Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/12/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA DECEMBER 17, 2012 6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Southwest Transitway Proposed Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 2. 7:00 p.m. City Council Workshop 7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes September 4, 2012 3b. Economic Development Authority Minutes September 24, 2012 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Reports 5a. EDA Vendor Claims 6. Old Business -- None 7. New Business 7a. 2013 Final HRA Levy Certification Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2013 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2013. 7b. Approve Fund Transfer – Housing Rehabilitation Fund to Park Center TIF District Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund transfer. 8. Communications 9. Adjournment 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition of Kathy Larsen’s 13 Years of Service 2b. Retirement Recognition for Bill Thurston, Engineering Technician III 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes November 26, 2012 3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes December 3, 2012 3c. City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 Meeting of December 17, 2012 City Council Agenda 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and Commissions -- None 6. Public Hearings -- None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan and 2013 Utility Rates Recommended Action: • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2013 Budgets and authorizing the 2013 Final • Property Tax Levy • Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2013 Final HRA Levy • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2013-2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) • Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Utility Rates 8b. Fund Equity Transfers and Operating Transfers Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfers and operating transfers. 8c. Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to allow for High Density Residential on the Eliot School site, and approve the summary resolution for publication. 8d. Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Recommended Action: Motion to approve the proposed SWLRT DEIS comments for submittal to Hennepin County by December 31, 2012. 8e. 2013 Employee Compensation Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution confirming a 2% general increase for non- union employees effective 1/1/13; approving the City Manager’s salary for 2013, continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing performance program pay by 2% for Paid-On-Call Firefighters for 2013. 8f. Resolution Approving Annual City Manager Evaluation Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution for formal acceptance of the final City Manager annual evaluation. 9. Communication 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 of December 17, 2012 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Table Second Reading of the Water Access Charge Ordinance and direct staff to reschedule the Second Reading after the completion of additional public communications and input 4b. Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance vacating 500 feet of Natchez Avenue South right-of-way extending north of Morningside Road, and approve the summary ordinance for publication 4c. Approve extending the City’s contract with Prism (People Responding in Social Ministry) to provide door-to-door dial-a-ride services to all residents of St. Louis Park through December 31, 2013. Current contract expires December 31, 2012 4d. Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 137-12 MSA Street Maintenance (Beltline Boulevard) - Project No. 2014-1102 4e. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 13-12 with SUMMIT for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2013 4f. Adopt Resolution to recognize Engineering Technician III Bill Thurston for his 40 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park 4g. Adopt Resolution overturning the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny Sara and Henry Stokman’s application for a variance from the side yard setback, and approve a two foot variance to allow an addition to the house with a three foot side yard setback instead of the required five foot side yard setback, with conditions 4h. Approve for filing Vendor Claims 4i. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 4j. Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 19, 2012 4k. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes November 14, 2012 St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ) RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this study session item is to provide the City Council a final review and opportunity for discussion of the draft SWLRT DEIS comments before City Council approval of comments on the regular City Council meeting agenda. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the proposed comments on the SWLRT DEIS address the key issues and concerns of the City? BACKGROUND: The City Council has discussed draft comments on the SW LRT DEIS at four of the last five City Council meetings. Most recently the draft comments were discussed at the December 10th City Council meeting. Comments made at the meeting have been incorporated into the latest version of the DEIS comments. In addition, at the direction of the City Council, the comments have been organized to provide an opportunity to state a conclusion on the DEIS based on the City’s review of the documents and the comments the City has prepared. The comments now begin with a letter that summarizes the City’s point of view and states our conclusions. Attached to the letter are detailed comments that support the city’s conclusions. The comments were developed in large part by comparing the SW LRT DEIS with the City policy on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) and freight rail as expressed in Resolutions 10-070 and 11-058. These resolutions provide the context in which the City’s draft comments have been prepared. The purpose of a DEIS is to provide information and analysis needed to plan actions and make decisions. It is expected to explore alternatives and identify one or more preferred alternatives. In the case of the Southwest Transitway DEIS, five alternative combination LRT/freight rail routes were evaluated along with an enhanced bus service and a no-build alternative. The DEIS concluded that LRT alternative 3A, the alternative that located LRT in the Kenilworth corridor and re-located TC&W freight train traffic to the MN&S/BNSF tracks, was the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative.” The key points of the City’s policy provide the outline (please see attached outline) for the comments attached. They specifically include: • The City of St. Louis Park strongly supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project. • The City of St. Louis Park continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met: a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists; b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle; c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park; d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East-West CP -TCWR tracks and the North-South CP- MNS tracks; e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties; f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor. In addition, there are comments related to the LRT project and mitigation measures, as well as overall DEIS concerns and comments. Additional, specific comments are still being added to the document. UPDATE to the SWLRT DEIS: STB Questions. On December 12, 2012 an update to the SWLRT DEIS was posted on the southwesttransitway.org webpage. The update was a four page memo, plus three map attachments that responded to questions asked by the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency responsible for aspects of freight rail systems that is reviewing the SWLRT DEIS. Their questions dealt primarily with the freight rail elements of the project and generally were focused on better understanding the proposed freight rail improvements. In section H of the City’s DEIS comments, comments on the STB update have been added. Here is the posting from the southwesttransitway.org webpage including the links provided to the new documents. Coordination with the Surface Transportation Board - Response to Questions on the DEIS The U.S. Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation Board (STB) is a Cooperating Agency on the Southwest Transitway DEIS. In response to questions from the STB's Office of Environmental Analysis regarding potential changes to freight rail facilities and service as described in the DEIS, the Federal Transit Administration, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, and Metropolitan Council have prepared the following documents: Memorandum to Federal Transit Administration, Region V: Questions and Responses for Surface Transportation Board Figure 1: Relocation Alternative, MN&S Spur Figure 2: Relocation Alternative, Skunk Hollow Wye Track and New Connection - Bass Lake Spur to MN&S Spur Figure 3: Relocation Alternative, Re-Established Connection - MN&S Spur to Wayzata Sub NEXT STEPS: The SW DEIS comments are on Monday nights regular City Council meeting agenda (12/17/12) for City Council approval. Following any last minute refinements desired at the City Council meetings, the final documents and attachments will be submitted to Hennepin County no later than the deadline for submittal of comments, December 31, 2012. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has engaged several consultants to aid in review of the Southwest Transitway DEIS; the costs will be paid for through the Development Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to being a connected and engaged community, including SW LRT. Attachments: Outline of Draft Comments and Attachments List Cover Letter for SW DEIS Comments Proposed Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments EIS Process Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and, Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager DEIS Comments Outline Letter Introductory comments: SW LRT and Freight Rail Policies -Support SWLRT -Resolutions on SWLRT and freight rail -However, DEIS fails to satisfy SLP conditions A. Is there a viable route to MN&S for freight rail: 1. Section 4f conclusion is unproven 2. Dismissing co-location is premature 3. Evaluation needs to wait for Preliminary Engineering B. Mitigation in DEIS is inadequate: 1. Track improvements and upgrades 2. Mandatory environmental requirements 3. Whistle Quiet Zones 4. Fencing and signage 5. Reroute coal trains 6. Rail lubricators 7. Concrete ties 8. Eliminate CP tracks east of Wooddale 9. Visual blight of an elevated structure to connect from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S 10. Removal of switching wye 11. Connect to MN&S south 12. Grade separated frontage road on Highway 7 13. Create a100’ wide minimum corridor along MN&S 14. Pedestrian underpass to Dakota Park at 27th and 29th Streets 15. Pedestrian overpass at Dakota Ave 16. Mitigation for sound and vibration impacts at SLP High School 17. Pedestrian bridge over Highway 7 18. Underpass and Roxbury and Keystone parks 19. Beltline Boulevard grade separation 20. Wooddale Avenue grade separation C. