Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/09/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 (Mayor Jacobs Out) 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 6 & October 13, 2014 2. 6:35 p.m. City Hall Second and Third Floor Remodeling Project 3. 7:05 p.m. Connect the Park! Plan Amendments 4. 7:35 p.m. Pavement Management Area 2 Update – 42nd Street Sidewalk 7:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 7:55 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 5. Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions 6. Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements 7. Update on PLACE Redevelopment Concept for former McGarvey Site 8. Sustainable SLP Branding Update 9. August 2014 Monthly Financial Report 10. Groves Academy Private Activity Revenue Bonds 11. 2015 Fees 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: September 22, 2014 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 6 and October 13, 2014 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session scheduled for October 6, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on October 13, 2014. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the Special Study Session scheduled for October 6, 2014 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on October 13, 2014. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning - October 6 & 13, 2014 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 6 and October 13, 2014 Special Study Session, October 6, 2014 – 6:45 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Snow Removal Program – Operations & Recreation (40 minutes) Discuss the recommendations for changes to our snow removal program including changes to the City’s winter parking restrictions and other changes to provide for improved service delivery, efficiencies in operations and communication to residents. Study Session, October 13, 2014 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Review of 2015 Budget, CIP, Utility Rates & LRFMP – Administrative Services (90 minutes) Overview of CIP and comments by Directors for key upcoming projects. Also, overview of Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2015 Budget, and final discussion on 2015 Proposed Utility Rates before adoption on October 20th. 3. Benefits & Wellness – Administrative Services (60 minutes) Overview of current benefits program and process used with a study group, consisting of all employee groups, to develop recommendations for 2015. An overview and discussion of the City’s wellness incentive program will also be included. 4. 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: 9:10 p.m. Reports 4. ASAP Building Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: City Hall Second and Third Floor Remodeling Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report is to update Council on the planning, costs, and timing for the City Hall second and third floor remodeling project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council continue to support proceeding with the proposed plan to remodel the second and third floors of City Hall? In addition, do the preliminary design plans meet the future customer service expectations of the Council? SUMMARY: City Hall carpeting, workstations, furnishings, and wall finishes on the second and third floors have successfully provided fifteen to twenty years of use and now require replacement. During planning for the first floor and entrance renovation project several years ago, CIP funds were designated for this project to occur during 2014 – 2015. An employee committee made up of representatives from Administration, Engineering, Community Development, and Inspections Departments has been working with U+B Architects since April 2014 on developing a concept plan and reviewing materials for the second and third floor. The process included evaluating ways to correct some operational, security, and customer service deficiencies. While less extensive compared to the major reconfiguration of the first floor, the resulting remodeling project proposed includes relocation of counter and walls to allow for improved customer service and employee interaction. Staff will be present to display and discuss the plans at the study session. If the Council is comfortable moving forward with this project, final details will be developed and material orders placed. Facilities Maintenance will serve as general contractor with a planned start of January, 2015. Because this needs to be a phased project extending over 4-6 months, departments will alternately rotate out of their workspaces. Maintaining high quality customer service during this project is a significant priority and yet to be finalized. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The funding source for this proposed project is the Capital Replacement Fund (CRF). This fund has a total of $935,000 allocated for the combined second and third floor project. Based on the proposed remodeling scope, at this time staff is estimating the project cost to be $1.235 million, including a contingency allocation. Staff will be making adjustments to the Long Range Financial Management plan to account for the additional funding needed. Staff will continue to fine tune the cost estimates and will provide an updated estimate for Council during the study session. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What approach should the City use to ensure that amendments to the 10 year Connect the Park! Capital Improvement Plan are consistent with the goals of the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan? SUMMARY: On June 17, 2013, the City Council approved the 10 year Connect the Park! Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This initiative proposes to build 10 miles of sidewalk, 3 miles of trail, 3 bridges, and 32 miles of bikeways. The first year of this plan is under construction. Staff would like to ensure we are being responsive to the momentum caused by this initiative and keeping the plan updated in light of community feedback. In order to do this staff would like to develop a process to amend the plan. There are three types of amendment requests that we have received: • Add a segment to the 10- year Connect the Park Plan/CIP • Construct in-fill segments (gaps) near a segment in the Connect the Park/CIP project area. • Move the planned year for a constructing a Connect the Park segment identified in the CIP Please see the “Discussion” section of the report for staff recommendations. Note that this discussion item has a close relationship to another item on the Study Session agenda relating to constructing a sidewalk on 42nd St. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The funding for the Connect the Park improvements is general obligation bonds. The estimated cost for the build out of the sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that were included in the 10-year CIP is $26.8 million. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Exhibit 1: Pedestrian Plan Exhibit 2: Bicycle Plan Exhibit 3: 10-year Connect the Park! CIP Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager Sean Walther, Senior Planner Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: As a result of the community visioning process completed in 2006, in 2008 the City developed the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan after an extensive public process. The resulting system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. The pedestrian and bicycle system plans as adopted and included in the Comprehensive Plan are shown on Exhibits 1 & 2. The specific 10 year Connect the Park! CIP (Exhibit 3) was then developed to construct some, but not all of these facilities after additional neighborhood meetings and public hearings. As a result, the 10 year Connect the Park! CIP does not include all of the segments shown on Exhibits 1 & 2. During the last year, staff has received requests to amend the Connect the Park! CIP. To ensure that we are being responsive to the momentum caused by this initiative and keeping the plan updated in light of community feedback, staff would like develop a process to amend the plan. The types of amendment requests that we have received and our recommendations are as follows: Add a Segment to the 10- year CIP: Staff proposes that if we receive a request to add a segment of sidewalk, trail, or bikeway, we would first check the segment against the Comprehensive Plan exhibits. If the segment is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, we would bring it to council asking to add it to the 10 year Connect the Park! CIP. Staff would recommend a year where it would fit in with budget, workload, and other capital projects. If the segment is not included in the Comprehensive Plan, staff would take a look at the analysis diagram from the Active Living Sidewalks and Trail Plan. If it fit into one of the identified goals and objectives from that plan, we would bring it to council asking to add it to the 10 year Connect the Park! CIP. Staff would make a recommendation on the year where it would fit in with budget, workload, and other capital projects. If the segment does not fit into either the Comprehensive Plan or the Active Living Sidewalks and Trail Plan staff would not recommend that it be included as a part of the CIP. Assuming the Council concurred, the segment would then fall under our special assessment policy for sidewalk installation. Staff is reviewing the special assessment policy and will be coming to a future study session to discuss modifications with the City Council. Construct in-fill segments (gaps) At the time of the public hearing on April 7, 2014 a petition was submitted to the City for completing various gaps in the sidewalk on Inglewood Avenue, Huntington Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue north of the 39th Street sidewalk. The City Council directed staff to include the construction of these gaps with the 2014 project bid. Staff proposes that this practice continue annually. Gaps would be identified at the beginning of the planning process, and the property owners adjacent to the gaps would then be included in the public information process. 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. Staff estimates 1.5 miles of sidewalk gaps that could be considered as a part of this amendment request. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments 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. Move the planned year for a segment Staff has programmed the segments of Sidewalk, Trail and bikeways over the next 10 years. 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 Soutwest 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 proposes that if we receive a request to move a segment within the 10- year C IP we would take a look at the request against the other projects in the CIP, to see if there is a way to move it that would not increase cost, create parallel road network issues and fit with existing workload. History of Connect the Park! As part of the “Vision St. Louis Park” initiative that began several years ago, one of the resulting strategic directions identified by the Community and the City Council was “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.” One of the priorities of that directive was a focus on developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. As a result, an extensive public process was engaged through the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan which recommended an approach to developing citywide pedestrian and bicycling systems, addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing their importance. The plan suggested a strategy for implementation, how existing areas of concern might be improved, and where new walks and trails should be installed. In brief, the plan was developed with the following key elements in mind: Purpose - "To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of trails and sidewalks that provides local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall community livability." Goals and Objectives - • Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city and linked to transit systems, providing options to automobile dependence. § establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks every ¼-mile § establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities every ½-mile § close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks • Anticipate increases in the use of mass transit, including the possibility of a much improved multi-modal system comprising buses, light rail, heavy commuter rail, local circulators, etc. • Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors using innovative strategies, improved traffic control systems, grade separations, etc. • Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions and transit facilities. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments • Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas, providing opportunities to improve the health and well-being of community residents and workers. • Make connections to regional and recreational trails to link St. Louis Park to larger metropolitan open space systems and destinations. • Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community, including children, seniors and the disabled. • Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs and orientation, standard designs for street crossings and additional "user-friendly" amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks and upgraded landscaping. • Incorporate strategies for funding, maintenance and snow removal into the overall plan. • Develop a Capital Improvement Plan based on priorities, needs and available resources. The goals and objectives of the plan are more graphically illustrated as follows: Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments Both the system plan and the set of general criteria for prioritizing the pedestrian and bike improvements was generated through community input from the Citizen Advisory Committee, Community Meetings, 205 online survey responses, and meetings with the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, and City Council. In addition, general support for the goals was vetted through the subsequent Plan-By-Neighborhood process, Community Survey, and Community Recreation Survey. Plan development and prioritization was also tied directly to public health, safety and well-being. The system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. The logic behind prioritization and plan implementation was also based on the following objectives: • Focus on key destinations: segments that serve multiple community gathering centers in the community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes) rated higher. • Focus on Transportation: routes that provide north-south connections through the community, into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rated higher. • Focus on Bicycling and Walking: the ultimate goal was to provide a quarter-mile “city” grid of sidewalks and half-mile grid of bike routes. Improvements that fill gaps in the city pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve safety at certain intersections, and provide crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major railroad and highway barriers rated higher. As part of the plan development by the Citizen Advisory Committee, specific sidewalk locations such as which side of the street were driven and chosen by a variety of factors unique to each particular area. These factors included access to specific destinations as listed above, continuation of segments already in place and/or closing of gaps in the system, school bus routes, and other input of the Committee members. As previously stated, the system plan and goals were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2009. The pedestrian and bicycle system plans as adopted and included in the Comprehensive Plan are shown on the next two pages. