Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/02/23 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA FEBRUARY 23, 2015 (Councilmember Mavity Out) 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 23, 2015 2. 6:35 p.m. Update on Reilly Site 3. 7:35 p.m. 2015 Connect the Park! Update 4. 8:35 p.m. Recycling Efforts and Goals 9:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 5. SWLRT Updates 6. January 2015 Monthly Financial Report 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: February 23, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 9, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on March 9, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda 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 regularly scheduled Study Session on March 9, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning March 9, 2015 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 9, 2015 Study Session, March 9, 2015 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Joint Powers Agreement/City of Golden Valley – Community Development (30 minutes) Discuss a potential agreement with City of Golden Valley to assign certain powers and responsibilities for the sites, buildings and structures that cross municipal boundaries in the Central Park West development project. 3. Bally’s Site Update – Community Development (30 minutes) Staff will provide information regarding the proposed plat, PUD, and TIF applications from Oppidan for redevelopment of the former Bally Total Fitness site at 4900 Excelsior Blvd. 4. Emergency Operations Plan – Fire (45 minutes) Staff desires to review with Council the updated Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and a refresher on the duties and responsibilities of elected officials in the event of a significant community disaster or major incident. This is the first update of the EOP since 2005. 5. Update on Park Nicollet Pilot Program – Fire (30 minutes) The Fire Chief will share the latest data gleaned from the home visits being conducted in partnership with Park Nicollet under this Pilot Program. In addition, staff will discuss the current status of the pilot and next steps including current legislative actions. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m. Reports 6. Southwest LRT Update 7. Housing Activity Report 8. Summary of Hennepin County Ordinances on E-Cigarettes 9. Ottawa Avenue Parking Restrictions (28th Street & Highway 25) Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: February 23, 2015 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on Reilly Site RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. Staff desires to provide Council with information about the history, status, remediation strategy, and desired long term work plan for this site. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should staff continue efforts to amend the Consent Decree related to the Reilly site to lower the City’s annual cost and be environmentally responsible? SUMMARY: In July 2013, the City retained Attorney Charles Nauen and his law firm, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. (LGN) to represent the City in its efforts to update the 1986 Consent Decree to reflect current toxicology science and cease ongoing pumping in the shallow aquifers. In August 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed the City that the gradient control system in the deeper Prairie du Chien-Jordan (PdC-J) aquifer was not controlling the spread of contaminants. So, as the City was preparing a request that certain wells be shut down, the EPA demanded pumping be increased at other wells to, in their minds, better control the spread of contaminants. The EPA acknowledged that their position is primarily based on a comparison of recent sampling results against 1986 Consent Decree standards that are generally several orders of magnitude more stringent than the EPA’s current tap water screening levels and the MN Department of Health’s (MDH) Health Risk Limits. As such, the City has requested the EPA work with the MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and MDH to identify the most appropriate toxicological standards for use in an updated Consent Decree while the City reevaluates its gradient control, monitoring, and sampling plans. In subsequent meetings with the Agencies (EPA/MPCA/MDH), our legal counsel (LGN), and our technical consultants (Summit/Geosyntec), staff has identified the need to work towards mutual agreement in the following specific focus areas: FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All City costs to operate the Reilly site are funded by the Water Utility. With current costs exceeding $700,000 per year, the City’s water rates are 12-15% higher than what would otherwise be the case. 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 Reilly Well Maps (Upper & Lower Aquifers) Historical Background Document from EPA (2007) Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 1) An Updated Gradient Control Plan 2) The Annual Sampling Plan 3) An Updated Monitoring Plan 4) The Annual Monitoring Report 5) Revised Drinking Water Standards Study Session Meeting February 23, 2015 (Item No. ) Page 2 Title: Update on Reilly Site DISCUSSION CURRENT STATUS: Updated Gradient Control Plan: In August 2013, the EPA advised the City that the existing pumping in the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer was not adequately controlling the spread of contaminants south from the Reilly site toward the City of Edina. Following a series of meetings, the City submitted a revised Gradient Control Plan (GCP) to the Agencies in July 2014 with a proposal to increase pumping at W23 (the Reilly “source” well) and SLP10/15 (northern drinking water wells – see attached map). In early September the Agencies responded stating the proposed changes were not sufficient because the increased pumping must occur at a location between the Reilly site and the Edina wells. The only two high-volume wells in this area are owned by Methodist Hospital (W48) and the city (SLP6). Methodist has plans to seal W48 this summer, so SLP6 is the only existing well to meet the Agencies’ location requirement. Compared against current Consent Decree drinking water standards, test results are inconclusive as to whether SLP6 can be used as a municipal well without Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment. If the drinking water standards in the Consent Decree were updated using modern toxicology science, however, it is likely SLP6 could be used without treatment. As such, City staff is resistant to Agency requests to pump SLP6 immediately as a $2.5M GAC plant would likely be unnecessary 18-24 months later if the Consent Decree’s drinking water standards are updated. This logic, along with the desire to avoid the risk of inadvertently drawing contaminants closer to the City of Edina, was the basis for requesting increased pumping at W23 and SLP10/15 (rather than at the high-volume wells located between the site and Edina) in the short term while the modern standards were being evaluated for inclusion in the Consent Decree. Although the Agencies have yet to approve a Gradient Control Plan, they appear to be content with focusing on the other areas described below. Updated Monitoring Plan: A revised monitoring plan was submitted in July along with our proposed Gradient Control Plan. Although, the Agencies did not accept the GCP, they did accept the Monitoring Plan. The revised plan adds three existing PdC-J wells to the annual sampling plan. Since all three are existing wells, there is no capital funding impact, but due to the need to collect quarterly samples, there is an increase to the on-going maintenance/sampling costs. Unfortunately, one of the wells is in very poor condition. If it were to fail, the City would need to drill a new monitoring well at an approximate cost of $40K. Revised contaminant standards: In a June 2, 2014 letter, the Agencies stated they had initiated internal discussion “to evaluate what criteria might be acceptable” for inclusion in the Consent Decree. In late-August, an MPCA official stated the evaluation was ongoing and would likely last through FY2015. Regardless of what standards are used, the City has requested the Consent Decree be revised to: 1) State which drinking water standards are to be used (i.e. EPA tap water screening standards, MDH Health Risk Limits, or some other criteria), and 2) Advise that the most current criteria published for those standards are to be used (so future updates immediately govern without having to update the Consent Decree). Annual Sampling Plan: In July 2014, the Agencies requested that the City monitor certain wells for several PAHs not routinely included in previous analyses. Staff is encouraged by this request as it is indicative of the Agencies’ efforts to better understand exactly which contaminants are present and at what concentration so they can determine which drinking water standards should apply. City Staff and our technical consultants also met with Agency officials in Oct 2014 to review/update the Annual Sampling Plan requirements. Study Session Meeting February 23, 2015 (Item No. ) Page 3 Title: Update on Reilly Site Annual Monitoring Report: On September 2, 2014 staff received a six page letter containing Agency comments on our 2013 Annual Monitoring (submitted on March 17, 2014). Taken as a clear sign that Agency and City/consultant personnel were not communicating effectively, staff proposed hosting recurring meetings so City staff can better understand agency needs and Agency officials can better understand the City’s resource constraints. These meetings have been a tremendous success with the most recent meeting (January 2015), used to review/approve an entirely new format for the 2014 Annual Monitoring Report. FUTURE SITE ACTIVITIES/NEXT STEPS: Although originally estimated in 1985 at $20,000 per year, the City’s annual O&M costs for the Reilly site have grown to over $700,000, and have the potential to increase even further. As such, the City’s primary objective for retaining the Lockridge Grindal Nauen law firm was to assist us in working with the various agencies in order to reduce our ongoing O&M costs for the Reilly site. To that end, LGN contracted with Geosyntec to prepare an analysis of the pumping required in the shallow aquifers. Tom Scott prepared two attorney/client privilege memos for the City Council on July 15, 2013 and December 6, 2013 informing council of the need to seek special counsel and technical support. We were prepared to present our case to the Agencies that the pumping should be reduced or eliminated when we received the August 2013 letter alleging that the City was not complying with the CD-RAP’s gradient control requirements for the PdC-J aquifer. We are unlikely to make headway on this issue while the gradient control issue remains unresolved and the strongest case for reduced pumping can be made after the drinking water criteria are updated. Once general agreement on the gradient control plan has been reached (e.g., the Agencies agree to defer additional pumping until after monitoring and model updates have occurred), we will raise this issue with the Agencies and pursue reductions in the on-going pumping obligations. Overall, it appears we are making great progress in 2015 and expect to move forward in each of the five areas described above and will be able lower our long term costs. REILLY HISTORICAL INFORMATION: From 1917 to 1972 Reilly used the site for refinery and wood treating purposes. Since 1972 the site has been cleaned and redeveloped into its current condition which is primarily for residential housing and city park use. Attached is a document prepared by the EPA in 2007 which provides more of a historical background on the site. It is titled “Sites in Reuse – Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp Superfund Site” Remediation Strategy and Responsibilities The following is a brief summary of the Reilly Site Consent Decree (CD) (the full CD-RAP and Exhibits can be provided to Council upon request - they are quite lengthy), which regulates the Reilly site for the 30-year period from 1986-2016 but remains in effect until the EPA deems the remedial actions to be complete. The Consent Decree consists of three (3) parts: 1. The CD provides the framework for an agreement which resolved the ongoing litigation and addressed the environmental concerns at the time. The CD also identifies the Parties involved and provides the administrative details for proceeding with the site remedy. 2. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP), Exhibit A: provides the technical details of what actions are to be performed. This is a lengthy list of specific activities (the remedy) which must be accomplished to address each environmental concern at the site. 3. The City/Reilly Agreement, Exhibit B: provides an allocation of the responsibilities between the City and Reilly for funding and performing the remedies/activities identified in the RAP. Study Session Meeting February 23, 2015 (Item No. ) Page 4 Title: Update on Reilly Site Strategy: The basic premise at the Reilly site is that the contamination is so extensive that cleanup is neither possible nor practical with current known and available technology. The strategy is simply to contain the spread of the contamination, ensure adequate protective cover at the site, and to provide safe drinking water to City residents. This is done by strategically locating pumping wells (of various types) in the contaminated aquifers and operating the wells to the degree necessary to contain the spread of contamination. The following table identifies aquifers of concern within the City: Drinking Approximate Aquifer Water Source Depth to Center Contamination Drift No 50’ Yes Platteville No 100’ Yes St. Peter Yes 150’ Yes Prairie-du-Chien/Jordan Yes 400’ Yes Ironton-Galesville No 750’ No Mt. Simon-Hinckley Yes 900’ No It appears at this point in time that all contamination has been contained except possibly that in the Prairie-du-Chien/Jordan Aquifer. Recent Agency groundwater modeling indicates the potential for contamination migration towards Edina near Highway 100 and the southern boundary of the City. Responsibilities: Responsibilities of the various parties were agreed to in the 1980’s and are documented in the CD-RAP and the City/Reilly Agreement. In simple terms, Reilly provided capital to finance specific improvements while the City implemented the improvements and assumed daily operations/maintenance responsibilities; the State and Federal Governments have administrative oversight responsibilities. Should groundwater contamination spread to Edina, any mitigation or remedy deemed necessary by the Agencies is to be provided by Reilly. CURRENT OPERATIONS AND COSTS: As described in the previous section, the City is responsible for day to day site operations. This mainly consists of monitoring (groundwater sampling, testing, and reporting); groundwater pumping, treating, and discharge; and, administrative activities. Specific activities include: Aquifer Well Pump GAC Treatment Drink Sewer Discharge Surface Discharge Drift/Platteville W420 x x - - x W421 x x - - x W422 - Shut off in 2000 - W434 - Shut off in 2006 - W439 x - - x - St. Peter W410 x - - x - SLP3 (WTP1) - Sealed in 2014 - Prairie-du-Chien/Jordan W23 x x - - x SLP10/15(WTP1) x x x - - SLP4 (WTP4) x x x - - SLP6 (WTP6) * - * - - SLP14 (WTP10) x - x - - SLP16 (WTP16) x - x - - Study Session Meeting February 23, 2015 (Item No. ) Page 5 Title: Update on Reilly Site Ironton-Galesville W105 - Shut off in 1991 - Mt. Simon Hinckley SLP11 (WTP1) x - x - - SLP12 (WTP6) x - x - - SLP13 (WTP10) x - x - - SLP17 - Sealed in 2013 - WTP - Water Treatment Plant GAC - Granular Activated Carbon * - Emergency Use Only Water that is used for drinking water purposes is first treated using GAC technology at Water Treatment Plants 1 and 4 as noted above. This costs, on average, $100,000 annually. The City’s technical consultant (Summit Envirosolutions) collects about 250 samples per year from wells in all five aquifers listed above. The cost to collect and analyze these samples is approximately $160,000 per year. The City spends approximately $100,000 per year for consulting services (Summit Enviro- solutions) related to site research, annual reports, and overall project management/coordination. To date, the City has spent an additional $180,000 for legal and technical services from the Lockridge Grindal Nauen law firm (includes the Geosyntec technical consulting firm). Map adapted from ESRI Basemap: World Street Map. Figure 1 WELL LOCATION MAP (PCJ/MTS/IGV) Reilly Site St. Louis Park, Minnesota "J!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H "J !H !H !H !H !H !H !H"J "J "J!H !H !H "J !H !H !H !H !H !H !H $K !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H H6H5H4 H1 E9 E7 E6 E4 E3 E2 W48 W32 W29 W23 E17 E15 E13 E12 W407 W406 W403 W402 W401 W119 W118 W105 W104 SLP9 SLP8 SLP7 SLP6 SLP5 SLP4 MTK6 SLP17 SLP16 SLP15 SLP14 SLP13 SLP12 SLP11 SLP10 EDTW1 . 0 3,500Feet 1 inch = 3,500 feet File:20121029_PCJ_MTS_IGV Summit Proj. No.: 0987-0009 Plot Date: 10-30-12 Arc Operator: PRB Reviewed by: BMG Explanation !H CJDN; OPDC; PCJ "J CMSH $K IGV siteoutline Site Location Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Update on Reilly Site Page 6 Map adapted from ESRI Basemap: World Street Map. Figure 2 WELL LOCATION MAP (DRIFT/OPVL/OSTP) Reilly Site St. Louis Park, Minnesota #7!> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> XY #7 !> #7 #7!> !>#7 #7 XY #7 !> XY #7 #7 #7 XY !> XY #7 !> !> #7 !> #7 #7 XY #7 XY XY XY XY XY XY XY !>#7 !> !>#7 !>#7 !>#7 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7 #7 !> !> #0!> !>#0 XY W417 W418 W417W418 W21 W429 P304 W9 W2 W1 W27 W24 W22 W20 W18 W16 W15 W14 W12 W10 P32 W439 W438W437 W435 W434 W433 W431 W428 W427 W424 W423 W422 W421 W414 W412 W411 W410 W408 W143 W136 W133 W132 W131 W130 W129 W128 W124 W122W121 W117 W100 SLP3 P313 P310P309 P308 P307 P112 P109 W416 W415 W426 W425 W420 W409 W33R W120 W101 P312 . 0 1,500Feet 1 inch = 1,500 feet File:20121029_SampleLocs_Working Summit Proj. No.: 0987-0009 Plot Date: 10-29-12 Arc Operator: PRB Reviewed by: BMG Site Location Explanation !>Drift #0 Platteville XY St. Peter Site Outline Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Update on Reilly Site Page 7 Sites in Reuse Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp. Superfund Site Louisiana Street and Walker Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 From left to right: A soccer field and recreation center, both at the new park; a baseball field and walking path; a storm water pond. Site size: 80 acres Site Reuses: The site is now home to condominiums and town- houses, a restaurant and bowling alley, an office building, and a recreational park with athletic fields,walking paths, recreation center, pond, playground, and parking lot. St. Louis Park, Minnesota EPA Region 5 Reuse Fact Sheets August 2007 INTRODUCTION According to Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, “everyone who grew up in the City remembers the smell of creosote” from the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation. The same Superfund site that was responsible for the pervasive creosote smell has been redeveloped, and now features townhouses, a new office building, and a park, complete with recreational fields, a playground, and walking trails. SITE HISTORY From 1917 until 1972, Reilly Industries operated a coal tar distillation and wood preserving plant in St. Louis Park, known as the Republic Creosoting Company. From 1917 until 1939, wastes containing coal tar and its distillation byproducts were discharged into a ditch that ran the length of the site. These wastes then flowedintoapeatbogonthe southern portion of the site. A wastewater treatment facility was installed in 1940, but Republic Creosoting Company continued to discharge contaminated waste into the peat bog for the duration of the Company’s operations at the site. Coal tar and creosote dripping from leaky pipes, spilled process materials, and wood-treating chemicals washed off of treated lumber eventually resulted in contaminated soil on the site. Chemical contaminants may have also been released from a waste pond in the southeast portion of the site. There were more than a dozen wells on the site, with depths varying from 50 to more than 900 feet. Republic Creosoting Company dumped creosote and waste materials down several of these wells, eventually contaminating the ground water.The City of St. Louis Park purchased the site from Reilly Industries in 1972. At the time, the State of Minnesota was suing Reilly Industries over pollution discharge issues. The sales agreement included a “hold harmless” clause for soil and water impurities, indemnifying the City from liability. Creosote and creosote wastes had migrated directly into four underlying aquifers, contaminating the ground water with polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. T he contaminants eventually spread to private wells and municipal ground water sources. After acquiring the site in 1972, the City of St. Louis Park razed the Republic Creosoting Company buildings and constructed residential buildings on the northern end of the site over the next 8 to 10 years. A major north-south boulevard and storm water drainage improvements were also constructed. No redevelopment occurred on the site from 1984 until 2002, due to delays associated with a lack of a remediation plan for the site and the possibility that one Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Update on Reilly Site Page 8 EPA Region 5 Reuse Fact Sheets August 2007 FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: agency might require massive soil excavation and removal. Anderson said, “Fear of unknown remediation requirements coupled with an inability to stop generating data and start generating solutions were the biggest impediments to site redevelopment.” Beginning in 1978, the State of Minnesota shut down more than a dozen wells in the vicinity of the site, and the City of St. Louis Park instituted a water conservation program due to daily shortages of clean, drinkable water. In 1979, 28 multi-aquifer wells were either reconstructed or abandoned to prevent the spread of contamination in the ground water. By this time, many citizens in the community had become extremely concerned about the quality of drinking water. Organized public protests over water quality were not uncommon. THE CLEANUP PROCESS In 1982, t he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided funds to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to clean out two contaminated wells. The site was listed on the National Priorities List in 1983. In 1984, a consent order was issued, requiring Reilly Tar, the potentially responsible party as owner and operator of the site, to construct a granular-activated carbon treatment plant for two existing contaminated municipal wells, restore drinking water, and contain the contaminant plume from contaminating other municipal wells. After some delay, Reilly Industries came forward with a practical, cost-effective remediation plan that expedited the cleanup and reuse process. Reilly’s plan led to settlement of the lawsuit over liability and a 1986 agreement between all parties for remediating the site. Under the settlement, the City agreed to share the responsibility for operating and maintaining the municipal water treatment plants and performing long term ground water monitoring. Construction of the required pump and treat wells was finished in 1997. It is estimated that as of 1996, 6.2 billion gallons of contaminated ground water had been pumped and treated. Redeveloping the formerly contaminated property was important to the city’s growth as a Minneapolis suburb, primarily because St. Louis Park has little land available for new construction other than previously used property. Ultimately, a strong commitment to redevelopment and the local government’s willingness to take risks by investing in a contaminated property were key factors to overcoming impediments to reuse. $NEW RECREATIONAL PARK In 2002, the City built a new commercial officebuildingand recreational park, in addition to the residential housing that was built before the site was cleaned up. The community was able to preser ve a significantportionof green space, in addition to limiting unnecessary commercial or residential development. Community members enjoy walking trails, athletic fields, a new recreation center, and a pond that provides wildlife habitats. A local high school soccer team plays its games on the new fields. The site is now a place where community members can gather to enjoy the amenities that the City worked so hard to create. EPA Region 5: Darryl Owens Remedial Project Manager 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Phone: (312) 886-7089 Email: owens.darryl@epa.gov Site Summary: http://www.epa.gov/region5/ superfund/npl/minnesota/MND980609804. htm A playground at the new park in St. Louis Park, MN. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Update on Reilly Site Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: February 23, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 Connect the Park! Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the proposed 2015 Connect the Park! projects and segment amendments and provide direction to staff. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish staff to continue to pursue the installation of the sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments noted in this report? In addition, does the City Council desire to conduct a public hearing on the segments proposed for construction in 2015 on March 2, 2015? SUMMARY: Connect the Park! is the city's 10-year Capital Improvement Plan to add additional sidewalks, trails, and bikeways throughout the community. This initiative proposes to build 10 miles of sidewalk, 3 miles of trail, 3 bridges, and 32 miles of bikeways. 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 Connect the Park! initiative will work toward implementing many of the elements of the plan between now and 2023. 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. To ensure the City is being responsive to the momentum caused by this initiative and keeping the plan updated in light of community feedback, staff will be bringing proposed amendments to the plan to the City Council on an annual basis. This report will go over the proposed amendments to the plan and the segments proposed for construction in 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The construction cost estimate for the 2015 proposed project is still being finalized and will be available at the March 2, 2015 Council meeting. The original estimated cost for implementing the entire 10 year plan was $17 - 24 million dollars. These improvements will be funded using General Obligation bonds. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Amendments to the Connect the Park! CIP - Map Exhibit A – Proposed Future Sidewalk System Letter of Support for Barry Street Sidewalk Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The Connect the Park! Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was approved by Council in June of 2013. In 2014, the CIP was modified in order to take advantage of some of the other projects already identified in the City’s CIP and minimize construction scheduling impacts from other transportation projects proposed by Hennepin County, MnDOT and SWLRT. The proposed segments and associated build year for this plan can be found in the attached graphics. At the September 22, 2014 Study Session, staff discussed a process to amend the Connect the Park! plan and resulting CIP. This report will go through the proposed amendments to the plan and the segments proposed for construction in 2015. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONNECT THE PARK! CIP Staff has the following proposed amendments to the plan. These amendments are recommended to ensure that we are being responsive to the momentum caused by this initiative and keep the plan updated in light of community feedback and additional study. Add a Segment to the 10- year CIP: The Lake Forest neighborhood has requested that we construct a sidewalk along Parkwoods Road, Cedarwood Road and Forest Road between the east TH100 frontage road and France Avenue. We have reviewed this request in comparison to the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and found it consistent with the goals and objectives identified in those planning documents. Looking at budget, workload, and other capital projects, this sidewalk segment is proposed for construction in 2018. The estimated cost for this project is $1,100,000 including right- of- way, engineering, and construction. This cost is based on our construction costs for the projects last year. If Council should agree to this amendment to the plan, staff will hold a neighborhood open house this spring to discuss this proposed project. Preliminary design for the project would not begin until 2017. Construct in-fill segments (gaps) As a part of the annual Connect the Park! construction program, staff works to identify gap segments. Gaps have been identified for the 2015 program and are included in that section of the report. For purposes of discussion, a “gap” is considered a section of sidewalk that is missing on a continuous street block directly adjacent to the proposed Connect the Park! sidewalk segment. The gap segments would be constructed at no cost to the property owners and the City would be responsible for future repairs to defective sidewalk panels. However, these sidewalk segments would follow the appropriate sidewalk designation “Neighborhood” or “Community”. Neighborhood sidewalks are the property owner’s responsibility for snow removal; community sidewalks are the City’s responsibility. Staff is reviewing these definitions and designations and will be coming to a study session later this year for Council discussion. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Move the planned year for a segment Staff has programmed the installation of segments of sidewalks, trails and bikeways out through 2023. Whenever possible, these segments were grouped with pavement management projects in order to manage city cost and minimize inconvenience for property owners. Major construction projects such as Trunk Highway 100 reconstruction and Southwest LRT were also taken into consideration to try to keep parallel road networks open to traffic. It also breaks the program down into manageable contracts for staff workload. Staff has received a request (see attached) to move up the sidewalk segment included in the plan along Barry Street by Benilde St. Margaret. We have reviewed it in light of the current CIP. This segment of Barry Street will likely have higher traffic volumes as a result of the TH100 project. A sidewalk project will mean lane closures. As a result, staff proposes that we move the schedule of this sidewalk construction from 2020 to 2017. Planning and design for this segment would begin in 2016. Enhanced Pedestrian Crossings In 2014, a City led initiative called Street Smart SLP, studied 13 high volume traffic crosswalks within the City. One of the recommendations from that initiative was to add pedestrian crossing enhancements to the Connect the Park! CIP for pedestrian crosswalk locations with high pedestrian counts. Two of the crosswalks that were studied had a high volume of pedestrians use. • 36 ½ Street and Monterey Drive - 96 pedestrians • 16th Street and West End Boulevard- 1080 pedestrians Staff will review the two locations and design enhancements to the crosswalks to assist with vehicle pedestrian interactions. Potential improvements could include: user- activated crosswalk beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, bumpouts, etc. This work is proposed for 2015. The estimated cost for each location is $40,000. Again, if Council should agree to these amendments, staff will be hold a neighborhood open house this spring to discuss these proposed improvements, followed by preliminary design and construction this year. PROPOSED 2015 CONNECT THE PARK! SEGMENTS In total, thirteen sidewalk and trail segments are recommended for construction in 2015. This equates to over 11,750 feet (2.2 miles) of new sidewalks and 4250 feet (0.8 miles) of trails. This is the second construction season for the plan. Staff has utilized the last nine months to engage the public in the design process. A Connect the Park! communication plan was created with the help of the City’s communications department that included a website “connectthepark.org”, an action plan for interaction and engagement of residents that included open houses/meetings, and the use of email notifications and updates. Open houses were held in late November and early December, 2014 as an opportunity for residents to learn more about the proposed 2015 sidewalk segments and to gain insight on the right of way directly in front of their house. The initial round of open houses lumped Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update geographically similar segments together for a general discussion about sidewalks along their streets. The preliminary plan showed a 6 foot wide sidewalk with a 5 to 7 foot wide grass boulevard behind the curb. This cross section was consistent with the sidewalk design included in the Connect the Park! plan. Staff presented to the residents the following design criteria that we would use to evaluate the feasibility of constructing sidewalk. • Minimize impacts to city boulevards • Minimize tree impacts • Driveway grades • Driveway lengths • Maintain a minimum of one side on street parking • Distance from proposed sidewalk to homes • Location of private utilities that occupy the boulevards (electric, gas, communications) Other items discussed • Staff discussed the Right of Way policy for addressing private amenities in the public right of way. • Snow removal • Sidewalk replacement • Funding The goal of the first meeting was to educate the residents on the process and gain feedback on their concerns and issues related to the proposed sidewalk. Many residents asked questions, wrote post it notes on the layouts and provided suggestions for modifications to this base design. Staff tried to incorporate these comments into a refined design. The following are the key issues staff heard in this initial round of open houses: • Concern about impacts to trees and other vegetation in the boulevard • Close proximity of the sidewalk to the house • Shortening driveway lengths • Sidewalks were not needed If property owners were unable to attend the meetings, or if they had specific concerns that they wanted to walk through, staff met with them on site. Using the information gathered from the first round of open houses, individual site visits, phone calls and emails, staff revised the sidewalk design to try to minimize the number of impacts within the boulevards. When impacts could not be avoided, staff proposed mitigation of the impacts. Engineering staff worked closely with Operations and Recreation staff to ensure the network of sidewalk being built would meet the objectives for tree preservation/replanting and acceptable widths and design features for snow removal on community sidewalk segments. Staff also worked closely with Operations and Recreation, Police and Fire to understand appropriate street widths for efficient snow removal and safe travel for emergency response vehicles. The following pages of the summary discuss the design modifications staff used to minimize the impacts to the property owners along these sidewalk segments. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update The proposed final design plans were presented to residents at a second round of open house meetings in January and February 2015. These meetings were held in a similar format to the first round were residents were able to ask questions and staff asked for their feedback. Staff shared with the residents the next steps in the process and informed them of opportunities to contact staff and Council members, the upcoming study session and future Council reports prior to start of construction. ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION: In terms of the number of contacts, staff has received a limited amount of communication from residents, neighborhood groups and businesses expressing their position on the proposed sidewalk segments. Staff will include any correspondence with the Council report scheduled for March 2, 2015. This meeting could also serve as an opportunity to hold a public hearing on the proposed sidewalk projects. SIDEWALK SEGMENTS Flag Avenue, 18th Street, Hillsboro Avenue and 14th Street Project Overview: Approximately half of this sidewalk (north of 16th Street) is planned to be constructed in conjunction with the 2015 Pavement Management project. The remainder of the sidewalk south of 16th street is adjacent to streets the City will not be reconstructing this year. Community Significance: This area of town is currently underserved by pedestrian facilities. The installation of sidewalk on these streets will connect the sidewalk along Flag Avenue to Wayzata Boulevard. Public Process: Staff has held two public open houses and on-site meetings with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the east side of Flag Avenue north of the Minneapolis Golf Club and the north side of 18th Street. At the intersection of Hillsboro Avenue and 18th Street the sidewalk switches to the west side of the roadway as it heads north to 14th street. The sidewalk continues on the south side of 14th Street from Flag Avenue to the Frontage Road of TH 169. The walk continues north along the west side of the Frontage Road to Wayzata Boulevard. There are a number of trees that will need to be removed along Hillsboro Avenue between 18th Street and 14th Street. The City is proposing to narrow the street from 30 feet to 28 feet to minimize tree impacts and driveway grades where feasible. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 3,600 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Construction Schedule: This sidewalk segment is planned to be built in conjunction with the Pavement Management street reconstruction project scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2015. Segments Around Louisiana Oaks Park There are three segments of sidewalk and/or trail that “ring” Louisiana Oaks Park and the former Reilly Tar & Chemical Site. The City is required to complete additional permitting in order to complete any excavation near the site. The timing of the permitting necessitated postponing these segments until the 2015 construction season. This aligns well with the 2015 Municipal State Aid road project proposed for Walker St, the completion of the Highway 7/ Louisiana interchange project and the improvements programmed for Louisiana Oaks Park. These segments are discussed in more detail in the following pages of the report: 1. Louisiana Avenue Trail (From Walker Street to 32nd Street) 2. 32nd Street Trail (Pennsylvania Ave to Oregon Ave) 3. Walker Street Sidewalk (Texas Ave to 37th St) and Walker Street Trail (Adjacent to Louisiana Oaks Park) Louisiana Avenue Trail (From Walker Street to 32nd Street) Project Overview: This segment is currently a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the west side of the roadway. The sidewalk will be replaced by an 8 or 10 foot wide asphalt trail. This will continue the wider multi-use trail that was built in 2014 from Oxford Street up to Walker Street. Community Significance: This trail creates a direct connection to the Three Rivers Regional trail and Louisiana Oaks Park. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Public Process: Staff held a public meeting in 2013 and two more public open houses in late 2014/early 2015 with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt trail with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the west side of Louisiana Avenue from 36th Street to the pedestrian bridge over Louisiana Avenue. North of the pedestrian bridge the trail will narrow to 8 foot wide to minimize tree impacts. Staff is proposing to reconstruct the approach to the pedestrian bridge and the trail entrance in to Louisiana Oaks Park. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community trail and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 2,900 feet of trail will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This trail segment is planned to be built in conjunction with the Walker/ 36th Street 2015 Municipal State Aid reconstruction project scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2015. 32nd Street Trail (Between Pennsylvania Avenue and Oregon Avenue) Project Overview: This segment is a gap in the trail network that wraps around Louisiana Oaks Park. Currently there is a dirt path within the City’s 32nd Street right of way. Community Significance: This trail completes a gap in the Louisiana Oaks Park trail system that will create a continuous walking and biking loop around the park. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 8 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Public Process: Staff has held a public meeting in 2013 and two more public open houses in late 2014/ early 2015 with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a 10 foot wide asphalt trail that connects the trail network currently in place around Louisiana Oaks Park. This area is currently heavily wooded. Staff has worked with the City Forester to minimize tree impacts. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community trail and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 350 feet of trail will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This trail segment is planned to be built in conjunction with the Walker/ 36th Street 2015 Municipal State Aid reconstruction project scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2015. Walker Street Sidewalk (Texas Ave to 37th St) and Walker Street Trail (Adjacent to Louisiana Oaks Park) Project Overview: Although Walker Street has a substantial amount of sidewalk and trails, many of the segments are not connected. This creates gaps that pedestrians and trail users need to manage. Since Walker Street is scheduled for reconstruction in 2015, staff believes this is the right time to create these connections. Community Significance: The construction of these sidewalk and trail segments fills gaps in the current pedestrian network between Louisiana Avenue and Texas Avenue. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 9 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Both Texas and Louisiana are major north- south routes connecting destinations and the regional trail system. Public Process: Staff has held a public meeting in 2013 and additional public open houses in late 2014 with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: Along the north side of Walker Street from the west edge of Louisiana Oaks Park to Louisiana Avenue an 8 foot wide bituminous trail would be built with a boulevard that ranges from 6 to 20 feet. A 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Walker Avenue from Quebec Avenue to 37th Street and then along the north side between Texas Avenue and Quebec Avenue. These sidewalks fill in the gap segments that exist today. Walk Type: These are proposed to be a community sidewalk and trail that would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 2000 feet of sidewalk and 1000 feet of asphalt trail will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This sidewalk and trail segment is planned to be built as part of the Walker/ 36th Street 2015 Municipal State Aid reconstruction project scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2015. Morningside Road (Wooddale Avenue to Oakdale Avenue (Edina)) Project Overview: This is a short section of roadway between Wooddale Avenue and the City of Edina that does not have sidewalk on either side. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 10 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Community Significance: Connections to Susan Lindgren Elementary School, Browndale Park, and City of Edina. Public Process: Staff has held two public open houses and additional on-site meetings with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along north side of Morningside Road from Wooddale to Ottawa Avenue. The segment east of Ottawa Avenue has some steep road and boulevard grades that will require a retaining wall. This segment of sidewalk is placed at the back of the curb in order to minimize the wall height. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 425 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. Quentin Avenue (40th Street to Excelsior Boulevard) Project Overview: The proposed sidewalk is along the west side of Quentin Avenue from 40th Street to Excelsior Boulevard. Staff required sidewalk along this section of property during the recent re-platting of the Park Nicollet/Wells Fargo property on the southwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue. At the time of platting the property owners agreed to the sidewalk construction and placed money in escrow to pay for this sidewalk construction. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 11 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Community Significance: Connections to Susan Lindgren Elementary School, Miracle Mile, Excelsior & Grand, Park Nicollet Clinic and the neighborhoods to the south. Public Process: Staff has held two public open houses and on-site meetings with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a six foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the west side of Quentin Avenue. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 520 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. Texas Avenue (Cedar Lake Road to Franklin Avenue) Project Overview: A new sidewalk is proposed on the west side of Texas Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to Franklin Avenue. Community Significance: Connections to St. Louis Park Middle School, Westwood Hills Nature Center and the neighborhoods to the west of Texas Avenue. Public Process: Staff has held two public open houses and numerous on-site meetings with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 12 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Design: The construction of a six foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the west side of Texas Avenue from Cedar Lake Road to Franklin Avenue. In addition, a pedestrian push button activated crossing light is proposed at the intersection of Texas Avenue and 22nd Street. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 2,600 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK SEGMENTS: Council has directed staff to identify gap segments near a 2015 Connect the Park! sidewalk segments that if completed would create continuous connections. The following gap sidewalk segments have been investigated by staff and are feasible for construction. 22nd Street (Texas Avenue to Quebec Drive) Project Overview: There is an existing user activated pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Texas and 22nd Street. Currently, 22nd Street does not have a sidewalk in this segment. With the proposed installation of sidewalk on the west side of Texas the construction of a 22nd Street sidewalk creates a natural location for pedestrians to cross Texas Avenue to gain access to the school and the various ball fields east of the school. Staff is proposing a sidewalk along the north side of 22nd Street to the soccer fields that will allow pedestrians to safely access the school amenities. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 13 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Community Significance: This segment creates a connection to the Middle School and allows students walking and biking to school to be separated from vehicle traffic. Public Process: Staff has held two public open houses and met with the School District to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a six foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the north side of 22nd Street. The sidewalk would end at the drive entrance to the school (at Quebec Drive). A future sidewalk could be built along with the street reconstruction proposed for 2019 that would connect this segment to Oregon Court/22nd Street. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a community sidewalk and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 950 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. Glenhurst Avenue (39th Street to 3830 Glenhurst Avenue) Project Overview: A sidewalk on the west side of Glenhurst Avenue that connects the existing sidewalk along Glenhurst Avenue to the sidewalk along 39th Street. Community Significance: Connections to Susan Lindgren Elementary School, Excelsior and Grand, Minnekahda Vista Park, and the Minneapolis chain of lakes pathway system. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 14 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Public Process: Staff has held one public open house and on-site meetings with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the west side of Glenhurst Avenue from 39th Street to 3830 Glenhurst Avenue. This sidewalk will connect in to the 39th Street sidewalk built in 2014. This design requires a number of retaining walls in order to make the grades work through the front yards of the three homes. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a neighborhood walk and would be maintained by the residents for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 225 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. Oregon Avenue (32nd Street to 3149 Oregon Avenue) Project Overview: The current sidewalk along Oregon Avenue stops three lots short of the Louisiana Oaks Park trail network. This sidewalk segment would complete this gap and provide a connection to the 32nd Street Trail and other trails to the south. Community Significance: Connections to the Louisiana Oaks Park complex. Public Process: Staff has held one public open house with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 15 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Design: The construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the east side of Oregon. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a neighborhood walk and would be maintained by the residents for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 180 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This sidewalk and trail segment is planned to be built as part of the Walker/ 36th Street 2015 Municipal State Aid reconstruction project scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2015. Vallacher Avenue (Quentin Avenue to 4915 Vallacher Avenue) Project Overview: This segment fills a three lot gap in the sidewalk between Quentin Avenue and Princeton Avenue. Community Significance: Connections to Susan Lindgren Elementary School, Excelsior and Grand and the surrounding neighborhoods. Public Process: Staff has held one public open house with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the south side of Vallacher Avenue from Quentin Avenue to 4915 Vallacher Avenue. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 16 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Walk Type: This is proposed to be a neighborhood walk and would be maintained by the residents for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 120 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. 40th Street (East of Quentin Avenue to 4001 Quentin Avenue) Project Overview: This segment fills a one lot gap in the sidewalk between Quentin Avenue and Princeton Avenue. Community Significance: Connections to Susan Lindgren Elementary School, Excelsior and Grand and the surrounding neighborhoods. Public Process: Staff has held one public open house with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the south side of 40th Street from Quentin Avenue to 4001 Quentin Avenue. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a neighborhood walk and would be maintained by the residents for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 130 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 17 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. 40th Street (West of Quentin Avenue to Wooddale Avenue) Project Overview: Currently there is sidewalk along the south side of 40th Street east of Wooddale Avenue to the east end of the Wooddale Evangelical Lutheran Church. This proposed segment fills a nine lot gap in the sidewalk between Wooddale Avenue and Quentin Avenue. Community Significance: Connections to Susan Lindgren Elementary School, Excelsior and Grand and the surrounding neighborhoods. Public Process: Staff has held one public open house with residents to discuss issues and concerns. Design: The construction of a five foot wide concrete sidewalk with a variable width boulevard (4-6 feet) along the south side of 40th Street from Quentin Avenue to the Church. The existing 4 foot wide sidewalk at the church would be removed and a 5 foot sidewalk would be installed to Wooddale Avenue. Walk Type: This is proposed to be a neighborhood walk and would be maintained by the residents for snow removal. Cost: The engineering cost estimate for the 1,000 feet of sidewalk will be available with the March 2, 2015 Council report. Construction Schedule: This is planned to be independent sidewalk construction work that can be completed in the summer of 2015. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 18 Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update IMPACTS, EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF ENTRY: All the proposed sidewalks for 2015 are challenging to build in a fully development community such St. Louis Park. 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 to the community. 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. 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. NEXT STEPS: The proposed schedule for the segments recommended by staff to facilitate construction in 2015 is as follows: Council Study Session February 23, 2015 Council Approval of Project Report March 2, 2015 Council Awards Construction Bids April 6, 2015 Construction May through October 2015 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Each sidewalk segment is unique and requires its own set of design solutions to minimize and mitigate impacts in the right- of- way. Often this requires more expensive solutions then is typically considered for standard sidewalk construction. The increase in costs to construct these segments was acknowledged in the original estimates during the Connect the Park! planning. Staff is confident that the estimates shown above are within the budget approved by Council in June 2013. !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! !!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!34TH ST LAKE S T 27TH ST WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR D S T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALEAVE37TH ST LOUISIANAAVEBNSF RR EXCELSI O R B L V D LI B R A R Y L N 35 T H S T 38TH STKENTUCKYAVE 39TH ST CEDARLAKERD VERNON AVEKIPLINGAVEWAYZATAB L V D 28 T H S T FO RD RD INGLEWOOD AVESHELARDPKWY 25 1/2 ST GORHAMAVEPARK GL E N R D BRUNSWICK AVEBELTLINEBLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD EXCELSIOR BL V D 31STST BROWNDALEAVE16TH ST HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVECLUB RD 36THS T 23RD S T 26TH ST 3 61/2STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSI DE R DZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSEAVE32ND ST UTICAAVENORTH S T 42ND ST DOUGLASAVE GLENHURSTAVE24TH ST HAMILT ON ST XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N KLIN AVE POWELLRD VIRGINIA CIR 22NDST 29THST 40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH ST BASSWOODRD18THSTOTTAWA AVE14TH ST FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGHAVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILAAVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGEDR MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCPRR PARK CEN TERBLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST 18TH ST AQUI LA AVE WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR C P RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST 37TH S T 27TH ST 2 2N D S T QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD JOPPA AVE37TH ST 36TH STTEXASAVE 34TH STFLAGAVEJERSEY AVEALABAMAAVE2 3 RD S TQUENTI NAVEFLA G AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWOO D DA L E A V E 33RD ST 28TH ST 16TH ST 36TH ST HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST JOPPA AVE26TH ST 27TH ST ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST CEDAR L A K E R D 31ST ST 25THST 3 9 T H S T 26TH ST 16TH ST 1ST ST2ND STPARKPLACEBLVDZARTHANAVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDOAVE 32ND ST 42ND ST 42ND STAQUILALN GLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB R O O K D R FORESTRD NEVADA AVE40TH L N ELIOT VI E W R D 43 1/2 ST MACKEY AVE40TH S T DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST M O N T E R E Y D R V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOODHILLSDRWESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST 34 1/2 ST 14TH ST BOONEAVEBOONEAVE BOONEAVEWE S T MORELANDLNUTAHDRQUE B ECAV E Q UEBECAVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLONAVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR 22ND LN B R O W N L O W A V E 35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAHAVEUTAHAVESUMTERAVEBURD PL STANLENRD CA V E L L AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDSRDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMERAVEPARKCOMMON S DR 32 1/2 ST CEDARWOODRD C E D ARW O O D R D MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN13TH LN TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMINGAVEEDGEWOODAVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST M O NIT O R S T FORD LN RANDALL A V E INDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPAR KWOODSR D MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33 R D S T 33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZAVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINI AA V E VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIAAV E VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR DECATURLNYUKON AVEY U KONAVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELLLN H ILLSBOROAVEHI L L SBOROAVEHILLSBORO AVEHILLSBOROAVEPARKDALE D RLANCASTERAVE PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURSTRDC E D ARLAKERDHILLL NDECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO K BLVDMEAD OWBROO K B LV D GLEN PL HIGHWOODRD MINNEHAH ACIRNEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F O R E S T LN LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN ENSIGNAVET E X ATONKAAVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOODHILLSCRV AQUILACIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA CT TEXAS CIR OAK LEAF CT FORD CIR OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILAAVE 31STST YOSEMI TE AVEAQ UILAAVEFLAG AVE31ST ST CEDARLAKERD 24TH S T 31ST ST 22NDST COLORADOAVEBARRY ST ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST ALABAMA AVE14T H S T FLAG AVE16TH ST 1 6 THST 26TH ST SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDOAVE18TH ST 23RDST 31STST SALEMAVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23RDST 24TH ST HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST 27TH STDAKOTA AVE25THST VERNON AVE41ST ST 29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH ST 25TH ST 1 8 T H S T 26TH ST ID A H ONEVADA AVE24TH ST 23RD ST RALEIGH AVE 37TH ST 22ND ST 31ST ST 18TH KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD ST FRANKLI N AVE WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST 22NDST BRUNSWICK AVE16THST DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE 41ST ST 29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST UTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANAAVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURGAVE 3 5TH ST MINNEHAHA CIR NFLAG AVE WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA BLVD !f !f !f !f 89:w 89:w Westwood Hills Nature Center Bass Lake PreserveLouisiana Oaks Wolfe Park Aquila Park Twin Lakes Park Dakota Park Texa-Tonka Park Edgebrook Park Lamplighter Park Browndale Park Nelson Park Ford Park Northside Park Shelard Park Cedar Manor Park Carpenter Park Cedar Knoll Park Fern Hill Park Ainsworth Park Otten Pond Walker Field Pennsylvania Park Birchwood Park Elie Park Jersey Park Minikahda Vista Park Lilac Park Keystone Park Willow Park Hampshire Park Freedom Park Carroll Hurd Park Oregon Park Sunset Park Center Park Roxbury Park OAK HILL PARK Webster Park Knollwood Green Bass Lake Park Cedarhurst Park Isaac Walton League/Creekside Justad Park Jorvig Park Jackley Park Town Green Park Connect the Park!Proposed 10 Year Sidewalks CIP Sidewalks CIP 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 1 Miles Ë Trail Bridges !f 2014 !f 2018 !f 2019 !f 2020 89:w Pedestrian Crossing Signal Proposed Amendments Current Sidewalks Lakes Parks Railroad !!Current Trails Roads Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Page 19 34TH ST LAKE S T 27TH ST WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR D S T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR EXCELSI O R B L V D LI B R A R Y L N 3 5 T H S T 38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST CEDAR LAKE R D VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D 2 8 T H S T F O R D R D INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY 25 1/2 ST GORHAM AVEPARK G L E N R D BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD EXCELSIOR B L V D 31ST ST BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC LUB RD 3 6TH S T 2 3 R D S T 26TH ST 3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NING SIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST UTICA AVENORTH S T 42ND ST DOUGLAS AVE GLENHURST AVE24TH ST HAMILT ON ST XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E P OWELL R D VIRGINIA CIR 22ND ST 29TH ST 40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPA R K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST 18TH ST AQUI L A A V E WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR CP RR CP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST 3 7 T H S T 27TH ST 2 2N D S T QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD JOPPA AVE37TH ST 36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A VE JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I N AVEFLAG AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO O D D A L E A V E 33RD ST 28TH ST 16TH ST 36TH ST HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST JOPPA AVE26TH ST 27TH ST ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST CEDAR L A K E R D 31ST ST 25TH ST 3 9 T H S T 26TH ST 16TH S T 1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE 32ND ST 42ND ST 42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB R O O K D R FOREST RD NEVADA AVE40TH L N ELIOT VI E W R D 43 1/2 ST MACKEY AVE40TH S T DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST MO N T E R E Y D R V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST 34 1/2 ST 14TH ST BOONE AVEBOONE AVE BOONEAVEWEST M ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE B E C A V E Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR 22ND LN B R O W N L O W A V E 35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD PL STA NLE N RD CA V E L L AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK C OM M O N S D R 32 1/2 ST CEDARWOOD R D C ED ARWO O D R D MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN 13TH LN TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST M O NIT O R S T FORD LN RANDAL L A V E INDEPENDENCE A VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T 33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA A V E VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN H ILLSBORO AVEH I L LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D RLANCASTERAVE PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC E D AR LAKE RDHILL LN DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO K B L VDMEADO WBROOK B L V D GLEN PL HIG HWOOD RD MINNEHAHA C I R NEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F O R E S T L N LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA CT TEXAS CIR OAK LEAF CT FORD CIR OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE 31ST ST YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST C ED A R L AK E RD 24TH S T 31ST ST 22NDST COLORADO AVEBARRY ST ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST ALABAMA AVE14TH ST FLAG AVE16TH ST 1 6 T H ST 26TH ST SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST 2 3 R D ST 31ST ST SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23 RD ST 24TH ST HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST 27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST VERNON AVE41ST ST 29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH ST 25TH ST 18 T H S T 26TH ST ID A H ONEVADA AVE24THST 23RD ST RALE IGH AVE 37TH ST 22ND ST 31ST ST 18TH KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD ST FR A N K L IN A V E WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST 22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST DIVISION ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE 41ST ST 29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST UTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANA AVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURG AVE3 5 T H S T MINNEHAHA CIR N FLAG AVE WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA BLVD Exhibit A Proposed Future Sidewalk System 5-8-2013tw Legend Community Sidewalks City Maintained 46.2 miles/243,901 feet Community Sidewalks SSD Maintained 2.1 Miles/11,018 feet Neighborhood Sidewalks Resident Maintained 59 miles/311,584 feet Neighborhood Sidewalks Developer Maintained 2.15 miles/ 11,342 feet .(Sidewalk Systems 2023) Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: 2015 Connect the Park! Update Page 20 Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: 2015 Connect the Park! UpdatePage 21 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: February 23, 2015 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Recycling Efforts and Goals RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with goals that promote increased business/multi-family collection of recycling and organics and move toward elimination of use of polystyrene food containers and single-use plastic bags. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff desires feedback on the policy questions noted below: 1. Does Council support the proposed goals listed below to divert the largest sections of the waste stream from garbage disposal to recycling and commercial composting facilities? 2. Is Council willing to support a voluntary compliance method to move toward elimination of polystyrene take-out containers and single-use plastic bags in St. Louis Park? SUMMARY: At the June 23, 2014 Study Session, Council directed staff to research if the City should consider a ban on polystyrene (PS) food containers and plastic bags. In a November 10, 2014 Study Session report, staff identified next steps for defining appropriate goals and objectives for waste reduction. To understand how best to maximize waste reduction, staff conducted a survey of licensed food establishments, studied City and County waste composition reports, and reviewed State and County Solid Waste Management Plans. The proposed goals align with Council’s desire to be environmental leaders by addressing polystyrene food packaging and single-use plastic bag use, promoting the successful growth of current programs, and updating future program requirements. To that end, rather than banning materials, the proposed goals address polystyrene and plastic bag use, along with increasing recyclables and organics, through an aggressive education campaign targeting the diversion of an estimated 47% of business and multi-family residential waste currently being incinerated and landfilled. Proposed Goals: (see Discussion section below for more detail) 1. Increase business/multi-family recycling and organics through targeted education. Objectives: reduce polystyrene and plastic bag use; increase recycling/organics collection; utilize existing incentive program; and develop an internship position 2. Maintain and grow the residential organics program. Objectives: increase residential and small business participation 3. Evaluate business/multi-family recycling and organics program performance. Objectives: develop metrics for measurement FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Solid Waste Infographics (Attachment 1) Polystyrene Survey Results (Attachment 2) MN Statute 115A.151 (Attachment 3) Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager; Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent; Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Recycling Efforts and Goals DISCUSSION Goal Development Staff developed suggested goals (below) using SLP and Hennepin County solid waste composition analyses to gain an understanding of polystyrene food containers and plastic bags currently being disposed by incineration or landfilling (see Attachment 1). The Polystyrene Survey, sent to 139 licensed food establishments, was also used to better understand how many businesses use polystyrene, why it is being used, determine their interest in trying alternative products, starting organics recycling, and their current level of recycling (see Attachment 2). Staff also considered the State’s upcoming recycling mandate (effective January 1, 2016) requiring most commercial buildings to recycle at least three of the following: paper, plastic, metal, glass, or organics (see Attachment 3). Rather than creating additional mandates through material bans, staff is