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 4 D. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and tracks east of interconnections from Bass Lake to MN&S E. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated F. Creation of a Whistle Quiet Zone G. LRT related concerns 1. Mitigation needs a. Grade separation of the regional trail b. Maintain access to Lilac Park c. Trails/sidewalks along both sides of LRT trail d. Noise from LRT crossing signals and train horns 2. Potential improvements to SWLRT project a. Regional trail switches sides at Wooddale b. Alternative alignment at Louisiana c. Alternative alignment at Beltline H. DEIS Concerns and Comments 1. New goal and State Rail Plan 2. Comparison of freight alternates is incomplete/impacts are not properly addressed a. Freight rail operational impacts b. Costs c. Construction impacts of reroute are significant d. Community Cohesion e. Continuous flow of freight rail f. Improve mobility goal g. Protect the environment goal h. Quality of life goal i. Economic development goal j. Economically competitive freight rail system k. Operational functionality for the railroads l. Circulation in the Minnetonka Boulevard area m. Impacts and costs of building an interconnect over the severely contaminated Golden Auto site n. Show impacts to areas affected by new siding along BNSF o. Segment data doesn’t allow for even comparison p. Number of trains on each and rerouting Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 5 3. Traffic Impacts 4. Vacated EAW and other processes 5. Freight rail easement description in error 6. Comments on the 12/12/12 DEIS update regarding questions from the Surface Transportation Board. Attachments: 1. City of St. Louis Park Resolutions: 10-070; 10-071; 10-005 2. FTA letter of 9-2-11 3. Letter to Metropolitan Council dated 9-23-11 4. Letter from Metropolitan Council dated 10-21-11 5. City comments on EAW 6. MnDOT EAW Withdrawal Resolution 7. SEH Technical Memos 1-4 8. Southern connection drawing 9. Skunk Hollow wye area 10. Letter to HCRRA dated 10-14-08 11. North frontage road under MN&S 12. CP letter 13. Wider r-o-w north of Highway 5 14. Track profiles by Kimley Horn and AECOM 15. Wooddale Avenue grade separation 16. Beltline Boulevard grade separation 17. Comparison of Alternative 3A and 3A-1 Freight Rail Corridor Widths and Proximity to Homes 18. SRF traffic comments 19. TKDA Study 20. TKDA Plan Set 21. Railroad Easement 22. RL Banks Study Presentation 23. Amfahr Study Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 6 December 21, 2012 Hennepin County Housing, Community Works & Transit ATTN: Southwest Transitway 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 SUBJECT: Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SW DEIS) The City of St. Louis Park appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SW DEIS). Attached are comments derived from applying the City’s SW LRT and freight rail policies to the information presented in the SW DEIS, and general comments regarding information and analyses in the SW DEIS. In its September 2011 letter to the Met Council, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) required that routing of freight rail traffic be incorporated into the SW Transitway project and DEIS as a condition of the FTA’s funding of the SWLRT project. Alternative 3A-1 (co-locating freight rail and light rail in the Kenilworth corridor) was subsequently added into the SW DEIS. The SW DEIS concludes that Alternative 3A (LRT in Kenilworth corridor and freight rail re- located to the MN&S/BNSF) should be considered the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative.” Overall, the City of St. Louis Park does not finds information in the SW DEIS that supports this conclusion. There is not an even comparison of the freight alternatives, and the data provided does not equate with the summary conclusions put for the in the SW DEIS. The DEIS shows alternatives 3A and 3A-1 to be equal in many regards. Both achieve the basic purposes of constructing a LRT project well; ridership projections are equal, and operating costs are estimated to be equal. Improvements of regional mobility, access to jobs, and improvements to air quality are also equal. However, it is unclear on what basis Alternative 3A (relocation) was judged to be superior to alternative 3A-1 (colocation); we explain in detail our specific concerns in the attached comments. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 7 St. Louis Park requests that Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council address the inadequacies in the SW DEIS to provide a much more fair and even evaluation of the two freight rail alternatives in order that the Metropolitan Council has a sound basis for making a responsible routing decision. Sincerely Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 8 1 Evaluation and Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SW DEIS) in the Context of the City of St. Louis Park’s LRT and Freight Rail Policies SW LRT and Freight Rail Policies The City of St. Louis Park has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Southwest Transitway LRT project. We look forward to implementation of SW LRT and the initiation of light rail train service for the benefit of our residents, our businesses and the region at large. Expansion of the transit system in the Metro area is a wise and prudent investment supported by the City of St. Louis Park. We have been eager and willing participants throughout the SW Transitway planning process and look forward to our participation in the SW LRT design process. The City’s support for SW LRT was memorialized in Resolution 10-005 (attached) sent to the Metropolitan Council in January 2010. The resolution stated the City’s support for the SW LRT project and the Locally Preferred Alternative for the light rail trains, alternative 3A (relocation). It also acknowledged that construction of the SWLRT line would require changes to freight rail in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, and it expressed concerns that the impacts of the freight rail changes be identified fairly and addressed fully. The support for SW LRT was stated again in Resolution 10-070 in July 2010. That resolution also recognized the continued challenge presented by freight rail for the implementation of the SW LRT project and stated the conditions under which the rerouting of train traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to the MN&S tracks would be acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park. The resolution established the conditions under which the City would accept relocation of the freight trains to the MN&S tracks. Below is the text from Resolution 10-070 which states the city’s policy regarding freight rail rerouting. It says: “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the City of St. Louis Park: 1. Supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project; and, 2. Continues to support the May 23, 2001 Railroad Task Force Recommendations adopted by the City Council October 21, 2001; and, 3. Opposes the introduction of any rerouted freight rail traffic north and south through the City of St. Louis Park; and, Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 9 2 4. Opposes the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met: a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists; b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle; c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park; d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS tracks; e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties; f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.” Paragraphs 4a through 4f in Resolution 10-070 (above) spell out the conditions under which the City of St. Louis Park would find re-routing Kenilworth train traffic to the MN&S tracks acceptable. Key among the conditions are (1) that it be shown that no other viable route for freight rail exists; and, (2) if freight trains were to be rerouted to the MN&S, adequate mitigation must be provided. The SW LRT project as described in the DEIS and the analysis provided in the DEIS fail to satisfy the conditions the City of St. Louis Park established as the basis for accepting rerouting of freight trains to the MN&S line. St. Louis Park believes that co-location in the Kenilworth corridor could be a viable route for freight rail; and, even if it proves not to be, the mitigation and other conditions under which the MN&S route would be acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park have not been met. The failure of the DEIS to address these issues is described below. A. Is there a viable alternative to MN&S for freight rail? The first condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4a: Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 10 3 “a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists;” For St. Louis Park the acceptability of the MN&S tracks for re-routed Kenilworth trains starts with the question, is there any other viable alternative route for the freight trains? The City’s consultant, SEH completed analysis that showed how co-location in the Kenilworth corridor is viable. This analysis and attendant drawings were used as the basis for the co-location alternative and comparison in the SW DEIS. The SW DEIS does not show that co-location of freight rail and light rail in the Kenilworth corridor (alternative 3A-1 co-location) is not viable. 1. Section 4(f) Conclusion is Unproven The DEIS concludes that co-location is not feasible primarily based on the conclusion that co- location requires the acquisition of .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park. It also concludes that this would not be a de minimis taking of parkland and that it would “constitute a section 4(f) use”, which means use of the Cedar Lake Park land would not be allowed by the federal Secretary of Transportation, thereby making alternative 3A-1 (co-location) unfeasible. Section 7.0 of the SW DEIS is labeled draft Section 4(f) evaluation. Its preliminary two-fold conclusion that the use of Cedar Lake Park “would likely not be avoided” or considered to be de minimis is unsupported by any factual analysis, does not comply with applicable federal rules, and exhibits a total disregard for any fair and objective analysis of co-location as a feasible alternative. There are no facts set forth anywhere in the SW DEIS identifying the purported .