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 7 Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments Exhibit 1 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 8 Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments Exhibit 2 !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!f !f !f !f 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 EXCEL SI O R B L V D LI B R A R Y L N 3 5 T H S T 38TH STKENTUCKYAVE 39TH ST CEDARLAKER D VERNON AVEKIPLINGAVEWAYZATAB L V D 2 8 T H S T F OR D RD INGLEWOOD AVESHELARDPKWY 25 1/2 ST GORHAMAVEPARK G L E N R D BRUNSWICK AVEBELTLINEBLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD EXCELSIOR B L V D 31STST BROWNDALEAVE16TH ST HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVECLUB RD 36THS T 23 RD S T 26TH ST 3 61/2STMARYLAND AVEMOR NI NG S I D E R DZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSEAVE32ND ST UTICAAVENORTH S T 42ND ST DOUGLASAVE GLENHURSTAVE24TH ST HAMILT ON ST XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A NKLIN AV E POWELLRD VIRGINIA CIR 22NDST 29TH ST 40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T 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 A V E WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR C P RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST 37T H S T 27TH ST 2 2N D S T QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD JOPPA AVE37TH ST 36TH STTEXASAVE 34TH STFLAGAVEJERSEY AVEALABAMAAVE2 3 RD S TQUENTI NAVEFLAG AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWOOD 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 MO 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 BOONEAVEW E S T MORELANDLNUTAHDRQUE B ECAV EQ 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 AVEKILMERAVEPARK COMMO N S D R 32 1/2 ST CEDARWOOD RD C E D ARW O O D R D MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER R D BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN13TH LN TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMINGAVEEDGEWOODAVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST M O NIT O R S T FORD LN RANDAL L 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 B LVDMEAD OWBROO K B LV D GLEN PL HIGHWOODRD MINNEHAH ACI RNEXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F O R E S T LN LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN ENSIGNAVET E X ATONKAAVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24TH LN WESTWOODHILLSCRV AQUILACIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA CT TEXAS CIR OAK LEAF CT FORD CIR OTTAWA AVE28TH S TAQUILAAVE 31ST ST YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILAAVEFLAG AVE31ST ST CEDARLAKERD 24TH S T 31ST ST 22ND ST COLORADOAVEBARRY ST ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST ALABAMA AVE14 T H S T FLAG AVE16TH ST 1 6 THST 26TH ST SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDOAVE18TH ST 23 RDST 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 STUTICA AVECOBBLECREST CTCOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVELOUISIANA CIRLOUISIANAAVECAMBRIDGE STGETTYSBURGAVE 3 5 T H S T MINNEHAHA CIR NFLAG AVE WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA BLVD Westwood Hills Nature Center Bass Lake Preserve Wolfe Park Louisiana Oaks 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 PondPennsylvania Park Birchwood Park Elie Park Jersey Park Minikahda Vista Park Lilac Park Willow Park Keystone 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 Justad Park Isaac Walton League/Creekside Jorvig Park Jackley Park Town Green Park Parkview Park Connect the ParkProposed 10 Year Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway Projects 10 Year Proposed Projects Sidewalks 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Bikeways 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Trails 2014 2015 2016 2018 2020 Trail Bridges !f 2014 !f 2018 !f 2019 !f 2020 1 Miles Ë Lakes Parks Railroad Roads Current Sidewalks !!!Current Trails Document Path: O:\Pubwks\Projects\Current or Future\4014-0000 Connect the Park! Planning\Photos - Drawings\GIS\10 Year CIP (Sidewalk, Trail, Bike)\Connect the Park (Sidewalk, Trail, Bike).mxd Date: 9/17/2014 Author: Luke Ingram Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: Connect the Park! Plan Amendments Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Discussion Item:  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Pavement Management Area 2 Update – 42nd Street Sidewalk RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to assist Council in providing feedback on staff’s recommendation to install a segment of sidewalk along the north side of 42nd Street as part of the 2014 Pavement Management project. This item has a direct relationship to another discussion item for the study session regarding the process for making amendments to the Connect the Park plan. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed improvement consistent with the City’s goal to develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of sidewalks and trails to provide local and regional connectivity, improve safety and accessibility, and enhancing overall community livability. SUMMARY: While not an official part of the Connect the Park! Capital Improvement Plan the addition of sidewalk along the north side of 42nd Street from Princeton/ Quentin Avenue to the Edina city limit is consistent with the goal to provide safe pedestrian connectivity in our community. Staff believes the construction of this segment of sidewalk would be a logical expansion of our sidewalk system and would provide a quality regional connection in to Edina and Southwest Minneapolis. We desire to complete this work yet this fall because this segment of 42nd Street is scheduled for reconstruction in late September and early October as part of the 2014 Pavement Management Area 2 project. There is the potential for cost savings to the City and minimizing construction fatigue to residents if the project is done at the same time. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimate to install the sidewalk from Quentin/ Princeton Avenue to the Edina city limit is approximately $40,000. This additional work is anticipated to be a low cost addition to the overall project scope of the 2014 Pavement Management project. The costs for this project will be paid for using general obligation bonds, consistent with the Connect the Park! CIP. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Exhibit #1 – Site Map Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. ) Page 2 Title: Pavement Management Area 2 Update – 42nd Street Sidewalk DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The 2014 Pavement Management project for the Browndale and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods began in mid-July and is expected to be completed in late October of this year. As part of this project, 42nd street between Princeton/ Quentin and the Edina city limits is scheduled for pavement rehabilitation in late September and early October. During the development of the initial scope and budget for the pavement management project staff consulted the Connect the Park! Capital Improvement Plan for the implementation of sidewalk and trails within the construction limits of the road projects. The installation of sidewalks on Morningside Road and 41st Street are examples of combining sidewalk and roadway projects to reduce costs. During the development of the Connect the Park! CIP Edina did not have a facility planned on 42th Street. As a result, St. Louis Park did not include a sidewalk on 42nd street as to avoid the “sidewalk to nowhere” design. Since that time Edina has modified their plans to include sidewalk along 42nd Street. Their initial proposal was to construct sidewalk from France Avenue to Grimes Avenue (Weber Park) along the north side of the road. After considerable discussion with residents Edina extended the sidewalk further west, ending at the St. Louis Park city limits. This sidewalk was installed in late July and August (Photo #1 & #2). With the recent extension of sidewalk to the St. Louis Park border it seems logical that staff look at installing a sidewalk as part of the street reconstruction project. We have reached out to the ten residents who live along 42nd Street between Princeton/ Quentin Avenue and the city limits to introduce the idea of sidewalk and discuss the various design challenges with installing sidewalk along this roadway segment. We contacted residents in mid-June and again in early August via letter to gain their input. Considerable discussions including numerous site visits have taken place in the last few months that have helped staff to understand the issues and concerns of the residents and shape staff’s proposal. This segment of roadway presents a number of design constraints that present challenges and limit the options available for constructing sidewalk for these two blocks. Design Constraints 1. The roadway right of way is only 45 feet wide. Most right of ways in the City are 60 or 66 feet wide. 2. The road itself is 30 feet wide. This leaves only 5-8 feet of boulevard to install sidewalk. 3. Driveway grades at certain locations are very steep. 4. Driveway lengths at certain locations are at the recommended minimum of 20 feet already. 5. There are trees and landscaping within the boulevard that would be impacted. 6. The house setbacks along this section of roadway are 15 to 20 feet from the current curb location. For reference the houses average a 50 foot setback just to the east in Edina where the new sidewalk was installed. These design constraints led staff to propose narrowing the roadway by approximately five foot and constructing a back of curb style sidewalk. This would place the new back of curb sidewalk at the same location as the existing back of curb. This is similar to the designs approved for Morningside Road and 41st Street sidewalks as part of Connect the Park! and 2014 Pavement Management project. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Pavement Management Area 2 Update – 42nd Street Sidewalk The following is a summary of the recommended elements of this sidewalk that staff has discussed with the property owners. 42nd Street Sidewalk (North side from Princeton/Quentin Avenue to City Limits) Community Significance: Extension of the sidewalk from Edina that will connect southwest Minneapolis and Edina to St. Louis Park and provides a walking connection to Susan Lindgren elementary school. Public Process: Staff has reached out to the homeowners on this street via 2 separate letters this summer and held site visits with five of the homeowners. Design: Staff is recommending the construction of a five foot concrete sidewalk along the north side of the roadway. This sidewalk would be a back of curb walk (no boulevard). The north curb line would be moved south to narrow the street from approximately 30 feet to 25 feet. The street would be narrowed beginning at the City border and extend to Princeton/Quentin Avenue. Walk Type: Similar to Morningside Road and 41st Street segment, and the fact that this walk provides a significant and direct connection to Minneapolis, this segment of sidewalk is proposed to be a Community Walk and would be maintained by the City for snow removal. Parking Restrictions: Staff recommends posting “No Parking” signs along the north side of the road due to the reduced roadway width. Staff would bring the “No Parking” resolution back to Council later this fall for action. Cost: Approximately $35,000 for 600 feet of sidewalk Construction Schedule: This work could be completed in conjunction with the 42nd Street road reconstruction that is scheduled for fall 2014. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. ) Page 4 Title: Pavement Management Area 2 Update – 42nd Street Sidewalk Photo #1 - North side of 42nd Street looking west from Edina to St. Louis Park Photo #2 – North side of 42nd Street at St. Louis Park border Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. ) Page 5 Title: Pavement Management Area 2 Update – 42nd Street Sidewalk NEXT STEPS: 42nd Street reconstruction is expected to begin around October 1st. Staff is recommending moving ahead with the narrowing of the roadway and the construction of the sidewalk in conjunction with the road work this fall. Incorporating the sidewalk will result in considerable cost savings and reduce inconvenience to the neighbors. If Council concurs with moving ahead with this sidewalk improvement staff will bring back to Council a “No Parking” resolution for the north side of 42nd Street from Princeton/Quentin Avenue to the Edina City Limit. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EdinaSt. Louis Park Oakdale42ND OTTAWAQUENTIN PRINCETONRALEIGH 4512 4130 4515 4209 4121 4212 4115 4525 4124 4125 4200 4225 4820 4134 4201 4810 4130 4206 4125 4205 4140 4144 4220 4150 4131 4145 4135 4151 4141 4217 4212 4216 4220 4208 4212 4209 4213 4201 4200 4205 4204 4211 4219 4215 4221 4216 4126 4120 422442254224 4111 4116 4230 4112 4234 480141204121 42294240 EXHIBIT #1 - Proposed Sidewalk on 42nd Street (Princeton/Quentin to City Limits) 0 50 100 150 200Feet 4 Legend Proposed sidewalk in St. Louis Park Concrete sidewalk under construction in Edina !! !!Sidewalks SLP Right of Way Parcels Study Session Meeting of Septembe 22, 2014 (Item No. 4) Title: Pavement Management Area 2 Update – 42nd Street Sidewalk Page 6 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Written Report: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed at this time. This report provides recommendations for changes to our snow removal program’s winter parking restrictions and other related items to provide for continued improvement in service delivery, efficiencies in operations, and communication to residents. This item is scheduled for a discussion at a special study session before the regular October 6 Council meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Will the changes to the program provide for improvements in the manner in which the City removes snow from public streets and enforces the City’s winter parking restrictions? SUMMARY: Staff reviews the snow removal program on a regular basis to determine if there are opportunities to improve delivery of service, operational efficiencies and communication with residents. Over the past year staff has incorporated operational changes that had successful outcomes with snow removal and service delivery to residents. Earlier this summer Operations staff along with Police and Fire met to continue to discuss what is working and review Ordinance 30-158 Snow Removal Parking Restrictions. Staff determined there were several sections of the Ordinance that should be updated to assist with operational improvements with snow removal operations and winter parking enforcement: • Exempt parking zones • Permit parking • Snow emergency declaration • Communication plan Next steps: • October 6, Study Session discussion on recommended changes to snow removal parking restrictions, Ordinance Section 30-158 • First reading, Ordinance Section 30-158 • Second reading, Ordinance Section 30-158 and rescind Resolutions 03-180 and 03-153 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Ordinance Section 30-158 Exempt Maps – Current and Updated Examples of Current and Proposed Permits Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation John Luse, Police Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The snow removal process is reviewed by staff on a regular basis to determine if there are opportunities to improve delivery of service and communication with residents. Earlier this summer Operations staff along with Police and Fire met to discuss what is working and ideas for possible improvements with snow removal operations, winter parking enforcement, and overall service delivery to our residents. Upon review, it was determined that improvements could be made in the following areas: • Exempt parking zones • Permit parking • Snow emergency declaration • Communication plan Recommendations below summarize proposed steps to be taken to improve operational efficiencies, communication and service delivery. In some cases changes to Ordinance 30-158 Snow Removal Parking Restrictions would need to be made (attached). Changes in designation of some exempt/high density areas: The ordinance allows for areas of the city to be considered “exempt” for the first 24 hours of the snow parking ban in higher density residential areas with limited parking. There are also main roadways in the city that were marked as exempt (see map). Proposed revisions to the exempt zones/process are intended to create efficiencies in operations and enforcement as follows: 1. Eliminate the designation of our main roadways listed as exempt. In review of the existing exempt designations, it was determined that main roads do not need the exempt status since operationally they are cleared first. There has not been a need to exempt these streets from our snow removal program due to the nature of the roadways. 2. Change ordinance to authorize the City Manager or designee to establish the listing of the public streets which are exempt. This creates efficiencies in operations by eliminating the step where Council must approve exempt streets by council resolution. 3. Continue the designation of our exempt/high density area zones without signage. These exempt/high density area zones, however, would now be exempt the entire snow event, not just the first 24 hours. Staff would continue, as in the past, to work with landlords/apartment owners to communicate the exempt zones to their tenants. This system has been successful in our exempt zones and therefor no change in this practice is recommended. It is believed that if signs were placed signifying exempt parking area, others may want to use this area allowing for fewer spaces to be used by those in the adjacent high density areas who need the space for parking. 4. To improve clearing of snow in the exempt areas and when plowing is needed curb to curb, staff would temporarily post one side of the street as “No Parking”, allowing for parking on the other side while the posted side is being cleared to the curb. The same procedure would occur the next day for the other side. This operational change will improve the time it takes for snow removal and also allow parking in the high density area when snow removal is taking place in the parking lots of the apartment complex. This process will also help with clearing up confusion of residents and improve communication by posting temporary snow removal signs as needed and assists public safety with enforcement. Study Session Meeting September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Declare Snow Emergency: There continues to be confusion as to the exact time when the 3” snow ban has been in effect. Residents and staff would all like to better understand when a snow parking ban takes place. Many cities designate a “snow emergency” to help communicate that there is a parking ban. Staff is recommending we change from an automatic no parking restriction any time after a snowfall of three inches or more to a formal declaration of a snow emergency. Using a formal snow emergency approach to communicate a parking ban will improve communication to our residents, businesses and staff, help eliminate confusion and provide flexibility on when the parking ban goes into effect. Staff would be able to review conditions and work to provide timely communication to residents. The term “snow emergency” is commonly used in many cities and it will help create efficiencies in timing of operations and enforcement. This approach also works well when the snow event lasts more than one day or when we have a spring snow fall and do not really need to ban parking due to melting. We will continue to use a guideline of 3 – 4” of snow along with weather conditions and storm longevity in making a determination and communicating a snow emergency. Permits: Permits exempting single family residents from the winter parking restrictions are issued only to residents that do not have adequate off-street parking available to them. Staff recommends keeping the same permit process that is already in place. This process is managed by Operations staff and is working successfully. The process allows administrative approval of up to two no-fee permits allowing on-street parking in front of a permittee’s home when the parking ban is in effect. We also recommend keeping the process of issuing up to two additional parking permits for a fee and/or one Caretaker permit. The recommended change to the ordinance is to authorize the City Manager or designee to issue the fee permits. Current ordinance requires approval by Council resolution. Allowing the City Manager or designee to authorize no more than two fee permits and the caretaker permit creates efficiencies in this process for our residents. Permit fees would continue to be set annually by Council in the fee schedule. Permit Display: To help with identification and enforcement, staff is recommending changing the vehicle permit from a mirror hanger to a small sticker. When gathering information from our Officers, it was found that having the permit hang from the rear view mirror has been problematic for parking enforcement. As we know, when we have snow, it covers the windows of a vehicle. Many times officers are not able to see if a vehicle has a permit and would have to stop at each vehicle, remove snow, and determine if the vehicle has the appropriate permit before enforcement action is taken. Also, some vehicles do not have the type of rear view mirror that would allow hanging of any type of permit or people would forget to hang a permit. In order to create efficiencies in identification, Police have recommended changing the permit to a small sticker to attach to the rear bumper on the driver’s side. This type of permit is currently being used successfully by our Engineering Department for other types of permit parking. Changing to this type of permit for identification would help increase efficiencies with parking enforcement during a snow event (example permits attached). Communication: Enhancements will be created in communication to the public. Various methods will be used such as Park Perspective, Web, Facebook, NextDoor, neighborhood and community outreach to our residents in high density areas etc. Cooperative enforcement through communication and connections: Staff will continue to work cooperatively on proactive identification of illegally parked “snow birds” to get them removed so the roads can be cleared to the curb. Plow operators are typically aware of the vehicles that Study Session Meeting September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions have not moved during the snow clearing process so they are able to notify Police of any “snow birds” so they can be appropriately enforced. This process will be further developed so that any staff in the field could assist in providing information to Police to help with additional enforcement and related efficiencies in clearing snow. Public Safety Parking Restrictions: Our Fire Department has been in charge of designating and implementing the process where during winter months streets need to be temporarily designated No Parking due to public safety concerns with narrow streets. This process has worked successfully in the past and will continue to be used when snow accumulation is excessive and streets become a safety concern relating to equipment access. Technical changes: With the recommendations outlined above, staff recommends the following: 1. Updates to Section 30-158 Snow removal parking restrictions 2. Rescind Resolutions 03-180 exempting streets for the snowfall parking ban, and 03-153 authorizing the issuance of and establishment of fees for parking permits in accordance with section 30-158 of the city code. Chapter 30 Traffic and Vehicles Article IV. Parking Sec. 30-158. Snow removal parking restrictions. (1) Definition of Street: Street as used in this section shall mean the entire right-of-way, including sidewalks, boulevards, curb and gutter as well as the traveled portion of any City street, alley, highway, thoroughfare, county road, or state highway within the City of St. Louis Park. (2) Snow Fall Parking Restrictions: (a) Except as provided in Subparagraph (b) and (c) herein, no person shall park a vehicle on any public street at any time when the city declares a snow emergency, after a snowfall of three (3) inches or more has accumulated, until the snow emergency has been cancelled by the city or the street has been plowed to the curb.until the street has been plowed curb to curb. (b) The City Manager or designee is authorized to establish and maintain a listing of City Council will establish by resolution the public streets which are not subject to the snow emergency fall parking ban. The exempted streets will generally be high density non-residential streets and residential streets without or very limited off-street parking. Comment: this change to administrative approval of exempt/high density streets will create efficiencies in operations by allowing elimination of Resolution No. 03-180 which currently requires exempt streets to be approved by council resolution. (c) The City Manager or designee is authorized to issue parking permits allowing on-street parking in front of adjacent to the permittee’s residence when the snow emergencyfall parking ban is in effect. The permits may only be issued to City residents who do not have off-street parking available to them. Each permit will be issued for an identified vehicle and must be displayed in the vehicle. No more than two no fee vehicle permits will be issued for each residential dwelling unit., except as provided in subparagraph (d) herein. The City Manager or designee may authorize the issuance of up to two additional parking permits for a fee, as set by Council, when either the residential dwelling does not have adequate off-street parking or does not have any off-street parking and the permits for more than two vehicles is determined to be appropriate. One parking permit for a caregiver vehicle may be approved in accordance with this section. Each permit issued under this section will be for an identified vehicle and must be displayed on such vehicle. Vehicles with permits must be parked in front of the permittee’s residence. Comment: Permit fees are now set annually by council in the fee schedule allowing for elimination of Resolution No. 03-153 (c) In addition to permits authorized in subparagraph (c) herein, the City Council may by resolution authorize the issuance of parking permits allowing on-street parking adjacent to the permittee’s residence when the snowfall parking ban is in effect. The additional permits may be allowed by resolution when either the residential dwelling does not have adequate off-street parking or does not have any off-street parking and permits for more than two vehicles is determined to be appropriate. The council shall establish the appropriate fee for these permits by resolution. (3) Obstruction of Street by Private Snow Plowing Removal Prohibited. No person shall deposit any snow or ice, plowed or removed from private property, onto a public street. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Page 5 (4) Parking Interference with Clean-Up Snowplowing. No person shall park any vehicle on a public street within 50 feet of any area of a public street which is unplowed after City equipment has previously plowed snow and ice from other portions of said street, nor otherwise park in such a manner as to interfere with City clean-up snowplowing operations. (5) Off-Street Parking Areas and Private Streets. No person who is an owner or manager of the premises shall allow or permit snow and ice accumulation in an area of required off-street parking under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or a special permit issued thereunder or private streets established under a special permit in such a manner as to reduce such private street area or the number of parking stalls available for such use, commencing 24 hours after the cessation of snowfall. (6) Special Posted Snow Removal Parking Restrictions. In addition to the snow emergencyparking ban set forth in Subsection (2) herein, the City Manager or designee is authorized to post no parking signs for snow removal along public streets of the City where snow removal operations will require the use of the entire width of the street by snow plowing and snow removal removing the equipment. Such signs shall be posted at frequent intervals at least four (4) hours prior to the time when snow removal commences on the street so posted, and such signs shall be removed promptly after completion of the snow removal operation. Snow removal shall be done on any street so posted as soon as possible following a lapse of four (4) hours after posting the signs. No person shall park any vehicle, nor leave any vehicle which was parked at the time of posting for a period of more than two (2) hours thereafter, of any block on any street so posted during the time the said signs are posted thereon, and it shall be unlawful for any person other than an authorized representative of the City or Police Department of the City to remove said signs. (7) Public Safety Parking RestrictionsSnow Emergency. The City Manager or designee is authorized to declare a snow emergency and to impose parking restrictions on City streets as necessary in the event curbside snow accumulations cause streets to become impassable to emergency vehicles or snow removal equipment in conjunction with on-street parking. (8) Towing of Vehicles. In addition to the penalty provision imposed for a violation of this section, vehicles parked on a public street in violation of any provision of this section may be towed and impounded. (Code 1976, § 10-315; Ord. No. 2251-03, § 1, 10-7-2003) Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Page 6 Chapter 30 Traffic and Vehicles Article IV. Parking Sec. 30-158. Snow removal parking restrictions. (1) Definition of Street: Street as used in this section shall mean the entire right-of-way, including sidewalks, boulevards, curb and gutter as well as the traveled portion of any City street, alley, highway, thoroughfare, county road, or state highway within the City of St. Louis Park. (2) Snow Fall Parking Restrictions: (a) Except as provided in Subparagraph (b) and (c) herein, no person shall park a vehicle on any public street at any time when the city declares a snow emergency, until the snow emergency has been cancelled by the city or the street has been plowed to the curb. (b) The City Manager or designee is authorized to establish and maintain a listing of the public streets which are not subject to the snow emergency parking ban. The exempted streets will generally be high density residential streets without or very limited off-street parking. Comment: this change to administrative approval of exempt/high density streets will create efficiencies in operations by allowing elimination of Resolution No. 03-180 which currently requires exempt streets to be approved by council resolution. (c) The City Manager or designee is authorized to issue parking permits allowing on-street parking in front of the permittee’s residence when the snow emergency parking ban is in effect. The permits may only be issued to City residents who do not have off-street parking available to them. No more than two no fee vehicle permits will be issued for each residential dwelling unit. The City Manager or designee may authorize the issuance of up to two additional parking permits for a fee, as set by Council, when either the residential dwelling does not have adequate off-street parking or does not have any off-street parking and the permits for more than two vehicles is determined to be appropriate. One parking permit for a caregiver vehicle may be approved in accordance with this section. Each permit issued under this section will be for an identified vehicle and must be displayed on such vehicle. Vehicles with permits must be parked in front of the permittee’s residence. Comment: Permit fees are now set annually by council in the fee schedule allowing for elimination of Resolution No. 03-153 (3) Obstruction of Street by Private Snow Plowing Removal Prohibited. No person shall deposit any snow or ice, plowed or removed from private property, onto a public street. (4) Parking Interference with Clean-Up Snowplowing. No person shall park any vehicle on a public street within 50 feet of any area of a public street which is unplowed after City equipment has previously plowed snow and ice from other portions of said street, nor otherwise park in such a manner as to interfere with City clean-up snowplowing operations. (5) Off-Street Parking Areas and Private Streets. No person who is an owner or manager of the premises shall allow or permit snow and ice accumulation in an area of required off-street parking under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or a special permit issued thereunder or private streets established under a special permit in such a manner as to reduce such private Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Page 7 street area or the number of parking stalls available for such use, commencing 24 hours after the cessation of snowfall. (6) Special Posted Snow Removal Parking Restrictions. In addition to the snow emergency set forth in Subsection (2) herein, the City Manager or designee is authorized to post no parking signs for snow removal along public streets of the City where snow removal operations will require the use of the entire width of the street by snow plowing and snow removal equipment. Such signs shall be posted at frequent intervals at least four (4) hours prior to the time when snow removal commences on the street so posted, and such signs shall be removed promptly after completion of the snow removal operation. Snow removal shall be done on any street so posted as soon as possible following a lapse of four (4) hours after posting the signs. No person shall park any vehicle, nor leave any vehicle which was parked at the time of posting for a period of more than two (2) hours thereafter, of any block on any street so posted during the time the said signs are posted thereon, and it shall be unlawful for any person other than an authorized representative of the City or Police Department of the City to remove said signs. (7) Public Safety Parking Restrictions. The City Manager or designee is authorized to impose parking restrictions on City streets as necessary in the event curbside snow accumulations cause streets to become impassable to emergency vehicles or snow removal equipment in conjunction with on-street parking. (8) Towing of Vehicles. In addition to the penalty provision imposed for a violation of this section, vehicles parked on a public street in violation of any provision of this section may be towed and impounded. (Code 1976, § 10-315; Ord. No. 2251-03, § 1, 10-7-2003) Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Page 8 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Page 9 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Page 10 Examples of Current and Proposed Permits: Current “Hanging” Permit (hung from rear view mirror) Proposed “Bumper Sticker” Permit (placed on driver’s side rear bumper as shown below) Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 5) Title: Snow Removal Program Parking Restrictions Page 11 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the traffic improvements being discussed for the Elmwood Neighborhood? SUMMARY: On July 10, 2014, City staff conducted a meeting with the Elmwood neighborhood regarding proposed improvements to the Wooddale Avenue at 36th street intersection and other traffic concerns. Since that time, in addition to preparing the Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street Intersection Improvements (Project No. 4014-1300) for construction, City Staff has been working on investigating the other area traffic concerns which were discussed at the public meeting. This report contains an update of the progress and recommendations resulting from this investigation. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At this time, all of the projects being proposed for construction are included in the city’s CIP or are being funded by others. Each individual project will be brought to council for bid authorization; the specific funding sources for these projects will be identified in the accompanying Council reports at that time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Exhibit 1: Wooddale and 36th Intersection Exhibit 2: Traffic Issues Exhibit 3: Issue Description Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements DISCUSSION Background: In recent years, the Wooddale Avenue/ 36th Street study area has experienced many changes, including the construction of the TH 7/ Wooddale Avenue interchange, improvements to the Southwest Regional Trail crossing at Wooddale Avenue, and development growth along Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street. In April of 2008, the City hired SRF consulting to analyze the operational and safety concerns of the area surrounding the Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street intersection identified through community feedback. A meeting was held in October 2012 with the Elmwood neighborhood that resulted in a follow up traffic analysis in February of 2013 to review how the travel patterns and peak hour volumes changed since the TH 7/ Wooddale Avenue interchange has been open to traffic. The study also took a look at several Elmwood neighborhood traffic concerns. The 2013 report concluded that many of the Elmwood neighborhood traffic concerns would be addressed with the implementation of improvements at the Wooddale Avenue/ 36th Street intersection. A figure outlining the proposed improvements is attached to this report. Public Meeting A public meeting was held on July 10, 2014 from 5:30 -7:30 p.m. at Fire Station #1 to discuss the recommendations of the 2013 traffic report and solicit feedback from the neighborhood. There were about 50 residents in attendance. The meeting covered a number of traffic and pedestrian travel concerns throughout the neighborhood. Attached to this report is a figure which identifies the location of traffic concerns brought up at the meeting accompanied by a page with a brief description of the issues. City Staff has been working on investigating the Elmwood Neighborhood traffic concerns which were discussed at the public meeting. What follows is an update on existing projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and recommendations for additional steps toward neighborhood traffic improvements: • Traffic Signal: Wooddale and 36th Street (Project No. 4014-1300) Staff included the Signal/ Intersection Improvements at Wooddale and 36th Street in the 2014 CIP. On July 21, 2014 City Council ordered the plans and specifications for these intersection improvements. Since that date, MnDOT has come forward with a schedule for the TH100 project. The resurfacing of the 36th Street bridge was moved up to be completed this fall. After working with MnDOT on identifying the delays and traffic control necessary for this portion of the TH100 project, staff felt it necessary to delay this traffic signal project until spring of 2015. • Traffic Signal: Xenwood Ave and 36th Street (Project No. 4018-1300) One of the areas of concern brought up at the public meeting was the intersection at 36th Street and Xenwood Ave. This intersection connects traffic exiting the Burlington Coat Factory shopping area to the south and the Hoigaard Village to the north. Identified problems include; traffic backups due to left turning vehicles, poor sight lines due buildings close to the traffic lanes and cut-through traffic to avoid the Wooddale and 36th intersection. Entering onto 36th Street from Xenwood Ave from both the south and north Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements directions can be a challenge during high traffic times. The City recognized the need for a traffic signal at this location and designed the signal as part of the Wooddale Ave Streetscape Project constructed in 2011. The installation of the signal was not done at that time because the signal warrants for volume had not been met. The signal is included in the 2018 CIP and is proposed to be funded using Elmwood TIF funds. Staff is recommending that this signal installation be moved up to 2015. The signal recommendation is the result of the anticipated re-development and traffic modifications which will accompany the construction of SWLRT. The need for the improvements is made more immediate by the TH100 project where this section of Wooddale Avenue will be a detour route during the closure of the Hwy 7 bridge in 2016. The project is proposed to be designed this winter and bid with the Wooddale/ 36th signal project. • Traffic Signals: Wooddale Avenue/ Highway 7 Ramp intersections Staff has been working with SRF, MnDOT, and Metropolitan Council on ways to expedite the installation of signals at the Wooddale and HWY 7 interchange ramps. This work is scheduled to be included in the SWLRT project, but staff believes that it would greatly help alleviate traffic movements during TH 100 construction, where Wooddale Avenue will most likely be used as an alternative north-south route. SRF staff conducted a field visit on September 3, 2014 to observe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle maneuvers during the afternoon/evening peak hour. Consistent with what has been heard, it was observed that the close spacing of the intersections, heavy turning movements from the side-street approaches, continuous stream of through traffic on Wooddale Avenue and pedestrian/bicycle traffic results in a significantly congested short segment of roadway. The need for traffic signals at the ramp intersections is apparent to improve overall operations and safety along the corridor. With the lack of acceptable gaps to enter Wooddale Avenue during the peak hour conditions, the limited sight distance further adds to the frustration of motorists. With the installation of signals, this will be less of an issue due to the additional control provided. MnDOT’s Traffic Office has agreed to conduct a signal warrant analysis for the Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue ramp intersections. New traffic counts were originally scheduled for the week of September 8, 2014 to ensure the analysis is based on the most current data while schools are in session. However, the timing of these counts are now impacted by construction work occurring in the area. A slight delay in the schedule is expected. If warrants are met for the installation of signals, MnDOT’s Traffic Office will determine when the signals can be programmed for installation. At that time the City can consider whether to wait for a MnDOT programmed project or advance a project with City funds. MnDOT’s share of the project would then be available in the program year identified and then used to reimburse the City. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Title: Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements • Potential conversion of Oxford Lane to 2 way traffic In previous reports to the Council, Staff has presented the idea of opening Oxford Street between Wooddale and Alabama Avenues to 2-way traffic. This proposal has the support of some neighborhood residents and the Fire Department has expressed a strong need for this conversion to improve access to Fire Station #1. Some residents have also expressed strong concerns about establishing a two way street. City staff is considering the potential one-way to two-way conversion of Oxford Street west of Wooddale Avenue on a temporary trial basis to evaluate the impact to vehicle movements in the area and to assess the impact to the Wooddale and 36th intersection. Staff anticipates that the next action on the signal project will be a follow-up meeting with the neighborhood, which will be followed by a City Council request for authorization for bids in February 2015. At that time Staff will provide an update on the details of potentially opening Oxford Street to 2- way traffic and provide an update on the TH 7 and Wooddale ramp signals warrants analysis.   36th Street and Wooddale Avenue   Intersection Improvement Project    This project will improve and maintain overall intersection operations by utilizing the following  improvements:   Remove the west approach median to provide a left turn lane.   Restripe the south approach to include a dedicated left turn lane.   Reconstruct the Wooddale Ave right turn lane islands to accommodate bigger vehicles.    Modify the southwest corner edge of pavement to accommodate westbound to  southbound vehicles.   Install a pedestrian crosswalk on the west approach.   Install new traffic signals to optimize signal timing and pedestrian crossing times.        Project Contact:  Phillip Elkin, City of St. Louis Park Senior Engineering Project Manager  pelkin@stlouispark.org  (952) 924‐2687  Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 6) Title: Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements Page 5 a aa a6 B 1 A 2 4 3 7 5 36THWO O D D A L E 35TH OXFORD GOODRICHALABAMA37THBRUNSWICK XENWOODPRIVATE SERVI C E D R HI G H W A Y 7 ZARTHANWALKE R YOSEMITECAMERATA WOODDALEPRIVATEBRUNSWICK 35THALABAMAWALKE R YOSEMITE¬«7 ¬«7 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue Intersection Improvement Project 0 250 500 750 1,000Feet Ë Legend 36th St. and Wooddale Ave. intersection improvment areas City proposed improvement projects Public meeting concerns Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 6) Title: Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements Page 6 Wooddale and 36th Traffic meeting  Summary of Issues discussed at neighborhood meeting on July 10, 2014    A. Intersection of Wooddale And 36th   Improve traffic movements and reduce back‐ups   Improve Pedestrian safety    Align lanes across the intersection   New traffic signals  B. Oxford Avenue   Response times for Public Safety   Traffic flow through neighborhood    Parking and access to the Fire Station big concern   1. TH 7 and Wooddale Intersection   Bad sightlines from off ramps to Wooddale –traffic backs up‐accidents   Signals are scheduled for installation in conjunction with SWLRT   Can they be installed sooner?   Is there an interim measure that can be put in place?   Pedestrian crossing/safety is a concern.  2. Regional Trail Crossing   Too congested   Pedestrian crossing/safety is a concern    Looking at grade separation in conjunction with the SWLRT project.    3. Xenwood and 36th   A signal is scheduled for 2018‐ can it be installed sooner?   Is there an interim measure that can be put in place?   Pedestrian crossing/safety is a concern.  4. Alabama Ave   Can all way stop signs be installed at this intersection?     Pedestrian crossing/safety is a concern.  5. Village on the Park North Access   Wrong way traffic – exiting via the right entrance lane  Stray traffic into sight due to lane confusion  6. Village on the Park Main Access   Cut through on private street   Excessive speeds   SLP police unable to enforce   Congestion started when this was made private  7. Brunswick Ave   Speeding cars and Trucks   Nordicware trucks‐ post traffic study‐ are there more trucks than estimated?   What are the historical traffic numbers?   What are the weight restrictions on the street?   Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 6) Title: Update on Elmwood Neighborhood Traffic Improvements Page 7 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on PLACE Redevelopment Concept for Former McGarvey Site RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide an update on the PLACE project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or comments you might have. SUMMARY: The PLACE development concept was first presented to the Council in November 25, 2013. The Council was supportive of the overall concept, which included a mixed-use, mixed-income development powered by renewable energy sources including wind, solar and an anaerobic digester. The development site would include the former McGarvey Coffee Plant property, and potentially the adjacent City property to the west. The City was recently awarded a $100,000 Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Pre- Development Grant for the PLACE development. Grant activities include design work, market studies and creating a more detailed development pro forma. The City is waiting for the grant agreement from the Met Council to allow this work to begin. City staff has met with the property owner and PLACE to discuss the status of the project. PLACE currently has a master lease with an option to purchase the McGarvey site and is working on property acquisition. Allianz, the international financial services company, is a limited partner, providing funding toward the development, which could possibly assist with acquisition. The current owner has expressed support for the PLACE project; however, he has indicated there has been interest from other developers. Staff will continue to work with PLACE as they explore options for redeveloping the McGarvey site and move the project forward. Updates will be provided to the Council as the project progresses. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: 1. 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. 2. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Sustainable SLP Branding Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the establishment of a unique but complimentary brand for Sustainable SLP meet the expectations of the Council in its efforts to promote environmental stewardship and sustainability in St. Louis Park? SUMMARY: On Sept. 3, 2014, the Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP, approved branding elements to be used to advance the work of the Commission and City through a variety of communication pieces, including but not limited to, brochures, posters, videos, banners, T-Shirts, etc. The Commission spent several months working with city staff to develop branding elements that will be utilized in the promotion of St. Louis Park’s sustainability efforts and events. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. The branding process was completed in-house and initial creation of communications collateral will be funded through the Communications & Marketing budget. 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 Logo Documents Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications & Marketing Coordinator Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: Sustainable SLP Branding Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: As part of its 2014 work plan, the Commission embarked on a process to develop a sustainability brand for the city. As the city promotes existing activities or creates new initiatives related to sustainability, the goal of the city will be to apply the Sustainable SLP brand. Much of the initial marketing will be spent defining sustainability in an effort to educate the general public. This will be done through a variety of activities and actions planned by the Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP and it is the expectation that the branding elements will be present in those initiatives and throughout city publications. ABOUT THE LOGO: City Staff worked through several iterations of logos with Commission members over several months. The resulting logo (one horizontal version and one circular version) meets the following goals developed by the commission and staff: simple and clean design, modern but timeless, proportional and well balanced, versatile; elements that work together or singularly; and complementary of the city branding. The resulting logo includes: • A color palette consistent with city branding • Emphasis on the words “sustain” and “able,” indicating the goal to sustain and the ability to achieve sustainability • Four individual icons representing important elements in sustainability efforts: water (droplet), people (person), natural environment (tree) and energy (sun). These elements are used together in the logo, but could be used separately (i.e. an event focused on water conservation may emphasize the droplet and a discussion focused on alternative energy sources might emphasize the sun). NEXT STEPS: The Commission will work with City staff to continue development of communication collateral materials using the logos and associated branding elements. sustain able S L PStudy Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 8) Title: Sustainable SLP Branding Update Page 3 SLPsustainable Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 8) Title: Sustainable SLP Branding Update Page 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: August 2014 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: At the end of August, General Fund expenditures total approximately 65% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 2% under where expenditures would normally be through August. Please see the attached analysis for more details. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: August 2014 Monthly Financial Report DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Actual expenditures should generally run at about 67% of the annual budget at the end of August. Currently, General Fund expenditures are at approximately 65% of the adopted budget. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below. Revenues: • License and permit revenues are running 20% ahead of budget for the year at 88.9% through August. Business and liquor license revenues have already exceeded the annual budgeted amount by 4% or $29,000. Permit revenues are at just under 84% of budget at the end of August. • Fine revenues are exceeding budget by about 11% through August. Liquor violation and police court fines are running higher than budget and higher than the previous year. Expenditures: • The Accounting Division is currently running about 10% over budget because of the property and liability insurance premium expense. For simplicity, all property and liability premium expenses for General Fund departments are budgeted under Accounting. A budget amendment will be proposed later in the year to more accurately reflect the insurance costs. • Human Resources expenditures are exceeding budget by about 7.5% because of unbudgeted expenses related to the Health in the Park program. These additional expenses are offset by grant revenues. A budget amendment will be proposed later in the year to reflect both the revenue and expense for this new program. • Police is showing a small variance of about 1% due to a capital expense of $48,000 for upgrading the viper system using E911 funds. There is also a small variance through August under Personal Services. • Public Works Administration continues to have a variance which relates to a staffing allocation and is being partially mitigated by underspending in supplies and services and other charges. The variance is caused by a budget allocation change for one of the admin positions splitting time between City Hall and the Municipal Service Center. The additional payroll expenses in Public Works Administration are offset in the Public Works Engineering budget, which is well under budget due to this and also the vacant City Engineer position. A budget amendment will be proposed for these and other personnel related items later in the year, and adjustments will be made to correct the salary allocations to more accurately reflect current staffing levels. • The Organized Recreation Division shows a temporary expenditure variance of about 7% due to the fact that the full Community Education contribution for 2014 of $187,400 was paid to the school district early in the year. The timing of this payment is consistent with prior years, and this division would be on budget but not for this exception. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Title: August 2014 Monthly Financial Report • The Rec Center Division is running about 6% over budget, which is typical of prior years at the end of pool season, because the annual budget for temporary seasonal staff has been fully spent. This variance is temporary and the division would be on budget if not for this exception. • The Vehicle Maintenance Division continues to run a small overage of about 2% on expenditures because of overtime, tires, and repair parts. NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time. Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of August 31, 2014 20142014201220122013201320142014 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual BudgetAudited BudgetAug YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 11,118,240$ 10,039,484$ 52.55% Licenses and Permits2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 2,393,101 298,417 88.91% Fines & Forfeits328,150 341,356 335,150 311,882 320,150 248,772 71,378 77.70% Intergovernmental1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 589,507 693,270 45.96% Charges for Services2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,307,804 549,914 70.40% Miscellaneous Revenue1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 805,960 306,409 72.45% Transfers In2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,208,277 629,139 65.76% Investment Earnings125,000 136,415 150,000 14,180 150,000 - 150,000 0.00% Other Income45,600 276,273 36,650 10,756 17,950 10,207 7,743 56.86%Total General Fund Revenues29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 17,681,868$ 12,745,754$ 58.11%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 611,583$ 327,808$ 65.10% Accounting641,691 639,999 827,320 819,458 767,094 593,237 173,857 77.34% Assessing517,840 518,271 543,855 543,202 559,749 370,817 188,932 66.25% Human Resources667,612 645,357 678,988 731,634 693,598 516,520 177,078 74.47% Community Development1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 747,311 404,156 64.90% Facilities Maintenance1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 685,543 368,172 65.06% Information Resources1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 969,296 487,683 66.53% Communications & Marketing265,426 244,392 201,322 170,013 566,801 324,332 242,469 57.22% Community Outreach8,185 5,341 8,185 (22,450) 8,185 5,214 2,971 63.70% Engineering927,337 939,425 303,258 296,383 506,996 75,971 431,025 14.98%Total General Government7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,703,975$ 4,899,824$ 2,804,151$ 63.60% Public Safety: Police7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 5,177,867$ 2,393,448$ 68.39% Fire Protection3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 2,277,349 1,180,812 65.85% Inspectional Services1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,248,089 758,111 62.21%Total Public Safety12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 8,703,306$ 4,332,370$ 66.77% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 157,843$ 65,151$ 70.78% Public Works Operations2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 1,529,321 1,095,850 58.26% Organized Recreation1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 964,566 325,472 74.77% Recreation Center1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,123,694 420,187 72.78% Park Maintenance1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,424,139 1,423,011 929,591 493,420 65.33% Westwood515,456 506,404 520,554 503,309 531,853 329,531 202,322 61.96% Environment390,009 382,378 430,876 434,297 433,750 202,862 230,888 46.77% Vehicle Maintenance1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 882,982 402,507 68.69%Total Operations & Recreation9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,356,187$ 6,120,389$ 3,235,798$ 65.42% Non-Departmental: General -$ 65,292$ -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 1,126$ 2,874$ 28.16% Transfers Out- 1,160,000 - 60,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 - 180,000 53,345 327,784 - 327,784 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 369,972$ 331,784$ 1,126$ 330,658$ 0.34%Total General Fund Expenditures29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 19,724,646$ 10,702,976$ 64.82%Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 9) Title: August 2014 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Groves Academy Private Activity Revenue Bonds RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action needed at this time. This report is intended to update the Council on the refinancing of the Series 2010 Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds issued on behalf of Groves Academy, and issuance of new money to facilitate construction of a new learning center. For this issuance, the City of Mayer, MN will be acting as the host for these bonds. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council willing to allow the City of Mayer to be granted host approval and consent to the issuance by the City of Mayer of Educational Facility Revenue Bonds Series 2014 for Groves Academy in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $5,400,000? SUMMARY: On June 20, 2010, the City of St. Louis Park issued its Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds – Series 2010 on behalf of Groves Academy in the original aggregate principal amount of $4,590,000 and loaned the proceeds derived from the sale to Groves Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, to finance and refinance a major building renovation of Groves independent co-educational day school facilities located at 3220 Highway 100 South Groves Academy is now requesting that the City grant host approval and consent to the issuance by the City of Mayer, Minnesota, of Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds – Series 2014 on behalf of Groves Academy in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $5,400,000. Mayer will loan the proceeds of the Series 2014 Bonds to Groves Academy, which will be applied to the redemption and prepayment of the outstanding Series 2010 Bonds and then towards the financing of new classroom renovations and construction of a new learning center at the Academy. The Series 2014 Bonds will be directly purchased by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in a negotiated sale. More information on this matter is provided in the background section of this report. NEXT STEPS: At its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, October 6th, the City Council will be asked to adopt a resolution, prepared by Mayer’s bond counsel, Briggs and Morgan, scheduling a public hearing to be held at the City Council’s regularly scheduled meeting on November 3. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Given that St. Louis Park will not be the issuer of these bonds, it will not be able to charge the standard fee against the annual outstanding principal balance of the bonds. This amounts to approximately $6,750 in the first year. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Title: Groves Academy Private Activity Revenue Bonds – Hosted by the City of Mayer DISCUSSION On June 20, 2010, the City of St. Louis Park issued its Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds – Series 2010 on behalf of Groves Academy in the original aggregate principal amount of $4,590,000 and loaned the proceeds derived from the sale to Groves Academy, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation to finance and refinance a major building renovation of the Borrower’s independent co-educational day school facilities located at 3220 Highway 100 South in the City of St. Louis Park. Grove Academy is now requesting that the City grant host approval and consent to the issuance by the City of Mayer, Minnesota of Educational Facilities Revenue Bonds – Series 2014 on behalf of Groves Academy in an aggregate principal amount of approximately $5,400,000. Mayer will loan the proceeds of the Series 2014 Bonds to Groves Academy, which will be applied to the redemption and prepayment of the outstanding Series 2010 Bonds and then towards the financing of new classroom renovations and construction of a new learning center at the Academy. The Series 2014 Bonds will be directly purchased by Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in a negotiated sale. The Series 2014 Bonds are proposed to be issued as obligations the interest on which will not be includable in net taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts for State of Minnesota tax purposes. The Series 2014 Bonds are proposed to be issued as revenue obligations under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.1655, as amended. The Series 2014 Bonds will be payable solely from payments received from Groves Academy under a Loan Agreement with the City of Mayer and any additional security provided by Groves Academy. The Series 2014 Bonds will not be general or moral obligations of City of Mayer or of the City of St. Louis Park and will not be secured by the full faith and credit or taxing powers of either City. The Bank requires that the Series 2014 Bonds be designated as “bank qualified” bonds. A city is limited to issuing, or having an expectation of issuing, no more than $10,000,000 of bonds for its own governmental purposes or qualified 501(c)(3) bonds, like the Series 2014 Bonds, in any calendar year in order to designate bonds as “bank qualified.” In late June, 2014, Wells Fargo Bank contacted the City of St. Louis Park as to whether the City expected to issue any other bonds in 2014 and whether it had sufficient capacity to issue bonds on behalf of Groves Academy that could be designated as bank qualified. At that time, the City expected that it would be issuing debt that when taken in aggregate with the proposed Groves Academy project would exceed the $10 million threshold. Therefore, the City advised the Wells Fargo that it would not be able to issue bonds for the Project in 2014 that could be designated as bank qualified. On that basis, the Groves Academy and Wells Fargo sought out another city that could issue bonds for the project which could be designated as bank qualified. Because the Groves Academy draws students from across the broader Twin Cities region, most of the cities in the area could issue bonds if they had sufficient bank qualification capacity. As such, the City of Mayer had sufficient capacity and was willing to act as the issuer for the Series 2014 Bonds. It now appears that the City of St. Louis Park will most likely not be issuing debt in 2014, but due to the time, cost and effort put in by other parties involved, it was deemed appropriate to allow the City of Mayer to act in the capacity of the issuer and continue forward. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 10) Page 3 Title: Groves Academy Private Activity Revenue Bonds – Hosted by the City of Mayer Under federal tax law, when a project is located in a jurisdiction that is not that of the issuer, the jurisdiction in which the project is located must give its approval to the project following a public hearing. This is often referred to as “host approval.” Also, under state law, when one jurisdiction issues bonds to refund the bonds of another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction whose bonds are being refunded must consent to the refunding. Therefore, the Groves Academy is requesting that the City of St. Louis Park hold a public hearing on the project and adopt a resolution that grants host approval to the project and consents to the redemption and prepayment of the Series 2010 Bonds. The proposed full schedule for the requested approvals by parties is as follows: 1. The St. Louis Park City Council will be given notice of the request at its Study Session to be held this evening on Monday, September 22nd. 2. At its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, October 6th, the St. Louis Park City Council will be asked to adopt a resolution, prepared by the City of Mayer’s bond counsel, Briggs and Morgan, scheduling a public hearing to be held at the City Council’s regularly scheduled meeting on November 3. 3. Upon adoption of the resolution on October 6th, the public hearing notice will be submitted to the Sun Sailor on or before Thursday, October 9th by Briggs and Morgan. 4. The notice of public hearing will be published in the Sun Sailor on Thursday, October 16th. 5. Briggs and Morgan will prepare a host approval resolution that will be submitted to the Cities, Groves Academy and Wells Fargo for review. 6. At the City of St. Louis Park’s regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, November 3rd, a public hearing on the project will be conducted before the City Council and, following the public hearing, the City Council will consider the host approval resolution. 7. Concurrently with the above-schedule, Mayer will also be conducting a public hearing, adopting an approving resolution, and submitting an application to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (“DEED”) for the approval of the issuance of the Series 2014 Bonds. 8. If the host approval resolution is approved by the St. Louis Park City Council, the bond issuance resolution is approved by the City of Mayer, and DEED approves the application, the Series 2014 Bonds will be issued on a date agreed upon by all of the parties, which is currently anticipated to be in mid-November. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: September 22, 2014 Written Report:  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 Fees RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is provided to Council for information on recommended changes to 2015 fees for service that the City charges. Some of the fee changes proposed will need to come back to the Council for formal approval. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee schedule to reflect adjustments to fees charged for programs and services set by ordinance. SUMMARY: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of our budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations, and to make sure our business costs are covered for services. Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Administrative Services Department has worked with individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are included in the attached proposed fee schedule. A public hearing notice was published September 18, 2014 informing interested persons of the city’s intent to consider fees. Fees, rates and charges called for by resolution or set by a department are not required by law to be included in the Appendix A City Code fee schedule. Next steps • First reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 6, 2014. • Second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 20, 2014. If approved, the fee increases will be effective January 1, 2015. • Staff will be presenting proposed 2015 liquor fees for approval by resolution at the November 17, 2014 City Council Meeting. • Utility fees for 2015 water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste rates are scheduled for approval October 20, 2014. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fee increases will be incorporated into the proposed 2015 budget. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Proposed 2015 Fee Schedule Prepared by: Bill Chang, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. ) Page 2 Title: 2015 Fees DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Fees are reviewed as part of our budget process. Each Department Director has reviewed their fees that can be adjusted administratively and fees that are listed in Appendix A of the City Code that must be approved by the Council. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations, and to make sure our business costs are covered for services. Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. The Administrative Services Department has worked with individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are included in the attached proposed fee schedule which also includes fees that are set administratively. A public hearing notice was published September 18, 2014 informing interested persons of the city’s intent to consider fees. Fees, rates and charges called for by resolution or set by a department are not required by law to be included in the Appendix A City Code fee schedule. As we move ahead, some fees will be approved by Council per ordinance, some by resolution and some by City Manager. The attached schedule shows all fee recommendations for 2015. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FEE CHANGES: Accounting: The returned check fee has increased to the maximum amount allowed by state statute. New fees have been added for additional cart charges, business recycling collection and business organics collection in accordance with previous discussions with Council. Water rates are set in accordance with overall 10 year plan as discussed in the budget process and will be formally adopted October 20, 2014. Clerk’s Office: The on-sale intoxicating liquor fee was increased to accommodate the ongoing demand on staff time. This fee has not been adjusted since 2011. Community Development: Fees were reviewed and adjusted to cover increased costs to conduct business. Engineering: A new fee has been added for temporary no parking signs for right-of-way permit work. This fee is based on staff time and material. Fire: Fees were split out for Police and Fire to more accurately reflect the cost for response. In 2014, fees for Fire false alarms were set at the same rate as Police. Based on review of operations and type of equipment used for response, fees are now split into residential and commercial/multi-family. For residential fire false alarms, a $100 fee is charged for the second false alarm, $150 fee for the third false alarm, and $200 fee for each subsequent false alarm. Fees for Fire false alarms are higher than Police due to the type of equipment and number of staff that must respond for a Fire false alarm. After the first false alarm, the commercial/multi-family fee steadily increases $100 per false alarm in the same year. Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. ) Page 3 Title: 2015 Fees Inspections: Fees were reviewed and adjusted based on the cost to conduct business by city staff. Fees related to property maintenance were reviewed and increases are proposed. It has been several years since fees have increased in this area while staffing costs have increased. Operations & Recreation: The fire hydrant use permit was changed from a single fee to a connection fee and an additional charge per gallons used. This more accurately reflects the cost of water. Fees for programs are reviewed annually and comparisons are made with the market. New fees were added to Westwood Hills Nature Center for waterfall deck rental. Police: Animal impound fees increased to more accurately reflect costs and to be in line with other cities. False alarm fees are now separate from Fire and non-residential fees increased. Based on review of operations, false alarm fees were split into residential and commercial/multi-family false alarms. After the first police false alarm, a $100 fee per incident will be charged for residential incidents. After the first false alarm, the commercial/multi-family fee is charged $100 and increases $25 per false alarm during the year. SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes ACCOUNTING Bassett Creek Watershed Management District (property pass-through charge) Residential monthly $0.64 per residential equivalent unit $0.64 per residential equivalent unit Residential quarterly $1.93 per residential equivalent unit $1.93 per residential equivalent unit Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 1.60 * 5) = quarterly rate (Acreage * REF * 1.60 * 5) = quarterly rate MN Dept of Health state testing fee Residential and multi-family $1.59 per quarter $1.59 per quarter Commercial $0.53 per month $0.53 per month Returned Check Fee $25 $30 Minn. Stat. 604.113 subd 2, Max allowed Sanitary Sewer Base Charge Residential and multi-family $13.83 per quarter $14.52 per quarter Commercial $4.61 per month $4.84 per month Sewer and Service Charges Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate $2.69 per unit $2.84 per unit Solid Waste Service Collection Cost per quarter (Includes tax when applicable) Organics $10.00 same 20 gallon service $33.77 $33.65 30 gallon service $52.61 $52.42 60 gallon service $68.30 $68.05 90 gallon service $92.15 $91.82 120 gallon service $117.64 $117.22 150 gallon service $142.15 $141.64 180 gallon service $166.66 $166.06 270 gallon service $235.28 $234.43 360 gallon service $333.32 $332.11 450 gallon service $441.15 $439.56 540 gallon service $529.38 $527.47 Solid Waste Service (Residential) Additional 30 gallon cart $60 $60 Additional 60 gallon cart $60 $60 Additional 90 gallon cart $60 $60 Cart Changes - over 1 per cart type per 12 month period $20 new fee Extra Refuse Stickers $2/sticker $2/sticker Recycling Bin No Charge No Charge Yard Waste Opt-Out $3 credit/quarter $3 credit/quarter Solid Waste Service (Business) $30 per quarter new fee Business Recycling Collection $35 per quarter new fee Business Organics Collection Storm Sewer Rate Residential quarterly $17.60 per residential equivalent unit $19.36 per residential equivalent unit Commercial monthly $29.33 per residential equivalent unit $32.27 per residential equivalent unit Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 16.00 * 5) = quarterly rate (Acreage * REF * 16.00 * 5) = quarterly rate Water Meter Charges Commercial Monthly Fee 5/8" meter $5.82 $6.64 3/4"$5.82 $6.64 1"$8.15 $9.29 1.5"$10.48 $11.95 2"$16.89 $19.25 3"$64.06 $73.00 4"$81.53 $92.91 6"$122.29 $139.37 Residential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee 5/8" meter $17.47 $19.91 3/4"$17.47 $19.91 1"$24.46 $27.87 1.5"$31.45 $35.84 2"$50.66 $57.74 3"$192.17 $219.01 4"$244.58 $278.74 6"$366.87 $418.11 2" compound $50.66 $57.74 3" compound $192.17 $219.01 Water Rates per unit (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 750 gallons) Tier 1 0-40 units* (0-30,000 gallons)$1.49 $1.55 Tier 2 41-80 units* (30,001-60,000 gallons)$1.86 $1.93 Tier 3 >80 units (>60,000 gallons)$2.78 $2.89 Commercial All units $1.49 $1.55 Irrigation All units $2.78 $2.89 City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 4 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50 $50 Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100 $100 Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100 $100 Chapter 12 – Environment $50 $50 Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100 $100 Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100 $100 Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 $100 Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50 $50 Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100 $100 Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50 $50 Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50 $50 Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200 $200 Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50 $50 Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way $25 $25 Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150 $150 Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves into street prohibited $100 $100 Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way without a permit $100 $100 Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100 $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval.$750 $750 Chapter 32 – Utilities $50 $50 Chapter 36 – Zoning $50 $50 Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100 $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval $750 $750 Repeat Violations within 24 Months Previous fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,0Previous fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000 Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Copies No Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50; $0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pages No Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50; $0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pages Domestic Partnership Registration Application Fee $50 $50 Amendment to Application Fee $25 $25 Termination of Registration Fee $25 $25 Liquor Licenses Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 Brewer's Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 Brewer's On-sale Taproom $600 $600 Club (per # members) 1 - 200 $300 $300 201 - 500 $500 $500 501 - 1000 $650 $650 1001 - 2000 $800 $800 2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000 4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000 6000+$3,000 $3,000 New License Applicant (non-refundable)$500 in-state applicant; actual costs for out-of- state applicant may be billed up to a maximum of $10,000 $500 in-state applicant; actual costs for out-of-state applicant may be billed up to a maximum of $10,000 New Store Manager $500 $500 Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $200 Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380 Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S. 340A.480-3(c )$280 $280 On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750 On-sale Culinary Class Limited $100 $100 On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,500 $8,750 On-sale license renewal per 340A.412, Subd. 2 $500 $500 On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200 On-sale Wine $2,000 $2,000 Temporary On-sale Liquor Investigation Fees $100/day $100/day Proclamations Framed Proclamation $15 $15 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 5 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000 $2,050 Conditional Use Permit $2,000 $2,050 Major Amendment $2,000 $2,050 Minor Amendment $1,000 $1,050 Fill or excavation only $500 $525 Fence Permit Installation $15 $15 Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses)$50 $50 Official Map Amendment $500 $525 Parking Lot Permit Installation/Reconstruction $75 $75 Driveway Permit $25 $25 Planned Unit Development Preliminary PUD $2,000 $2,050 Final PUD $2,000 $2,050 Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,250 $2,400 PUD - Major Amendment $2,000 $2,050 PUD - Minor Amendment $1,000 $1,050 Recording Filing Fee Single Family $50 $50 Other Uses $120 $120 Registration of Land Use $50 $50 Sign Permit Erection of Temporary Sign $30 $30 Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $30 $75 Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75 $75 Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100 $100 Special Permits Major Amendment $2,000 $2,050 Minor Amendment $1,000 $1,050 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $800 $800 Subdivision Dedication Fee Park Dedication Fee (in lieu of land) Commercial/Industrial Properties 5 percent of current market value of unimproved land as determined by city assessor 5 percent of current market value of unimproved land as determined by city assessor Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit $1,500 per dwelling unit Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit $1,500 per dwelling unit Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit $225 per residential dwelling unit Subdivisions/Replats Preliminary Plat $800 plus $90 per lot $850 plus $90 per lot Final Plat $500 $525 Combined Process and Replats $900 plus $90 per lot $950 plus $90 per lot Exempt & Administrative Subdivisions $300 $300 Tax Increment Financing Application Fee $3,000 $3,000 Temporary Use Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,000 $1,500 Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical)$50 $50 Time Extension $150 $150 Traffic Management Plan Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft gross floor $0.10 per sq ft gross floor Tree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees $115 per caliper inch $130 per caliper inch Variances Commercial $500 $500 Residential $300 $300 Zoning Appeal $300 $300 Zoning Letter $50 $50 Zoning Map Amendments $2,000 $2,050 Zoning Permit Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25 $25 Zoning Text Amendments $2,000 $2,050 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 6 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $10 per 10 linear feet $12 per 10 linear feet Increase due to staff time Administrative Fee (all permits)$50 $60 Increase due to staff time Permit Parking- High School & Medical need No Charge No Charge Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit Administrative Fee (all permits)$50 $60 Increase due to staff time Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter)$50 per hole $60 per hole Increase due to staff time Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet minimum $400)$400 per 100 linear feet minimum $400) Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)$200 per 100 linear feet (minimum Temporary No Parking signs (for right- of- way permit work)NA $60 New fee based on staff time and material. Sometimes work needs road clear of parked vehicles. If approved by Police & Public Works, Engineering will install no parking signs. Temporary Private Use of Public Property $150 $150 FIRE DEPARTMENT Car Seat Inspections $25 for the first car seat or base inspection and a $10 fee for each additional car seat or $25 for the first car seat or base inspection and a $10 fee for each Fire Alarms (False)Residential/ Commercial Fee split between Res. & Comm. 1st offense w/in year Same schedule as Police for 2014 $0/$0 New Fee schedule 2nd offense w/in year $100/$100 3rd offense w/in year $150/$200 4th offense w/in year $200/$300 5th offense w/in year $200/$400 Each subsequent in same year $200/$100 increase Fire Protection Permits (sprinkler systems, etc.)See Inspections Dept - Construction Permits See Inspections Dept - Construction Permits Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred Actual costs incurred Inspections After Hours $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)$65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Recreational Fire Lifetime Permit $25 $25 Service Fees Service Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck $500 per hour for a ladder truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $255 per hour for a rescue unit $255 per hour for a rescue unit Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour $100 per hour Tent Permit Tent over 200 sq. ft.$75 $75 Canopy over 400 sq. ft.