) (1,012,431) (526,611) (485,820) (42,774) 38,986 (81,760) (1,456,356) 1,030,224 (2,486,580) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 8) Title: November 2016 Monthly Financial ReportPage 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Walker Street Regional Stormwater Improvement Project Update (City Project No.
4017-4000)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the
Council with an update on the progress for the Walker Street Regional Stormwater Improvement
Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to proceed with the construction of
regional stormwater improvement at this location?
SUMMARY: At the December 14, 2015 meeting, the city council approved the purchase of the
property located at 3400 Walker Street in order to construct a regional stormwater improvement.
The consulting firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) was hired to develop plans for
construction of this project. The purpose of the project is to provide regional stormwater runoff
treatment to a currently untreated watershed of about nine acres. This regional stormwater
improvement will also provide stormwater management credits for future redevelopment in this
portion of the Lenox Neighborhood, see attached map.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project is included in the City’s Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017. The Storm Water Utility Fund provides funding for this project.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Location Map
Prepared by: Erick Francis, Water Resource Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Written Report: 9
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Walker Street Regional Stormwater Improvement Project Update (City Project No. 4017-4000)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the December 14, 2015 meeting, the city council approved the purchase of
the property located at 3400 Walker Street in order to construct a regional stormwater
improvement. The consulting firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) was hired to develop plans
for construction of this project. The purpose of the project is to provide regional stormwater runoff
treatment to a currently untreated watershed of about nine-acres. This regional stormwater
improvement will provide stormwater management credits for future redevelopment in this portion
of the Lenox Neighborhood, see attached map.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the construction of two dry basins.
Untreated stormwater will be diverted from the existing storm sewer pipes under Walker Street.
Two manholes will be constructed containing SAFL Baffle’s. A SAFL Baffle is a post-
construction stormwater pretreatment system, which removes larger partials of sediment from
runoff to keep it from entering the basins. Sediment is settled out and collected within a sump in
the manhole that can easily be cleaned out as part of regular storm sewer maintenance activities.
Once stormwater enters the basins, water will be filtered through Iron Enhanced Sand Filter (ISEF)
media. The ISEF is a Best Management Practices (BMPs) that incorporates sand mixed with iron
filings. The iron filings remove dissolved phosphorus from the runoff through a chemical reaction
when the filings become wet and begin to oxidize. This chemical reaction binds the smaller
phosphorus partials allowing it to settle faster, which can remove up to 80% of the phosphorus in
stormwater runoff. It is anticipated that 9.8 pounds of phosphorus and 2,100 pounds of sediment
will be removed annually by these basins.
Filtered stormwater will be directed to the existing stormwater pond on the northeast corner of
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue before being discharged into Minnehaha Creek.
Completed basins will be landscaped with native grasses and wildflowers along with smaller native
shrubs that will require minimal maintenance. No trees will be planted as part of this plan due to
an agreement with Clear Channel to keep the sight lines open for their billboard. The large oak
tree on the northeasterly portion of the project will remain and be protected.
Long-term maintenance of the basins will include annual mowing and replacement of the Iron
Sand Filter media every 15 years.
Proximity to Riley Site and Environmental Concerns: This project is located close to the
boundary of the Riley Site. Several different stormwater treatment practices were explored as part
of project development. However, a filtration treatment practice was selected for these basins due
to the potential for pollutant and groundwater interaction. These basins will be lined with an
impermeable membrane to prevent infiltration of water.
A Phase I and II Environmental Assessment have been completed for the project and the site will
be entered into the Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program managed by the MPCA.
To address environmental clean-up costs, staff recommends applying for a Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund grant which can assist with the cost of contamination removal. The
deadline for this grant application is May 1, 2017.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Title: Walker Street Regional Stormwater Improvement Project Update (City Project No. 4017-4000)
Public Process: A letter was sent to the adjacent business on July 19 notifying them that the city
and consultants will be onsite collecting data at the site to begin design of this project at 3400 and
7015 Walker Street. Staff received one phone call regarding the project, the feedback received
supported the project. A public meeting will be scheduled for February 2017 to receive comments
on the 60% plan.