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park to be acquired, nor how the calculation was made. It appears that the area in question is not actively used by the public, is former railroad property and is the current location of freight rail tracks in the Kenilworth corridor. At page 7-21, the DEIS states that “conceptual engineering completed to date” identifies the 0.81 acres. SW DEIS Appendix F (part 3) contains “conceptual engineering drawings.” They are the drawings prepared for the City of St. Louis by SEH in 2010. There is nothing in the appendix that addresses or identifies what land needs to be taken for the relocation of the existing-freight rail tracks; however the SEH co-location concept plan drawings show the freight rail essentially where the existing freight rail tracks are today. At ES-7 and 2-41, the SW DEIS states that the Kenilworth tracks “would need to be reconstructed to meet BNSF design standards for clearance requirements.” It is unclear whether a claimed clearance requirement is linked to the claimed .81 acre impact on Cedar Lake Park. The co-location assumes a 25’ distance between the freight railroad and light rail tracks. This 25’ distance is being used by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) for similar projects. Assuming this separation distance, there is no apparent need to relocate the freight rail track to the west into Cedar Lake Park Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 11 4 any further than it is shown on the concept drawings for alternative 3A-1 (co-location). The freight rail track would remain in its present location. The Section 4(f) rules require that a project be designed to avoid or minimize the impact on 4(f) property. Specifically 23 C.F.R. § 744.3 requires the Metropolitan Council, as part of the co- location design process to analyze feasible and prudent alternatives, avoid the use of 4(f) property and if avoidance is not possible, to perform “all possible planning” to minimize harm to the parkland. There is absolutely no evidence in the DEIS that any attempt has been made, as part of whatever conceptual engineering on co-location has been performed, to avoid impact to Cedar Lake Park, if in fact an impact even exists. One seemingly obvious concept would be to shift the alignment east onto HCRRA property. There are also no facts or analysis as to why any impact to park land that might occur would not be considered “de minimis” which is defined by applicable rule as an impact that “will not adversely affect the features, attributes or activities” of the park land. There are no facts or analysis as to why any minor shifting of the freight rail track along the border of Cedar Lake Park, assuming it cannot be avoided, would not be de minimis. There are also no facts or analysis, even on a conceptual level, as to why the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board would, potentially arbitrarily, refuse to consider such an impact to be de minimis, especially if mitigating steps were taken to lessen any impact. The HCRRA and its consultants prepared the SW DEIS. The Metropolitan Council will lead the process for the development of the SW FEIS. The SW DEIS concedes that no avoidance or mitigation analysis has been done on any of the alternatives. At Section 7.2 the SW DEIS states: A series of coordination meetings will be conducted with the parties that control these Section 4(s007Aazf) protected properties, and/or the regulatory agencies responsible for these properties, to discuss the potential for the use of these properties and the results of avoidance and minimization efforts. The majority of these meetings would occur during preliminary engineering and would be presented in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. At Section 7.4.1.2, the SW DEIS states: This summary is preliminary because design is not sufficiently advanced to conclude that avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted. Additional efforts will be made during Preliminary Engineering to avoid or minimize the use of any of these Section 4(f) properties. The results of this additional analysis will be presented in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Despite this acknowledgment and the total lack of any facts in the SW DEIS relating to the claimed use of Cedar Lake Park, HCRRA at Section 7.4.1.5 of the SW DEIS concludes that co-location Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 12 5 “would” necessitate additional expansion of ROW outside of the HCRRA-owned parcels into adjacent parkland.” In the next sentence the SW DEIS states that “Section 4(f) uses could occur for the Cedar Lake Park, Cedar Lake Parkway and Lake of the Isles portions of the Minneapolis chain of Lakes Regional Park.” The Metropolitan Council as the lead agency for the SW FEIS must perform an independent, objective 4(f) review in accordance with the rules based upon facts and not conjecture. Furthermore, even assuming that co-location would involve an unavoidable use of 4(f) property which is not de minimis, there is no basis for assuming that re-routing freight trains to the MN&S route has met the statutory requirement that there be a “prudent and feasible” alternative. Without additional mitigation, agreement from the railroads on the design of this route, and complete evaluation of all the impacts associated with this route, that conclusion cannot be reached. The MN&S route does not meet typical railroad design standards, it presents severe operational challenges, has unique conditions such as tracks separating St. Louis Park High School from its athletic field, and tracks passing diagonally through intersections; these have not been adequately addressed in the SW DEIS and make the SW DEIS’s conclusions unsupportable. 2. Dismissing Alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is Premature Drawing a conclusion in the SW DEIS that the co-location alternative is not feasible is premature and contradicts the direction to the Met Council from the FTA to study and address all the concerns prior to entering into the final design phase of the SWLRT project. The Met Council has not begun preliminary design, so concluding that co-location is not feasible in the SW DEIS pre-emptively dismisses the co-location alternative. St. Louis Park believes this conclusion is inappropriate at this stage of the SW LRT design process. 3. Evaluation of Alternative Needs to Wait for PE The analysis of the freight rail impacts of the MN&S route is almost exclusively based on the EAW work completed on that corridor in 2010-11. Although that is the source of the SW DEIS’s analysis of the MN&S route, the comments submitted by St. Louis Park and the public regarding the EAW were not included in the SW DEIS documents or addressed as a part of the analysis. These comments are pertinent to the evaluation of the prudence and feasibility of the MN&S route for rerouted freight trains. The City of St. Louis Park dropped its legal challenge of the MN&S EAW with the understanding that a full analysis of the co-location option as well as the MN&S route would be done and that this work would include preliminary designs for both routes. The SW DEIS does not offer any new design or further analysis of either route from what was done during the MN&S study and the work by the City of St. Louis Park’s own consultants. There needs to be much more design and cost analysis before a co-location alternative is declared not viable. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 13 6 B. Mitigation in SW DEIS is inadequate The second condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4b: “b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;” The inherent characteristics of the MN&S route require robust mitigation to protect the neighboring residents, businesses, students, community facilities; and, to ensure trains operate safely. These apply largely to the MN&S route, and many of them also would be necessary under the 3A-1 (co- location) alternative. A comparison of characteristics of the freight rail route alternatives is provided later in these SW DEIS comments, in section E. City Resolution 10-070 recognized the need and importance of adequate mitigation along the MN&S, BNSF and Bass Lake Spur; and made that a condition of acceptance of the MN&S route for freight rail. The mitigation alluded to in the SW DEIS is not adequate and falls well short of what is needed if a reroute to the MN&S is to be successful. Below, the City states the mitigation that should be required to address negative impacts from freight trains in St. Louis Park. 1. Track improvements/upgrades (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co-location) The proposed improvements will upgrade the tracks to modern mainline standards that will include continuous welded rail and upgraded crossing signals with gates. This is part of the proposed project and is among the base improvements needed to make this route functional for the operation of trains. It is not really a mitigation action but will reduce vibration and noise. 2. Mandatory environmental requirements (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co- location) The DEIS indicates that all mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland permits, waste disposal, erosion control, storm water runoff, construction noise, etc. will be met. This is not mitigation and is a basic requirement of any improvements. 3. Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ) and noise mitigation (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co- location) A Whistle Quiet Zone along the MN&S and Bass Lake Spur is a base line mitigation requirement. However, it only addresses the noise from train horns, and is not the only train noise mitigation needed - especially with regards to the MN&S route. The noise of locomotives operating at Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 14 7 maximum power to pull train cars up the steep grades; the noise from train cars banging together and separating as they are pulled up and down the hilly MN&S route; the squeals of train wheels on tight curves and the noise of idling trains on the BNSF siding waiting to access the BNSF mainline all need to be mitigated. The WQZ topic is discussed fully later in Section F of these comments. 4. Fencing & signage (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1(co -location) The SW DEIS suggests fencing and signage to minimize pedestrian trespassing, but is not specific as to which areas would be included. Fencing is needed on both sides of all the tracks for safety. The tracks pass through single-family neighborhoods, neighborhood commercial areas and, past neighborhood parks and schools. The MN&S tracks expose these very walkable areas, with many children and many child-oriented facilities to safety risks. Fencing is needed to reduce these safety risks. 5. Improvements to reroute coal trains (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1(co-location) The coal trains that pass through St. Louis Park originate in Wyoming and Montana and bring coal to a sugar plant in Renville west of the Twin Cities. Currently trains come from Wyoming and Montana travel all the way into Minneapolis using the BNSF tracks before backtracking through the Kenilworth corridor and St. Louis Park west to the sugar plant. The empty coal trains return to Wyoming and Montana without passing through St. Louis Park or Minneapolis. They go directly west from the sugar plant to Appleton MN and interchange back to the BNSF line. The loaded coals trains do not use the Appleton interchange because of track conditions on the west end of the TC&W. A track rehabilitation project to replace cross ties on the western part of the TC&W would allow for the reroute of the loaded coal trains and eliminate the need for the coal trains to pass through Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. TC&W has estimated that this project would cost about two million dollars. This is an important improvement that not only reduces train traffic and attendant negative impacts for both St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, it makes freight rail movements more economical and reduces train traffic in the Target Field area. 6. Rail lubricators (Alternative 3A relocation) Rail lubricators installed in the track are a mitigation to reduce wheel noise and rail wear on the tight curves of the MN&S route. Lubricators should be included on the MN&S route. 