$75 $75 INFORMATION RESOURCES Cable TV Duplicate DVD, 1 to 4 copies $15/each $15/each Duplicate DVD, 5+ copies $10/each $10/each Digital GIS Data Requests 2ft Contours - per sq. mile $10 $10 2006 Aerial Photography - per section $25 $25 Base Map Data - citywide data (Parks, Lakes, Trails, Roads, Zoning, City Limits, Neighborhoods, Benchmarks) $60 $60 GIS Services Custom Mapping Fee - per hour minimum $25 $50 Custom GIS Analysis Fee - per hour minimum $50 $50 Printing 8.5 x 11 (per copy)$0.25 $0.25 17 x 22 $5 $5 24 x 36 $10 $10 36 x 36 $15 $15 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Building Demolition Deposit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 $2,500 All Other Buildings $5,000 $5,000 Building Demolition Permit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $160 $160 All Other Buildings $240 $250 Building Moving Permit $500 $500 Business Licenses Billboards $140 per billboard $150 per billboard Commercial Entertainment $280 $280 Courtesy Bench $50 $50 Dog Kennel $150 $150 Environmental Emissions $310 $310 Massage Therapy Massage Therapy Establishment $330 $340 Massage Therapy License $100 $110 Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $30 $30 Pawnbroker Investigation Fee $1,000 $1,000 License Fee $2,000 $2,000 Penalty $50 per day $50 per day Per Transaction Fee $1.50 $1.50 Sexually Oriented Business Investigation Fee (High Impact)$500 $500 High Impact $4,500 $4,500 Limited Impact $125 $125 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 7 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $500 $550 Vehicle Parking Facilities Enclosed Parking $215 $225 Parking Ramp $165 $175 Certificate of Occupancy For each condominium unit completed after building occupancy $100 $100 Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings) Up to 5,000 sq ft $300 $400 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $450 $600 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $670 $800 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $880 $1,000 100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,100 $1,400 above 200,000 sq ft $1,310 $1,800 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $55 $60 Certificate of Property Maintenance Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $55 $60 Change in Ownership Condominium Unit $140 $145 Duplex (2 Family dwellings)$300 $310 Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 per building + $12 per unit $250 per building + $12 per unit Single Family Dwellings $220 $225 All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft $300 $400 5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $450 $600 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $670 $800 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $880 $1,000 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,100 $1,400 above 200,000 sq. ft $1,310 $1,800 Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance $70 $75 Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities) Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation Up to $500 Base Fee $45 Base Fee $55 $500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $45 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 Base Fee $55 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 $2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $75 plus $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01 Base Fee $85 plus $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 $25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $420 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01 Base Fee $430 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $670 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 Base Fee $680 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,020 plus $5.60 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 Base Fee $1,030 plus $6.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 $500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,260 plus $4.75 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 Base Fee $3,430 plus $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 $1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,635 plus $4.25 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 Base Fee $5,930 plus $4.50 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 Single Family Residential Exceptions: Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only House or House and Garage $140 $140 Garage Only $70 $70 Residing House or House and Garage $140 $140 Garage Only $70 $70 Electrical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Installation of traffic signals per location $150 $150 Single family, one appliance $45 $50 Erosion Control Permit Application and Review $150 $200 Increase due to staff time Mechanical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $65 $65 Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $65 $65 Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $45 $50 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 8 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Plumbing Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation $50 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $45 $50 Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees apply Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees apply Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities) Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation $45 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace/repair sewer or water service $75 $80 Water Access Charge $750 $750 Competency Exams Fees Mechanical per test $30 $30 Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30 $30 Contractor Licenses Mechanical $100 $100 Solid Waste $200 $200 Tree Maintenance $90 $95 Dog Licenses 1 year $25 $25 2 year $40 $40 3 year $50 $50 Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 $100 Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 $250 Interim License $15 $15 Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident)$55 $55 Penalty for no license $40 $40 Inspections After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)$65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit table Based on valuation using building permit table Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections $130 $130 Insurance Requirements A minimum of:A minimum of: Circus $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair $125 $125 License Fees - Other Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license $300 per establishment requiring a business license Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)25% of license fee (minimum $50) License Reinstatement Fee $250 $250 Transfer of License (new ownership)$75 $75 Plan Review Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee 65% of Permit Fee Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee 35% of Permit Fee Rental Housing License Condominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative $80 per unit $85 per unit Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $150 per duplex $160 per duplex Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit $15 per unit Multiple Family Per Building $170 $200 Per Unit $12 $14 Single Family Unit $100 per dwelling unit $110 per dwelling unit Temporary Noise Permit $60 $60 Temporary Use Permits Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260 $260 Commercial Film Production Application $90 $100 Petting Zoos $60 $60 Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110 $110 Vehicle Decals Solid Waste $25 $25 Tree Maintenance & Removal $10 $10 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 9 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES OPERATIONS & RECREATION Operations (Previously Public Works) Block Party Application (MSC at 7305 Oxford St)No Charge No Charge Cone deposit (refundable)$10/cone $10/cone Fire Hydrant Use Permit (MSC)$125/year $100 connection fee, $3/1000 gallon Changes per Utility Supt. to reflect costs. Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC)$30 each $30 each Service Fees (Stop Box Repairs, Water Shut-off Service) - MSC Utility Shop Public Service Worker Regular Business Hours $101.56 $50.00 After Hours $150.99 $150.00 Utility Fee RPZ (Reduced Pressure Zone) Registration Fee $25 for 5 years $50 for 5 years Winter Parking Permit Caregiver parking $25 $25 No off-street parking available No Charge No Charge Off-street parking available $125 $125 Recreation Aquatic Park Daily Entrance Rates: Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $5 $5 6 to 54 years old $9 $9.50 55+ years old $5 $5 Twilight (after 5 p.m.)$5 $5 Gazebo Rental (Daily entrance rate/season pass required) Non-resident $40 $45 Resident $30 $35 Private Aquatic Park Rental $400/hour $400/hour Season Pass (Non-Resident & Purchased before June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $55 $55 6 to 54 years old $60 $60 55+ years old $45 $45 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$45 $45 Caretaker/Nanny $60 $60 Season Pass (Resident & Purchased before June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $45 $45 6 to 54 years old $50 $50 55+ years old $35 $35 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$35 $35 Caretaker/Nanny $50 $50 Season Pass (Non-Resident & Purchased after June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $57 $57 6 to 54 years old $62 $62 55+ years old $47 $47 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$47 $47 Caretaker/Nanny $62 $62 Season Pass (Resident & Purchased after June 3rd) Under 1 year old Free Free 1 to 5 years old $47 $47 6 to 54 years old $52 $52 55+ years old $37 $37 Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$37 $37 Caretaker/Nanny $52 $52 Tuesday Night Discount 1 free child admission (under 15) with each 1 free child admission (under 15) with Aqua Obstacle Course $100 per use $100 per use Court Rental (Tennis, Basketball, Sand Volleyball & Pickle Ball) Non-resident $20/hr $20/hr Resident $15/hr $15/hr Facility Rental Amphitheater Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$75/hr $80/hr Resident (2 hr. minimum)$65/hr $70/hr Amphitheater & Park Building Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$80/hr $115/hr Resident (2 hr. minimum)$90/hr $95/hr Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 10 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES OPERATIONS & RECREATION Farmer's Market Application per stall (one market site)$60 $60 per stall (both market sites)$90 $90 Mobile Food Truck Vendor Permit $40/per day - 3 day maximum $40/per day - 3 day maximum Mobile Stage Rental (per hour) Basic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (non-resident)$225/hr $230/hr Basic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (resident)$200/hr $200/hr Large Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (non-resident)$120/hr $120/hr Large Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (resident)$100/hr $100/hr Oak Hill Park Splash Pad, 3201 Rhode Island Ave Residents Free Free Non-Resident $1 per person $1 per person Groups of 7-30 must pre-register $1 per person $2 per person Park Building Rental (per hour) Damage Deposit $300 $300 Birchwood Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $60 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $50 Browndale Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $60 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $50 Louisiana Oaks Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $60 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $50 Nelson Park Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $60 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $50 Oak Hill Park Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60 $60 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50 $50 Wolfe Park Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$65 $65 Resident (2 hr. minimum)$55 $55 Picnic Shelter Rental (per hour) Additional Hours (before 11 a.m.) Non-resident $20/hr $20/hr Resident $15/hr $15/hr Fern Hill Park Non-resident $90 Resident $70 Oak Hill Park Central (non-resident)$85 $90 Central (resident)$65 $70 Main (non-resident)$120 $125 Main (resident)$90 $95 Rustic (non-resident)$50 $50 Rustic (resident)$40 $40 Wolfe Park East (non-resident)$85 $85 East (resident)$65 $65 West (non-resident $85 $85 West (resident)$65 $65 Rec Center Banquet Room Rates Damage Deposit $700 $700 Non-resident Sun-Thurs. rental (2 hr minimum)$70/hr $70/hr Non-resident Saturday rental - 8 a.m. to midnight $700 $700 Police Officer (after 9 p.m. events where alcohol is served)$245 $245 Resident Sun-Friday rental (2 hr minimum)$60/hr $60/hr Resident Saturday rental - 8 a.m. to midnight $600 $600 Gallery Room Rates Damage Deposit $100 $100 Maintenance Fee $30 $30 Non-resident $55/hr $55/hr Residents & Non Profit Groups (2 hour minimum)$45/hr $45/hr Recreation Facilities Sand Volleyball Court Reservations Non-resident $20/hr $20/hr Resident $15/hr $15/hr Skate Park (outdoor)Free admission Free admission Skating (Indoor) Indoor Ice Rink Rental $185/hr plus tax $190/hr plus tax Indoor Ice Skating Party - 2 hr room rental Non-resident $60 $65 Resident $50 $55 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 11 SERVICE 2014 Fees 2015 Proposed Fees Notes City of St. Louis Park - 2015 FEES OPERATIONS & RECREATION Skate rental $3 $0 Contract/lease with Hockey Assoc. Skate sharpening $4 $0 Skating Admission - adult $4 $4 Skating Admission - youth & senior $3.50 $3.50 Ten Punch Pass - adult $35 $35 Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior $30 $30 Open Hockey Admission $5 $5 Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass $45 $45 Special Equipment Rental 16 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (resident)$140 $140 16 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)$110 $110 8 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (resident)$70 $70 8 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)$55 $55 Picnic Table rental/delivery up to 4 $50 $55 Vegetation Maintenance Native Vegetation Permit valid for 5 yrs $25 $25 Weed Elimination Non-compliance of Weed Nuisance Notice $125 $135 Westwood Hills Nature Center Birthday Party (12 or fewer children) Each additional child $6 $7 Non-Resident $100 $100 Resident $90 $90 Westwood Hills Nature Center Brick House Rental Damage Deposit $300 $500 Non-Resident - per hour $60 $65 Resident - per hour $50 $55 Westwood Hills Nature Center Park Building (lower) Rental Damage Deposit $300 $300 Non-Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$55 $60 Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$45 $50 Westwood Hills Nature Center Waterfall Deck Rental Non-Resident - per hour $75 Resident - per hour $50 Non-Resident - per hour $150 Resident - per hour $100 Wood Chips 2-2.5 cubic yards (residents only)$70 $70 5 cubic yards (residents only)$130 $130 POLICE DEPARTMENT Animals Animal Impound Initial impoundment $25 $35 2nd offense w/in year $40 $60 3rd offense w/in year $50 $85 4th offense w/in year $75 $110 Boarding Per Day $25 $25 Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 $250 Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100 $100 Copies & Reports Accident Photo $10/disk $10/disk Arrest Synopsis Report $5 $5 Audio Recording $10 $10 Police Report $0.25 page $0.25 page Weekly Accident Report $0.50/page $0.50/page Crime Free Multi-Housing Training $35/class $35/class Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees $5 $5 False Alarm Residential/ Commercial Fee split between Res. & Comm. 1st offense w/in year $0 $0/$0 2nd offense w/in year $100 $100/$100 3rd offense w/in year $100 $100/$125 4th offense w/in year $100 $100/$150 5th offense w/in year $100 $100/$175 Each subsequent in same year $100 $100/ $25 increase Late payment fee 10%10% Fingerprinting St. Louis Park residents & business needs $25 $25 Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 $150 Lost ID replacement fee $25 $25 Vehicle Forfeiture Administrative fee in certain cases $250 $250 Study Session Meeting of September 22, 2014 (Item No. 11) Title: 2015 Fees Page 12