Project Cost: This project is identified on the city’s 2017 Capital Improvement Plan with an
estimated cost of $500,000.
Proposed Schedule:
The following is the proposed project schedule:
1. 60% Plans complete January 2017
2. Meeting with area businesses February 2017
3. Final Plans complete March 2017
4. Advertise for bid May 2017
5. Construction June – October 2017
Walker StreetStormwater ImprovementProject
?«A@
Pond 1Pond 2
HWY 7
G
O
R
H
AM
A
V
E
1ST ST N WLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
A
LAKE ST W
R
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
V
E2ND ST N WSERVICE DR HWY 7 S
WALKER ST
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
G
O
R
H
A
M
A
V
E
R
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
V
E 1ST ST N W1ST ST N W
LAKE ST W
WALKER ST
WALKER ST LAKE ST W
WALKER ST
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
Legend
Proposed Walker Ponds
!(Proposed SAFL Baffle and Sump Manhole
Proposed Storm Sewer
Drainage Area
6.28 Acres
2.91 Acres
Water Mains
G!.Hydrant
Node
b Valve
Sanitary Mains
Sanitary Manholes
"?B CB
"?B CBMH
$1 INLET
[Ú LIFT STA
ÍÎ/NODE
gW OUTFALL
0 OUTLET
STMH
!(STMVL
Storm Mains
Property BoundariesÜ05010025
Feet
Project LocationMap
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 9)
Title: Walker Street Regional Stormwater Improvement Project Update (City Project No. 4017-4000)Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vision St. Louis Park Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is an update on the upcoming
Vision activities and schedule.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: At the December 19, 2016 City Council meeting the City Council appointed the
Vision Steering Committee members. This month marks the formal beginning of the Vision
process with events in the February to May timeframe.
Schedule – Attached is a tentative schedule of Vision events for the coming months. It shows the
Training of Facilitators, two Town Hall meetings, two Facebook Live Town Hall meetings and
Steering Committee meetings. Additional engagement opportunities are being developed; these
will include on-line surveys; placement of chalk boards with questions about the future at a variety
of community events, coffee shops and other venues; using Next Door for public engagement, and
more. More information will be forthcoming as these ideas are developed.
Train the Facilitator – The “Train the Facilitator” training is to teach community members a
process for holding and facilitating a neighborhood meeting(s) about the future of St. Louis Park.
The intent is to have the facilitators conduct future-focused conversations and report back insights
to the consultants and project teams. We will be inviting volunteers throughout the community to
participate in the training and commit to holding a local meeting of neighbors or community groups
as appropriate.
To that end, a broad outreach for finding volunteer facilitators is planned. This includes
information in the local media, the city’s website, Facebook page, etc. as well as a discussion with
neighborhood leaders at the Neighborhood Leaders Forum, and invitations to neighborhood
leaders, applicants to the Steering Committee, City Commission and Board members, members of
community organizations, clubs, committees, social service groups, business groups, and any other
groups or individuals identified. An invitation is being developed by our Communications Staff
and will be distributed in mid-January. The goal is to have a diverse group of facilitators to insure
that all parts of the community are invited to participate in the vision process.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Vision Events Schedule - 2017
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2017 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Title: Vision St. Louis Park Update
Tentative Vision Events Schedule – 2017
January
Jan 17th - 1st Steering Committee Meeting – Community Room - 6:30-7:30 PM
February
Feb 21 - Train the Facilitator Training – MSC - 6 – 8:30 PM
Feb 22 - 1st Town Hall– City Council Chambers - 7 PM – 8:15 PM
Feb 22 - Steering Committee meeting - 6 – 7 PM
March
March 2 – Facebook Live Town Hall – on-line - 8 PM
March 16 - 2nd Town Hall 7 PM – 8:15 – City Council Chambers
March 16 - Steering Committee meeting 6 – 7 PM
April
April 11 - 2nd Facebook Live Town Hall 8 PM – on-line
April 18 - Steering Committee Meeting 6:30 PM
May
May 16 - Steering Committee Meeting 6:30 PM