7. Concrete ties or other vibration reduction methods (Alternative 3A relocation) Concrete ties rather than wood ties would allow for less vibration induced in to the ground, because of the larger mass of the ties. Concrete ties also work better in the tighter curves to hold gauge. Vibration and noise are significant issues along the MN&S route especially. The close proximity of sensitive land uses like, homes, the St. Louis Park High School and commercial buildings that already experience problems from vibrations need to be addressed and mitigated if increased train traffic is to be accepted on the MN&S. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 15 8 The Section 4.8.4 of the SW DEIS evaluation of ground vibration for the reroute uses the criteria “infrequent use” for locomotives and “occasional use” for rail cars. They determined that only one parcel is impacted from the expected vibration. The SW DEIS use of “infrequent” or “occasional” use by freight trains is not correct. Section 8.1.3 of the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment is the section that discusses vibration impact criteria for freight trains. The guidelines require the use of “frequent” use as the guideline. This reduces the maximum impact allowed from 80 VdB or 75 DvB to 72 DvB. Using the graph in the MN&S Freight Rail Study (Exhibit 3, page 65), in Appendix H, the impacts should have been measured for all residential and commercial structures on parcels within 150 feet of the track. This needs to be evaluated under the correct criteria. 8. Elimination of all CP tracks east of Wooddale Avenue (Alternative 3A (relocation) and all siding east of Wooddale (Alternative 3A ( relocation) The Bass Lake Spur tracks do not extend east of Wooddale Avenue for any of the alternatives proposed in the SW DEIS that re-route trains to the MN&S tracks. TC&W railroad has indicated that unless a direct connection between the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks southbound is provided, TC&W will need track with enough space to accommodate 50-75 rail cars east of the existing switching wye connecting the MN&S tracks to the Bass Lake Spur. Space for 50 to 75 rail cars would require 3,000 to 4,500 feet of track east of the wye, which means freight rail tracks stretching east from the switching wye across Wooddale Avenue, across Hwy 100 and almost to Beltline Blvd would be needed. This would have severe traffic and congestion impacts. A south connection from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is needed to implement the SW LRT 3A (relocation) alternative in order to eliminate the tracks east of Wooddale Avenue. The need for the removal of the switching wye and providing the southbound connection from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is described more fully later in the SW DEIS comments, in section D. This discussion focuses on the importance of eliminating freight tracks east of the Wooddale Avenue. If the freight track remains east of Wooddale Avenue, SW LRT Alternative 3A (relocation) will have the same station/freight rail conflict issues as those presented by Alternative 3A-1 (co- location). Freight trains will interfere with the operations of the LRT stations and be a detriment to development in the area. One of the rationales for re-routing freight trains to the MN&S is to eliminate any detrimental impacts on stations and station areas created by the presence of freight trains. If trains are rerouted to the MN&S, it would be absolutely unacceptable to St. Louis Park to also be saddled with the burden of freight trains re-routed to the MN&S without the benefit of completely eliminating freight trains from the Wooddale and Beltline Station areas. Trains maneuvering through the switching wye would block Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Avenues more severely than trains continuing to use Kenilworth. At least the co-location trains would be simply moving through the area, whereas maneuvering trains would be stopping and starting. It would be noisier, more time consuming and much more disruptive to continue the maneuvering than to have trains moving through. Traffic delays caused by the trains crossing and re-crossing Wooddale Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 16 9 Avenue and Beltline Boulevard and train cars potentially stored on these tracks would disrupt traffic, interrupt access to the SW LRT stations and create additional safety hazards. 9. Visual blight of an elevated structure to connect from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S Connecting the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks will require a very large elevated structure. It will be very visible certainly from Louisiana Avenue and Hwy 7, in addition to surrounding properties. No comprehensive evaluation has been done to show what the structure will look like, what the visual impact will be on surrounding properties and neighborhoods, what the impact will be on development potential near the structure or the existing businesses. The structure will be roughly one mile long. The train roadbed will be nearly 45 feet above the street by the time it crosses Louisiana Avenue, and still rising to a higher point. It does not show the height of the train cars themselves. When a train is present the overall height of the structure and train will be well over 60 feet, the equivalent of a 6 story building. The trains will tower over all of the existing structures in the immediate area and effect visibility and views. While the presence of a SW LRT station at Louisiana is expected to enhance development opportunities, the presence of the massive rail structure and freight trains literally traveling in the air will have an impact that the SW DEIS has not even acknowledged exists, much less attempted to evaluate. This is a critical issue that must be analyzed carefully and if the MN&S route is chosen, it must be mitigated in some significant way. Without robust mitigation, the elevated freight trains and structure will deprive the SW LRT project of one of its most important potential benefits; major new private development and business investments. The Louisiana station serves one of the largest employers and the only hospital along the corridor. Park Nicollet’s Methodist Hospital is a major regional institution and a potential engine to drive new investment and job creation, if the station area can provide an environment that is conducive to investment and growth. Elevated freight trains are a significant challenge to creating that environment. Mitigation needs to be included to address the potential adverse impacts. 10. Removal of switching wye (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co-location) The switching wye allows the trains to transfer between the Bass Lake line and the MN&S. This has been a source of noise for the City for many years. Removal of the switching wye is a requirement of the City’s resolution 10-070 for the City no matter what freight rail route or SW LRT alternative is chosen. The switching wye is discussed more fully later in section D of these comments. 11. Connection to MN&S south (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 co-location) The proposed alignment in the SW DEIS does not address an efficient move of trains to the south. A direct south connection track is one of the steps necessary for the removal of the switching wye (discussed in greater detail in section D of these comments) and allows for an efficient train movement from the west to the south. It eliminates the multiple switching moves that are now necessary to make that move. This eliminates the potential noise, safety and traffic impacts caused by switching trains from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S track south bound. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 17 10 12. Grade separated Hwy 7 north frontage road (Alternative 3A (relocation) The additional trains on the MN&S will put pressure on traffic at the four grade street crossings near the High School and the Central Community Center – which houses several community programs including the Park Spanish Immersion Elementary School, Central Clinic, Early Childhood Family Education programs, Early Childhood Special Education, and Community Education programs. Today school buses shuttle between the two schools both in the morning and afternoon of school days. The schools are within three blocks of one another but on opposite sides of the MN&S tracks. Today only two trains a day use the MN&S tracks. They are very short trains, typically 10 cars or less. They do not usually pose a problem today for school bus operations, because they don’t block all four local streets that provide access between the school sites at once. The trains travel at very slow speeds and cross the streets quickly. The trains proposed to be re-routed to the MN&S are more numerous and much longer. They have a much greater potential to block intersections and create delays and safety problems. Because the four street crossings in the vicinity of the schools are so close together, there is the potential for all four intersections to be blocked at once. Other social services such as STEP – St. Louis Park Emergency Program, are located in the area near Central Community Center; rerouted trains would also have impact on the low income and disadvantaged persons in getting between these services. According to Table 2.3-2 in the SW DEIS on page 2-27, as many as 8 trains would use the MN&S tracks on a given day if the MN&S route is chosen for freight rail. The table also says that the longest trains would be 120 cars or approximately 7,200 feet long (1.36 miles). Traveling at 10 mph, a 120 car train will take over 8 to 9 minutes to clear a single intersection. To clear all four intersections and for the crossing gates to re-open will take another 4 to 5 minutes, even a train as small as 26 cars would at one point be blocking all for intersections. The increased train traffic, from 2 very short trains a day to 6 to 8 trains a day, only two of which have any realistic chance of being less than 26 cars, means disruption of school transportation will be a problem routinely. To provide a reliable route for school buses between the two schools, a grade separated frontage road on the north side of Hwy 7 should be built. The MN&S tracks would be bridged over the frontage road so that even when freight trains are blocking the existing local streets between the two schools, school buses could use the frontage road to cross beneath the trains and move between the two schools. 