suggesting goals that address more than just polystyrene and plastic bags; a combined focus that also includes recyclables and organics to target diversion of an estimated 47% of business and residential waste currently being incinerated and landfilled. It will also serve to increase participation and waste diversion through the City’s curbside organics program and assist businesses and multi- family complexes in complying with the upcoming State recycling requirement and current City Solid Waste Ordinance. This approach aims to addresses Council’s intention to maintain the City’s position as an environmental leader. Listed below are goals, objectives, and supporting information suggested by staff: Proposed Goals & Objectives Goal 1: Increase business/multi-family recycling and organics through targeted education. Objectives: (by January 2016) • Polystyrene: Assist restaurants in adopting alternatives to polystyrene in food packaging. • Single-use Plastic Bags: Assist retailers in promoting reusable bags and providing recycling of single use plastic bags to their customers. • Recycling & Organics: Assist businesses and multi-family complexes in improving or implementing recycling and organics programs to comply with state recycling mandate and city solid waste ordinance. • Incentives: Encourage businesses to apply for Hennepin County Environmental Partners program to promote their efforts in recycling. • Internship/Partnership: Develop internship position to support education objectives. Goal 2: Maintain and grow the City’s curbside organics program. Objectives: (by June 2016) • Residential: Increase residential customer participation in City’s organics program to 20% of households. • Small Business: Achieve 30% participation in City organics program, by eligible food establishments. • Small Business: Identify additional small businesses eligible for City organics program. Goal 3: Evaluate business/multi-family recycling and organics program performance. Objective: (By: March 2016) • Metrics: Develop metrics for tracking performance of business education program. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Recycling Efforts and Goals Research Findings/Supporting Information Polystyrene Food Containers Polystyrene (PS) food containers comprise 2% or less of residential and business waste (also known as municipal solid waste, MSW), based on estimates taken from the Hennepin County waste composition study conducted in 2011. Survey results from licensed food establishments located in the City indicate that only 52% use PS for food, and of those using PS 59% are interested in alternatives and 54% are interested in organics recycling. The data shows that there is a real opportunity to achieve the desired goal without requiring a ban; therefore the objective is to assist restaurants in adopting alternatives to polystyrene in food packaging. Single-use Plastic Bags Single-use plastic bags comprise 3% or less of MSW thrown away, based on estimates taken from the Hennepin County waste composition study conducted in 2011. Some major retailers or grocers offer incentives for customers using reusable bags, but not all. A statewide plastic film recycling program, called It’s In The Bag, is available for businesses to collect plastic bags and film from customers for recycling, currently no St. Louis Park businesses participate in the It’s In The Bag program. Again the data shows that there is a real opportunity to achieve the desired goal without requiring a ban. Therefore the objective is to assist retailers in promoting reusable bags and providing recycling of single use plastic bags to their customers. Recycling/Organics, Business & Multi-Family Outreach, and City Program Growth Survey results from licensed food establishments located in the City indicate that 45% of those surveyed are not recycling enough materials to meet the recycling requirement that goes into effect in January 2016. Survey results further identified 30 licensed food establishments that are eligible for the City’s curbside organics program. Resources to assist businesses with recycling and organics programs through grants, communication materials, and an incentive program are available through the County and would be leveraged through a City education campaign. Recycling and organics comprise 42% of MSW thrown away, based on estimates taken from the Hennepin County waste composition study conducted in 2011. Recycling and organics comprise 57% of residential only solid waste thrown away, based on the St. Louis Park waste composition study conducted in 2009. Staff feels it is possible to significantly reduce these numbers by implementing the following courses of action: Business/Multi-family: • Assist businesses and multi-family complexes in improving or implementing recycling and organics programs to comply with state recycling mandate and city solid waste ordinance. • Achieve 30% participation in City organics program, by eligible food establishments. • Identify additional small businesses eligible for City organics program. Residential Currently 11% of St. Louis Park households have opted-into the City’s curbside organics program. A 2011 survey of residents found that 25% were willing to participate if the program were to be offered; and of those that were not interested, their main reason was concern over odors. Staff will be exploring innovative methods to help residents overcome the misconceptions about organics recycling, including a neighborhood Organics Champion program. The objective is to increase residential customer participation in the City’s organics program to 20% of households. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Recycling Efforts and Goals Incentives Program One of the resources offered by Hennepin County is the Environmental Partners program, which recognizes businesses for their efforts to divert recyclables and organics from the trash. Recognition includes listing on an online directory, window decals, and other resources to promote their businesses efforts. Currently only one St. Louis Park business is listed as an Environmental Partner. This would be an excellent way to showcase SLP businesses, as many neighboring city’s businesses are already identified through the program on Hennepin County’s website. The objective is to encourage businesses to apply for Hennepin County Environmental Partners program to promote their efforts in recycling and/or organics recycling. Internship Development Current solid waste program purpose, goals, objectives, and performance measures focus on the residential solid waste program. With the anticipated increase in educational needs related to business recycling and organics, need for metrics development, as well as the ongoing needs to create innovative ways to grow current residential programs, an internship position is being developed by staff. Metrics Development The State currently does not have a mechanism or statutory authority to collect recycling data directly from businesses. The County does not have plans to implement data collection from businesses at this time. Staff recognizes the importance of tracking the outcomes of the proposed education campaign; however, the City does not currently collect business recycling/organics data. The work plan developed for an internship would include research and development of metrics in order to measure performance of the education campaign. The objective is to develop metrics for tracking performance of business education program. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Recycling Efforts and Goals Page 5 ATTACHMENT 2 POLYSTYRENE USE GARBAGE/RECYCLING/ORGANICS PRACTICES 1a Use PS?4a Garbage Dumpster Size Code Response Count Percent Code Response Count Percent 1 Yes 37 52%1 2yd 6 8% 1 No 34 48%1 4yd 12 17% 71 100%1 6yd 16 23% 1 8yd 14 20% 1b How PS is used*Narrative Other 14 20% Code Response Count n/a No response 9 13% 1 Take-out 23 71 100% 1 Cups 17 Narrative Other 6 4b Frequency *More than one option may be selected Code Response Count Percent 1 Daily 8 11% 2_Reasons for use*1 EODay 18 25% Code Response Count 1 Weekly 23 32% 1 Cost 18 1 2X/Week 9 13% 1 Best option 16 n/a No response 13 18% 1 No alternate 4 71 100% Narrative Other 7 *More than one option may be selected 5_Recycling Code Response Count Percent INTEREST IN MORE INFORMATION 1 Aluminum/Steel 43 22% 1 Cardboard 63 32% 3_Interest in alternatives 1 Glass 43 22% Code Response Count Percent 1 Paper 46 23% 1 Yes 28 39%Narrative Other 4 2% 1 No 30 42%199 100% n/a No response/other comments 13 18% 71 100%6a Collect Organics? Code Response Count Percent 7_Interest in organics 1 Yes 12 17% Code Response Count Percent 1 No 57 83% 1 Yes 31 44%69 100% 1 No 30 42% n/a No response/other comments 10 14%Other Recycle at least 3 material types 71 100%Count Percent 39 55% Other Uses PS & Interest in alternatives 71 Code Response Count Percent 1 Yes 22 59%INTEREST IN MORE INFO (CONTINUED) 1 No 11 30%Other n/a No response/other comments 4 11%Code Response Count Percent 37 100%1 Yes 16 43% 37 100% Other Uses PS & Interest in organics Code Response Count Percent Response Rate 1 Yes 20 54% 1 No 14 38%# of Responses 71 n/a No response/other comments 3 8%Total Sent 139 37 100%Response Rate 51.08% POLYSTYRENE SURVEY RESULTS # of Respondents Using PS # of Respondents Using PS # Using PS Uses PS-Interest in alternatives & organics 1 # of Respondents # of Respondents # of Respondents Code # of Respondents # of Respondents # of Respondents # of Respondents # of Responses Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Recycling Efforts and Goals Page 6 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 115A.151 Copyright © 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 115A.151 RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS; PUBLIC ENTITIES; COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS; SPORTS FACILITIES. (a) A public entity, the owner of a sports facility, and an owner of a commercial building shall: (1) ensure that facilities under its control, from which mixed municipal solid waste is collected, also collect at least three recyclable materials, such as, but not limited to, paper, glass, plastic, and metal; and (2) transfer all recyclable materials collected to a recycler. (b) For the purposes of this section: (1) "public entity" means the state, an office, agency, or institution of the state, the Metropolitan Council, a metropolitan agency, the Metropolitan Mosquito Control Commission, the legislature, the courts, a county, a statutory or home rule charter city, a town, a school district, a special taxing district, or any entity that receives an appropriation from the state for a capital improvement project after August 1, 2002; (2) "metropolitan agency" and "Metropolitan Council," have the meanings given them in section 473.121; (3) "Metropolitan Mosquito Control Commission" means the commission created in section 473.702; (4) "commercial building" means a building that: (i) is located in a metropolitan county, as defined in section 473.121; (ii) contains a business classified in sectors 42 to 81 under the North American Industrial Classification System; and (iii) contracts for four cubic yards or more per week of solid waste collection; and (5) "sports facility" means a professional or collegiate sports facility at which competitions take place before a public audience. History: 1Sp1989 c 1 art 18 s 9; 1991 c 337 s 12; 1996 c 457 s 10; 2002 c 312 s 2; 2014 c 225 s 4; 2014 c 312 art 13 s 24 NOTE: The amendment to this section by Laws 2014, chapter 225, section 4, is effective January 1, 2016. Laws 2014, chapter 225, section 4, the effective date. Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Recycling Efforts and Goals Page 7 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: February 23, 2015 Written Report: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: SWLRT Updates RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Overall Project Status The SWLRT recently received a new “Medium-High” New Starts ranking from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), up from “Medium” in 2011, and $150 million for the project was recommended in President Obama’s fiscal year 2016 budget. These are two pieces of good news that show that the project is moving forward with FTA and is competitive for final funding. Joint Development Joint Development is a FTA program that integrates station area development with transit elements. For the SWLRT, the SPO is looking at using the program at two stations – Beltline and Blake. Additional details are contained in the “Discussion” section of this report. Station Architecture Design Four prototypes of stations are designed for the SWLRT line (see attached drawings). They are designed to provide architectural consistency with the existing Green Line (Central Corridor), while acknowledging the different communities and station sites along the SWLRT corridor. In March, the SPO is planning public open houses to show and discuss the station designs with the public; information on these will be forwarded as times and locations are determined. Public Art Ten artists submitted proposals for public art at the stations; 5-7 are expected to be chosen for the work. Each station will have approximately $250,000 for public art. A Station Art Committee for the St. Louis Park stations will need to be formed this spring, with 6-8 members appointed by St. Louis Park, 1 appointed by Hennepin County and 1 or more appointed by SPO. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Station Architecture Prototypes Public Art Opportunities Graphic Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Interim Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: SWLRT Updates DISCUSSION Joint Development Joint Development is a FTA program that integrates station area land development with transit elements. The intent is to work with the local community to build new transit-oriented development and transit infrastructure that both increases ridership and provides for economic development/tax base at the station areas. FTA Eligible Joint Development Activities: • Land acquisition and relocation costs • Demolition of existing structures • Site preparation, including environmental work • Utilities, roadways and other infrastructure including building foundations • Pedestrian and bicycle access • Site amenities (streetscape, plazas, etc.) • Project development activities including design, engineering, and real estate packaging • Construction of exterior commercial space • Parking improvements For the SWLRT, the SPO is looking at using the program at two stations – Beltline and Blake. These stations were selected based on the readiness of the market, the availability of land, local interest and development feasibility. At the Beltline station, the Joint Development property includes the southeast corner property of CSAH 25 and Beltline Blvd, and includes the 4601 Highway 7 property the EDA purchased last year. The anticipated development includes 324,000 square feet of office with some small retail, and 260 housing units. The transit element would include a 541 public park and ride ramp with 200 additional parking spaces to serve the development. The advantage for the Met Council is that a Joint Development project can receive revenue from leasing the property it owns and use the revenue for maintenance of the transit facilities at that location. Joint development projects are included in the total project budget of new light rail lines and funded half with FTA dollars and half with local matching funds. SWLRTs local funding partners (CTIB and HCRRA) have not been willing to pay for the 50 percent local match to ensure that the projects can receive Federal funding, so SPO is asking the local municipalities to make a commitment to cover the 50% local match. The City contribution could include grants such as the CMAQ grant the city has applied for ($7 million), other grants, tax increment financing, land contribution, etc. More detailed information on the cost estimates and funding will be coming in the next few months. Next Steps The SPO is moving forward on Joint Development, and completing the steps necessary to receive FTA funding. The next steps include hiring consultants for market analysis/financial feasibility and architectural and design services. A public engagement process is planned as well. If Joint Development moves forward, St. Louis Park will be asked to support the project with a 50% financial commitment. Staff will continue to analyze the program requirements and provide Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: SWLRT Updates a recommendation on whether or not the City should proceed. If the City moves ahead, we would then put out an RFP with the goal of finding a development partner for the site. It is anticipated that the RFP will go out by the end of 2015. Station Architectural Design Staff has worked with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) to determine which of our stations fit which type, and has preliminarily identified the following: Station Prototype Features Louisiana Landmark Taller feature to denote landmark Wooddale Neighborhood Lower features to blend in with neighborhood Beltline Town Square Features mimic buildings found in a town center SPO is willing to present additional details on these architectural designs to the City Council prior to public open houses, should the Council desire. In late March or early April SPO will be holding public open houses on the station architecture, and taking input on the proposed stations. Thus far, feedback from various public bodies has included attention to weather factors such as wind, snow and heating, as well as the request to provide more seating at each station. Public Art Each city will have a Public Art Committee to work with the artists chosen to work on its SWLRT station art. The Committee will provide input on the public art at the St. Louis Park stations to SPO and the artists. SPO has recommended the following make-up of the committee for St. Louis Park, and will be sending a letter requesting cities to make appointments in the next month or so. It is expected the committees would begin their work in April. Staff recommends that the city’s committee be made up from a combination of members appointed by Friends of the Arts and city staff. St. Louis Park Station Art Committee For the Beltline, Wooddale, and Louisiana Stations Representatives from the community selected by the City of St. Louis Park 6-8 members Representative from the community selected by Hennepin County 1 member Representatives from the community selected by SPO TBD Total Committee Members = 9-12 42 Station Prototypes Town Square Landmark Neighborhood Landscape Landmark Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: SWLRT Updates Page 4 53 Integrated Public Art Opportunities Railing Infill Structure Infill Concrete Platform Surface Underside of Canopy Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: SWLRT Updates Page 5 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: February 23, 2015 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: January 2015 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. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run about 8.5% of the annual budget in January. General Fund expenditures are at approximately 7.2% of the adopted budget at the end of January. Revenues are harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.). There are very few variances at this early point in the year. License and permit revenue is at 26% of budget due to the fact that a large portion of the 2015 business and liquor license payments have already been collected, which is consistent with previous years. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of January 31, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 BalanceYTD Budget BudgetAudited Budget Unaudited Budget Jan YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ -$ 22,364,509$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,417,119 3,248,158 845,142 2,403,016 26.02% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,795 320,200 5,350 314,850 1.67% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,381,092 1,292,277 - 1,292,277 0.00% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,841,597 1,907,292 84,870 1,822,422 4.45% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,203,784 1,196,018 103,778 1,092,240 8.68% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,812,416 1,851,759 153,063 1,698,696 8.27% Investment Earnings150,000 14,180 150,000 - 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 17,900 601 17,299 3.36% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 286,325 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,215,651$ 32,624,438$ 1,192,804$ 31,431,634$ 3.66%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 978,009$ 979,183$ 86,208$ 892,975$ 8.80% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,907 912,685 48,245 864,440 5.29% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 50,348 551,951 8.36% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 787,518 805,929 68,989 736,940 8.56% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 107,838 1,137,775 8.66% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,037,262 1,094,836 51,113 1,043,723 4.67% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,188 1,468,552 73,532 1,395,020 5.01% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 563,472 635,150 51,253 583,897 8.07% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 1,777 22,900 7.20% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 28,631 464,207 5.81%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,555,950$ 8,261,762$ 567,934$ 7,693,828$ 6.87% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,751,682$ 8,511,557$ 705,813$ 7,805,744$ 8.29% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,595 3,722,396 286,551 3,435,845 7.70% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,619 2,139,325 165,365 1,973,960 7.73%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,154,896$ 14,373,278$ 1,157,729$ 13,215,549$ 8.05% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 20,760$ 211,677$ 8.93% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 180,279 2,583,456 6.52% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,540 1,304,470 89,011 1,215,459 6.82% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 75,734 1,515,381 4.76% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,402,611 1,550,033 105,521 1,444,512 6.81% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 43,539 520,516 7.72% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,443 472,049 12,912 459,137 2.74% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,333 1,333,520 108,527 1,224,993 8.14%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,260,527$ 9,811,414$ 636,283$ 9,175,131$ 6.49% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 2,742$ -$ 370$ (370)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 12,400 177,984 - 177,984 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,065,142$ 177,984$ 370$ 177,614$ 0.21%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,036,515$ 32,624,438$ 2,362,316$ 30,262,122$ 7.24%Study Session Meeting of February 23, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: January 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2