13. Create 100-foot minimum width corridor in single family housing area. (Alternative 3A relocation) The area north and south of Minnetonka Boulevard on the MN&S has a railroad right of way width of 66 feet. This is an inadequate ROW for tracks that will be used more intensely then they are today. The mitigation of creating a 100-foot minimum width corridor is to expand the right-of-way to allow a larger safety zone around the tracks. A more complete discussion of this issue is provided later in these comments, in section E. 14. Pedestrian underpass to Dakota Park at 27th Street and 29th Street. (Alternative 3A relocation) Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 18 11 Alternative 3A (relocation) closes 29th Street. This leaves 28th Street as the only east-west access for the Birchwood and Bronx Park neighborhoods other than Minnetonka Blvd which is a high traffic volume street at the south end of the neighborhoods. Vehicles using Minnetonka Blvd simply to get from one side of the MN&S tracks to the other will be an added traffic problem for Minnetonka Blvd and will present traffic safety problems. The existing MN&S tracks are hilly and uneven. The increased train traffic and intended increased train speeds will increase the safety risks at any at grade crossings and especially in this area. On the west side of the MN&S, at the north end of the Bronx neighborhood is Dakota Neighborhood Park and dog park; and, Hobart Elementary school. Access to the Cedar Lake Regional trail is also at this location. These are attractions and logical destinations for bicyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers, and kids. There needs to be a safe convenient way for people to access these community attractions. An underpass construction in the 27th Street ROW would allow a safe direct access to Dakota Park, the regional trail access and Peter Hobart School that would at least partially mitigate negative impacts for pedestrians in the neighborhoods. A grade separated underpass at 29th Street could be used by vehicles and pedestrians and would mitigate the problems created by pushing local traffic from Birchwood and Bronx neighborhoods onto the congested Minnetonka Blvd. 15. Pedestrian overpass at Dakota Avenue (Alternative 3A relocation) There are a high level of pedestrian movements in the Dakota Avenue area caused by the location of the high school and its facilities. This overpass would allow for alternative route for pedestrians. The exact location is to be determined. 16. Mitigation for sound and vibration at SLP High School (Alternative 3A relocation) The High School has expressed issues with the current train operations and is concerned about impact of an increase in train traffic. Trains passing the High School create noise and vibrations that affect school equipment like self-focusing equipment. This mitigation item would be to help make improvements to the building to help mitigate the noise and vibration. 17. Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 at MN&S There are few accesses across Highway 7 and none between Wooddale Avenue and Louisiana Avenue. The MN&S rail bridge across Hwy 7 is a tempting way for people, especially kids, to cross Hwy 7 between Wooddale and Louisiana. The attractiveness to pedestrians of a bridge in this location should be acknowledged and in addition to construction of a new MN&S rail bridge, a bridge for pedestrians should be built in this location. It also could serve as a way to improve access to the Louisiana SWLRT station for people north of Hwy 7. 18. Underpass connecting Roxbury and Keystone Parks (Alternative 3A relocation) The Roxbury and Keystone Parks are on each side of the MN&S track. With the increased traffic on the MN&S there will be increased risks for park users and concerns for the safety of people Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 19 12 attempting to cross the tracks to reach the adjacent park. These are small neighborhood parks, and this means park users will be close to the tracks and the risks they represent. An underpass between the parks would allow for better, safer circulation between the two parks. It would serve as partial mitigation of the hazards created from increased rail traffic. 19. Beltline Boulevard Grade Separation (Alternative 3A-1 co-location) Today traffic on Beltline Boulevard is experiencing delays; with the addition of a station at this location, additional traffic projected would add to the delays and congestion for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at Beltline Boulevard, vehicle traffic on Beltline would experience serious delays. Grade separation of freight rail would be of primary importance, in order for the LRT station to operate properly and serve riders who would be boarding at this station. 20. Grade separation at Wooddale Avenue (Alternative 3A-1 co-location) Today the confluence of trail traffic, vehicles and freight rail makes Wooddale Avenue a busy, complicated crossing; with the addition of a SW LRT station and the SW LRT line there will be additional traffic. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at Wooddale Avenue, the potential exists for access to the station to be interrupted by the presence of a freight train. Grade separation for pedestrians over or under the freight rail tracks would mitigate the potential blocking of pedestrian access to the station by freight trains. This mitigation is needed in order for the LRT station to operate properly and serve riders who would be boarding at this station. Grade separation of Wooddale from the freight rail tracks would be another option to consider to mitigate this problem, however putting the freight tracks over Wooddale would result in a grade too steep for trains; putting the freight tracks below Wooddale is not possible because of other restraints like the need for the tracks to remain at an elevation that makes it possible to cross over Hwy 100. C. Siding must be removed (to eliminate switching, sorting, blocking ) The third condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4c: “c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;” In addition to the switching wye in Skunk Hollow, there is a rail siding used to store and switch rail cars on the Bass Lake line. This track runs in the Bass Lake Spur right of way and is parallel to the Bass Lake Spur primary track. The use of the siding creates noise and safety issues for the City today; and, its continued use once the SW LRT line is in place, will also interfere with the functioning of the LRT stations in St. Louis Park; and, the attractiveness of the areas immediately around the stations for transit-oriented development. All three of the City’s stations, Louisiana, Wooddale and Beltline are potentially affected by the siding. The freight rail tracks are shown as Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 20 13 removed to the west of Wooddale Avenue on the SW LRT concept drawings in the DEIS. It is important that not only those tracks are removed but all the sidings on the Bass Lake Spur near residential areas and station areas are removed. Storing and switching train cars in the Bass Lake Spur would have more severe negative impacts even than moving trains. Storing and switching entails more noise, takes more time, has more potential for blocking roads and pathways; and the potential for additional safety issues depending on what is stored or moved in rail cars in the area. The mitigation for the problems presented by the siding tracks is to replace these storage tracks in a more compatible land use area outside of the City. D. Switching Wye must be removed The fourth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4d: “d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS tracks;” Elimination of the “skunk hollow” switching wye, Bass Lake siding and providing a connection to MN&S South are not included in the SW DEIS but should be. Elimination of the siding and switching wye south of the Bass Lake Spur in the Oxford Street industrial area needs to be included in the SWLRT project. Without creation of a direct connection between the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S southbound and removal of the switching wye, a rail siding stretching from the MN&S tracks to Minneapolis will be needed to accommodate 50 to 75 rail cars. This siding means freight rail cars will interfere with both the Wooddale and Beltline LRT stations and the noise from switching will affect the nearby Louisiana Station area as well. This will be the case no matter which freight rail route (MN&S or Kenilworth) is chosen. The negative impacts will be more significant on the station areas and surrounding area from the siding track than from the through train track. The reason is use of the siding track will involve storage of cars for long periods of time, idling of stationary locomotives and the noisy, time consuming process of maneuvering train cars from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S or vice versa, as the wye can only accommodate moving 10-15 cars at a time. While a freight train passing through a station area may interrupt transit activity for a few minutes at a time while a train passes by, a switching procedure could take hours and stored cars may be in place for days to weeks. The noise associated with switching is significantly greater and more disruptive to the surrounding area than moving trains. It will be detrimental to the development potential of station areas also. Switching involves repeated train starts and stops; and the accompanying crashing of cars coupling and uncoupling, and the noise of locomotives accelerating. This will limit the development potential of the station areas nearby and decrease the potential ridership on the SW LRT. Eliminating the switching wye and the siding on the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the Louisiana Station also has the benefit of making the reroute connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 21 14 northbound easier and less impactful. The proposed connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S shown in the SW DEIS rises on a bridge structure up and over the Bass Lake Spur siding track and the proposed SW LRT tracks. This results in the connection being higher and steeper than would be necessary if the siding was not present. The clearance over freight rail tracks is greater than what is required for LRT tracks. Eliminating the siding means the structure for the freight rail connection to the MN&S tracks could be lowered reducing the steepness of the grade which in turn would reduce the noise associated with locomotives straining to pull trains up this steep grade. Elimination of the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the Louisiana station would benefit the station as well. With the siding in place, access to the LRT station platform is potentially more complicated. The presence of rail cars stored or being maneuvered on the siding limit visibility of the station and make the pedestrian connections for LRT passengers more difficult, much less inviting, and raises safety perceptions for riders using the LRT. The SW DEIS shows only the potential connection of the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks northbound. No direct connection southbound is included. Technically, the northbound connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks could be used as a means to access the MN&S southbound as well. Trains going north to stop, change the locomotive to the southern end of the train, and then head south is another way to replace the need for the switching wye. This solution, while technically possible is completely unworkable. For starters, using the northbound connection to the MN&S to go south would require trains to travel north until they reached a location with a siding where the locomotive could be moved from the north end of the train to the south end of the train. There is no suitable siding, or r-o-w width in St. Louis Park on the MN&S. The trains would need to travel from the Bass Lake Spur north through St. Louis Park only to switch the position of the locomotive and then retrace the route back through the City. The railroads would never find this extra travel time and effort acceptable from an operational point of view; nor would the city find it acceptable from the perspective of negative impacts on the community by adding two needless trips north on the MN&S and increasing the amount of time trains are idling. Essentially the area north of the Bass Lake tracks would be exposed to all the negative impacts and risks associated with trains traveling on the MN&S twice for a train trip that was not intending to travel north in the first place. For all the reasons highlighted above, a southbound connection between the Bass Lake Spur and the MN&S tracks is needed as part of the SW LRT project and should be addressed in the SW DEIS. E. Significant ROW must be provided The fifth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4e: “e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;” Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 22 15 The MN&S corridor is narrow (66 feet) with a single track much of it elevated, that winds through a neighborhood commercial area, past St. Louis Park High School, small neighborhood parks, and 70 modest single family homes within 50 feet of the centerline, mostly on 50 ft. lots. The average estimated market value for homes along the MN&S right of way is $179,000 in 2012. This is in stark contrast to the Kenilworth corridor which even today is generally wider than the MN&S corridor, with widths up to 160 ft. and as noted in the DEIS itself, is characterized by “high income” housing often on relatively large lots. The average home along the MN&S tracks is roughly half the value of the lowest valued homes along the Kenilworth corridor in Minneapolis. The MN&S passes by St. Louis Park High School; Keystone, Roxbury and Dakota city parks, the local food shelf, publicly owned low-income housing, elementary schools, and the high school athletic field. The MN&S corridor includes several scattered site public housing units for low- income residents, the Kenilworth corridor includes “high income housing” and in some cases high rise housing. The modest income residents of the MN&S corridor are being asked to shoulder the responsibility to accommodate freight traffic without any significant mitigation while the high income Kenilworth residents are not only relieved of the burden of negative impacts associated with freight rail, they are given the benefit of having light rail service. The bulk of the homes along the MN&S route will be more than ½ mile from the nearest LRT station. The Kenilworth residents will see the negative impacts of freight rail replaced by the positive benefits of convenient light rail service. The MN&S corridor is not well suited to handle significant levels of freight rail traffic and if the level of train traffic is going to increase the corridor needs to be widened to increase safety and to provide more buffer to minimize the negative impacts of freight traffic. If the MN&S corridor is to take the Kenilworth train traffic, the MN&S corridor should be widened to a minimum 100 feet in width. This is a critical mitigation that is not included in the SW DEIS and should be. Further comparison of the MN&S corridor and the Kenilworth corridors are provided in a separate attached document. F. Whistle Quiet Zone The sixth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4f: “f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.” A Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ) is provided in the SW DEIS for the MN&S route as a mitigation measure intended to eliminate the most severe noise impacts from freight traffic. This is appropriate and important mitigation; however it does not resolve all the noise and potential vibration adverse impacts associated with train traffic increases on the MN&S. Nor is receiving WQZ designation for the MN&S tracks a forgone conclusion. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 23 16 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has a prescribed process and rules to evaluate noise and vibration issues (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment). If noise or vibration exceeds certain standards for various types of land use, projects are required to mitigate those impacts. The SW DEIS noise and impact analysis (Sections 4.7 and 4.8) was done using the impact of light rail trains, not freight trains. The SW DEIS proposes that a railroad WQZ is the only mitigation measure that is needed to bring the freight rail reroute alternative into noise level compliance. Other noise mitigation measures may be necessary to mitigate impacts of trains going up an incline and going through several curves. Quiet Zones are local initiatives meant to minimize train noise from whistles, but the program is administrated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). If a community meets its risk index standards, Quiet Zones can be approved, however they are not a foregone conclusion. Quiet Zones must be applied for by the local road authority but in areas with multiple jurisdictions, one road authority can be the lead agency. Bells located on the signals will continue to operate. The minimum safety devices at a crossing are railroad signals with gates. A risk assessment is done for each crossing and certain types of crossings may need additional safety improvements such as center medians or four quadrant gates. A field study is required; the diagnostic team from the FRA, MNDOT, the railroad companies and the road authority will evaluate each crossing any potential improvements. The evaluation of the vehicles, roadways and train traffic is straight forward. There are several areas that can make quiet zones difficult to implement including: i. The risk analysis is a mathematically based program that has a difficult time accurately reflecting large changes in either train or road activity. The formulas are influenced by previous crash histories that are not reflected if conditions change quickly. ii. The rules are not clear on how pedestrians should be considered. The FRA relies heavily on the engineering judgment of the diagnostic team. The team needs to evaluate how extensive the pedestrian movements are, the type of pedestrian groups (young children, older people, mobility challenged, students, etc.) , potential for trespassing on railroad property, attractive nuisances (shortcuts, bridges, other side of the track, etc.), sight distance of an approaching train, sight distance of a pedestrians and use time. Treatment of Quiet Zones for pedestrians has ranged from doing nothing, to installing a few signs, to very extensive fencing and control measures. iii. The rules do not address private crossings and what safety improvements should be done at them. iv. The FRA has the authority to rescind a quiet zone if there is a rise in crashes or incidents. The train engineer also has wide latitude on when to use the horn in a quiet zone area. The engineer can sound the horn when: Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 24 17 i. If there is track maintenance or other construction in the area; ii. If a potential dangerous situation is seen, such as a vehicle stopped on the track or pedestrian trespassers iii. If crossing signals are malfunctioning. The crossings in St Louis Park are unique and the risk numbers for vehicles are relatively low but treatments for protecting the safety of pedestrians will be a challenge. A formal diagnostic team review should be done early in the Preliminary Engineering process to evaluate if a WQZ can be approved. The results of the diagnostic team’s review should be considered when evaluating which alternative route for freight trains is the preferred and selected alternative. The City should not have to run the risk that the decision is made to relocate Kenilworth traffic to the MN&S tracks based in part on the understanding that a WQZ will be created, only to find out later that creating a WQZ is not approved. The WQZ evaluation must be done before a freight rail route decision is made. It is important to note that a WQZ will only address the noise associated with train whistles, bells and horns. It does not address the noise from locomotives pulling trains up steep grades, squeals from trains moving through tight curves or noise from switching operations. These topics are all raised elsewhere in these comments (sections B-3, 6, 7). Noise from these sources is not adequately addressed in the SW DEIS and must be mitigated by some means if freight trains are to be re-routed to the MN&S tracks. General Comments on the DEIS and LRT Concerns G. LRT Concerns 1. Mitigation and Impact needs: Mitigation specifically for the LRT itself is needed, including: a. Grade separation of the regional trail. In either freight rail location alternative, grade separation of the regional trail needs to be considered at the Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue crossings. This is a heavily used trail (over 500,000 users annually) and will have a significant amount of vehicle traffic around the station areas. The Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail is shown to move from the north side of the rail to the south side of the rail at Wooddale Avenue. Walkers and bikers would have to turn south or north, and cross the tracks in order to stay on the regional trail. This movement is very awkward and needs to be remedied to become a straight, through route. Grade separation may be able to solve the crossing issue, if it is used to switch the trail to the other side of the trains. Grade separation of the trail would improve the crossing and could solve the crossing issue where the trail is shown to switch sides at Wooddale. b. Maintain access to Lilac Park from the regional trail. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 25 18 The regional trail is shown on the south side of the light rail tracks east of Highway 100. The new Lilac Park is on the north side immediately east of Highway 100. Access from the trail to the park for users would need to remain under all alternatives. c. Trail/sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the LRT line for access to Lilac Park and other destinations along the trail. The SW LRT will share its corridor with the Regional Trail through St. Louis Park. It will be on one side of the LRT tracks and in at least some locations freight rail tracks too. Supplemental trails or sidewalk should be provided on the side of the SW LRT corridor that does not have the Regional trail as a way to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist access to the stations and from the stations to surrounding land uses. In essence supplemental sidewalk/trails along with the Regional Trail would be the equivalent of having sidewalks on both sides of a street, providing safe accessibility for pedestrians no matter on which side of the SW LRT corridor they happen to be. d. Noise from LRT crossing signals and train horns must be addressed. SLP has many residents who live close to the LRT stations and will be hear LRT bells and whistles. Mitigation should be implemented to minimize the sounds of the relatively constant bells and whistles 2. Potential Improvements to the SWLRT Project: a. The Cedar Lake Regional Trail switches sides at Wooddale Avenue The SW DEIS plans show the Regional Trail users would have to make two 90-degree turns and cross the rail tracks at Wooddale to stay on the trail. This is not practical for trail users and must be redesigned to provide a continuous connection on the trail. b. An alternative alignment for the SWLRT line and location for the Louisiana Avenue Station using the switching wye should be evaluated. Moving the SW LRT line south of its current planned location in the HCRRA right-of-way, possibly using the to be vacated switching wye right of way, would move the SW LRT much closer to Methodist Hospital, and into the center of the Skunk Hollow industrial area. The hospital has several thousand employees that are just outside the half mile ideal walking distance of the proposed Louisiana station location. Moving the SW LRT line and station slightly to the south this could serve them better, boost SWLRT ridership, and reduce the need for on-site parking. It also could spur new development investments in the Skunk Hollow area. This idea needs to be evaluated in Preliminary Engineering. c. An alternate alignment in the Beltline Station Area should be considered and evaluated. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 26 19 The proposed Beltline Station location is just outside the desirable walking distance for several nearby major potential transit users. Moving the SW LRT line and station slightly south in this area could make the station more convenient to Excelsior Boulevard, the City’s Rec Center, Park Nicollet Clinic, high density housing and the commercial uses along Park Center Blvd and other retail and recreational destinations. This idea needs to be evaluated in PE. H. DEIS General concerns The SW DEIS does not evenly evaluate and compare the alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co- location). Both alternatives are consistent with the designation of the Kenilworth route as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) route for the SW light rail trains. The designation of the LPA in the Metropolitan Council’s regional Transportation Policy Plan was for the light rail train route. The designation does not specify the location for freight train traffic, and, it was approved prior to the FTA’s requirement to include freight rail routing in the SWLRT project and environmental analysis. Both alternatives 3A-1 (co-location) and 3A (relocation) re-route should be considered - and labeled as - LPA alternatives. The SW DEIS does not evenly evaluate the alternatives as it does not specify the criteria or factors used to reach its summary conclusions, or provide data in the DEIS supportive of its conclusions. Because of the use of segments, data relating to 3A-1 (co-location) includes Segment A data, and Segment A extends all the way to downtown. This means the data is not accurately capturing the comparison between the freight rail alternatives. There is a lack of supporting detailed information for conclusions reached on such items as wetlands, floodplains, park land, and community cohesion, acquisition of properties, capital costs, and economic impacts among others. For example, the total amount of wetland impacted in alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is two acres, or one third of that for alternative 3A (relocation) according to table ES.1. Yet, Table ES.2 concludes that alternative 3A-1 (co-location) “does not meet the goal” of protecting the environment and alternative 3A (relocation) is show as “some meets the goal.” This evaluation does not follow the data presented; its conclusions are erroneous. In addition, the potential impacts of increased freight rail traffic along the MN&S are minimized, such as the evaluation of impacts on community cohesion, or the evaluation of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with each alternative. In the evaluation of the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the 3A-1 (co-location) alternative in Chapter 11 of the SW DEIS, it is stated on page 11-12 that acquiring “primarily high quality, high income multi-family housing by the West Lake Street station,” is inconsistent with state, regional and local policies. What are the policies that guide acquisitions for clearly public purposes (public transit in this case) away from high income family housing are not provided. There is no explanation of why high income matters, and if it does, in the case of acquisitions for public purposes. It seems to imply there is a higher value to “high income” housing, than to what housing is impacted by freight rail relocation. It was clear during the LPA route selection process, freight rail rerouting was not a part of the Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 27 20 analysis and was not discussed in any substantive way, and therefore was not a consideration in the LPA decision. The LPA was chosen using the assumption that freight rail that would have to be relocated to achieve the LRT route. Beyond the failure of the SW DEIS to meet the requirements of the City of St. Louis Park’s Resolution 10-070, the City of St. Louis Park has many other concerns with regards to the SW DEIS. The specific concerns are described below. 1. New goal and the State Rail Plan Rationale inappropriate for SW LRT DEIS The SW DEIS introduces in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, a new goal - Goal 6 – “To support an economically competitive freight rail system,” which relates to freight rail and the State Rail Plan. This is inappropriate because: a. This goal was not adopted through any public process. b. The rationale and description for constructing connections to the MN&S tracks and re-locating freight rail to the MN&S has been broadened to be consistent with the new Goal 6. It essentially states that one of the reasons for choosing alternative 3A (relocation) is that it helps implement the State Rail Plan, provides opportunities for TC&W trains and possibly other railroads to reach places other than where TC&W trains are going today; yet the SW DEIS does not anticipate any increase in train traffic on the MN&S or evaluate the impact of trains going north of the BNSF tracks in St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and beyond. The potential impact from possible additional train traffic is reason for more robust mitigation along the MN&S route. c. All of the alternatives in the SW DEIS would need additional evaluation with this new goal; previously action was only taken on the LRT routes, not freight rail routes. d. This DEIS is supposed to be about the SW LRT project not the State Rail Plan; introducing this element is inappropriate for this plan and the SW DEIS. e. The new goal introduces many questions and complications about the impacts of the State Rail Plan; including the references to intercity rail on the MN&S tracks. f. Several other communities are impacted by the introduction of the State Rail Plan and suggestion that TC&W trains will use the CP Humboldt Yard; those cities that the MNS travels through include: Golden Valley, Crystal, Edina, and Bloomington, and they were not included in the SW DEIS process. g. Passenger rail along the MNS is discussed in the State Rail Plan and therefore would need to be addressed in relation to rerouting freight trains on the MN&S. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 28 21 2. Comparison of Freight Routing Alternatives is Incomplete a. Freight rail routing impacts are not adequately addressed or accurately evaluated in the reroute alternative 3A (relocation) b. Cost Comparison The total cost in 2012 dollars for alternative 3A-1 (co-location of freight rail) is shown to be $22,866,000 more than alternative 3A (re-routing freight rail to the MN&S) in corrected Table 8.1-1. However insufficient detail and supporting information is provided to evaluate these numbers. The cost of 3A (relocation) does not include mitigation costs on the MN&S, or any compensation to railroads for additional operations and maintenance costs. c. The evaluation of construction impacts appears arbitrary and impacts are not explained. The evaluation table in Chapter 11 shows construction impacts as “medium” in the relocation alternative (3A) versus being shown as “high” for the co-location alternative (3A-1), even though relocation of freight would have far more construction complexity and cost than co-location; with the construction of a major bridge structure near Louisiana Avenue, a new track structure in the Iron Triangle connecting to the BNSF r-o-w, and a new 1-mile long siding on the BNSF r-o- w in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. Some reconstruction of freight tracks in the Kenilworth corridor for co-location would be relatively minor in relation to the construction required to make relocation work. d. Community Cohesion inaccurately portrayed “Community Cohesion,” the evaluation of how freight rail and LRT lines will split neighborhoods is shown in table 11.1-1 page 11-5 as having “no impact” for the relocation alternative (3A) versus “slight adverse impact” in the co-location alternative (3A-1) - even though both the MN&S and the Kenilworth corridors experience freight rail traffic today, and, the Kenilworth traffic today is the train traffic that would be rerouted to the MN&S tracks. The same train traffic corridor has been judged as having a negative impact in the Kenilworth and as having no impact in the MN&S corridor. This is despite the fact that rerouting to the MN&S corridor will involve the actions and impacts listed below. i. The changes needed to accommodate the increased and rerouted trains includes closing of at least one local street, 29th Street thereby reducing the accessibility across the MN&S tracks for vehicles, bicycle and pedestrians. The neighborhoods affected by closing 29th Street are otherwise served by a traditional grid of neighborhood streets. (This is further described in section B.14 of these comments above). ii. The closed 29th Street north of Minnetonka Blvd means reduced accessibility for an approximately 30 block neighborhood east of the MN&S tracks to Hobart School, Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 29 22 Dakota Park and access to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail immediately on the west side of the MN&S tracks. iii. The MN&S tracks wind their way through the Walker Street/Library Lane/Lake Street commercial area. In one case they literally pass through an intersection on a diagonal, resulting in the potential for trains to block both streets at once, creating inconvenience for pedestrians and drivers and adversely impacting local businesses. This same area is home to the High School, the Spanish Immersion Elementary School, STEP (the local food shelf and service organization) the High School’s athletic fields and stadium, in addition to a block of businesses along Lake Street. While trains travel through and disrupt this area today, the volume is extremely low: two trains of approximately 10 cars each per day. The trains that would be relocated to the MN&S are 4 to 6 trains a day and 30 to 120 cars in length. This is a significant increase in potential disruption to community cohesion. iv. By comparison, virtually none of these conditions are present in the Kenilworth corridor or in the section of Bass Lake Spur east of the MN&S tracks. No streets are proposed to be closed in these areas if freight traffic remains in Kenilworth, no schools are located adjacent to the rail ROW, and the tracks do not bisect any commercial areas. e. Conclusion regarding continuous flow of freight rail is inaccurate. The DEIS concludes in Chapter 11 table 11.1-1, page 11-7 that the relocation alternative achieves “continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area” and that the co-location alternative does not. This is not true. Both routes for freight trains are continuous to TC&W’s current destinations. Neither alternative 3A (relocation) nor 3A-1(co-location) allows “continuous flow” to the destinations that TC&W railroad hopes to reach in the future. Neither alternative provides a direct connection southbound on the MN&S which is the route TC&W wants for future access to the grain terminals to the south. The SW DEIS presumes that TC&W would benefit from being able to access the MN&S and use it to reach places to the north that it does not seek to go. Chapter 1, pages 1-11 and 1-12 state that alternative 3A (relocation) would improve access to the Humboldt yards for TC&W via the MN&S and that access to Humboldt yards would be a better destination for TC&W trains than its current destination, St. Paul. This is stated despite the fact the MN&S tracks would result in a circuitous and time consuming route to reach TC&W’s desired location, St. Paul. Use of the MN&S to reach either St. Paul or the Humboldt yards would have negative impacts on St. Louis Park; the at grade crossing of Cedar Lake Rd in St. Louis Park would be affected and was not studied for impacts, for instance. Impacts on other communities along the route beyond St. Louis Park were also not shown in the SW DEIS. The SW DEIS presents no evidence that the TC&W has any interest in reaching the Humboldt yard or using the MN&S as a means to reach St. Paul. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 30 23 The DEIS also states in Chapter 1, page 1-12 that the new connection to the MN&S proposed in alternative 3A (relocation) would improve access for TC&W to Savage on the Minnesota River. This is not true. The connection to the MN&S proposed in the SW DEIS is only a connection to MN&S northbound. This is not an improvement for trains seeking to go south on the MN&S; and if it were used for that purpose it would increase the negative impacts of freight traffic on the MN&S as explained earlier in these comments in section D. Only adding a direct connection to MN&S southbound from the Bass Lake Spur and elimination of the Skunk Hollow wye would be an improvement in the continuous flow of freight rail traffic, and that is not part of any of the build alternatives considered in the SW DEIS. f. Improve mobility goal evaluation inaccurate The SW DEIS shows in Chapter 11, Table 11.2-1, page 11-9 that Alternative 3A, relocating freight trains, “supports” the goal of improved mobility while alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is shown as only “somewhat supports” this goal. Both alternatives support mobility. There is no difference in ridership, user benefits, travel times or cost per passenger mile between the alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co-location). Both should be judged as supporting mobility. g. Protect the environment goal conclusion incorrect This goal is shown for alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1, page 11-9 as “somewhat supports goal” vs. being shown as “does not support goal” for alternative 3A-1 (co- location) even though the data shows more wetland and floodplain impacts, among other items, for the relocation alternative. How this conclusion is reached is not documented. For Wetlands and Floodplain (4.2.2.1), Alternative 3A-1 (co-location) clearly has less impact on wetlands and floodplains. Construction of the Iron Triangle connection from the MN&S tracks to BNSF in Alternative 3A (relocation) is in both a wetland and a floodplain area and is shown to affect two acres more wetland and two acres more floodplain than alternative 3A-1 (co-location); it is difficult to understand why the environmental goal conclusion does not account for this data. The taking of .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park is shown in Table 11.1-1 under the Protect the Environment goal; however the SW DEIS does not show where this land is and does not give support for why it must be taken. The SW DEIS also does not show that the Cedar Lake bike trail could be rerouted, which could allow the park land to be avoided, rather than “taken.” Regarding Groundwater (4.1.3.4), the SW DEIS has identified potential groundwater issues near Minnehaha Creek. The reroute alignment has proposes a major railroad bridge in this area that will require substantial footings and piers. The SW DEIS table (ES-1) does not identify this as an area of potential major impacts to the ground water. These major structures would not be required in the co-location alternative. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 31 24 h. Preserve and protect the quality of life goal inaccurately judged This goal is shown for Alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1 as “support goal” vs. being shown as “does not support goal” for Alternative 3A-1 (co-location). It is stated that co-location would “divide neighborhoods” in Kenilworth neighborhood. This seems to be a completely arbitrary conclusion. Equal train traffic will have similar impacts on adjoining neighborhoods no matter which neighborhood it passes through. See the Community Cohesion discussion above. Increased freight rail traffic on the MN&S tracks will have at least as disruptive an impact on “community cohesion” on neighborhoods and Lake Street area businesses as maintaining freight rail in the Kenilworth corridor. The other specific evaluation measures listed in Table 11.1-1 on page 11-5 for this goal are property acquisitions and environmental justice. It is difficult to understand how acquisition of property relates to the quality of life goal. The question should be: what are the quality of life impacts on the residents, businesses and the community once the SW LRT project including freight rail improvements is built, not whether property is acquired to implement the project. Nonetheless, the property acquisition totals included in Table 11.1-1 overemphasize the acquisition impacts for the 3A-1 alternative and under represent them for the 3A (relocation) alternative. The 3A-1 (co-location) alternative assumes a full taking of the 57 unit townhome development along the proposed co-location freight rail tracks in the Kenilworth corridor. Acquisition of all these townhomes adds nearly 200 feet of right of way in this section of the Kenilworth corridor. While the exact location of the freight rail tracks in a co-location alternative is not yet known, it is clear that the full width of the townhome property would not be needed to accommodate the 3A-1 and create a minimum 100 foot wide corridor. Conversely, in the SW DEIS alternative 3A (relocation) and all the alternatives that include relocation of freight rail to the MN&S tracks do not include acquisition of 42 homes that are within 50 feet (in some cases much closer) of the center-line of the MN&S tracks. These acquisitions should be included in the mitigation for the 3A alternative and in the count of acquisitions included in Table 11.1-1. Neither alternatives 3A (relocation) nor 3A-1 (co-location) meet the standard for finding a disproportionate impact on minority, low income or transit dependent populations. However, there is no question that the socio-economic characteristics of the MN&S and the Kenilworth corridor are very different. Kenilworth homes are clearly higher valued than homes along the MN&S tracks, but regardless of income levels or home values the presence of freight trains have the potential to be detrimental to quality of life and the SW LRT project should include efforts to mitigate those potential negative impacts. This is especially true for the properties along the MN&S tracks. They are being asked to endure the negative impacts of increased freight rail traffic so that others can benefit of LRT within easy walking distance of their homes. Kenilworth properties would be asked to continue to endure the freight rail traffic they have today, but gain the presence and access to LRT. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 32 25 i. Support for economic development goal analysis is incomplete This goal is shown for Alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1 as “supports goal” vs. being shown as “somewhat supports goal” for alternative 3A-1 (co-location). The evaluation of the performance of the SW LRT alternatives overestimates the impact of freight rail on alternative 3A-1 (co-location), and underestimates the impact of freight rail on alternative 3A (relocation). Five LRT stations would be affected by the presence of freight trains if the co-location alternative (3A-1) were implemented. Freight train traffic has the potential for negative impacts on the development opportunities near these stations. However two of the five stations have limited development opportunity already. The Penn station already is difficult to access and must contend with the presence of BNSF freight rail traffic no matter which alternative SW LRT route is chosen. These conditions make development opportunities more challenges whether or not freight trains travel on the Kenilworth corridor. The 21st Street station also has limited development potential. It is in a fully developed single family neighborhood with limited opportunities for new development. It has a ridership shed that is almost completely to the east of the LRT tracks. Access to the station at 21st Street from the east would not be hindered by the presence of freight trains on the west side of the LRT tracks. The other three stations also have with one dominant side to the station areas. West Lake, Beltline and Wooddale all have the greatest opportunities for new development on the south and east side of the LRT station. This reduces the negative impacts of freight train in these station areas. Two LRT stations in Hopkins are co-located, yet the SW DEIS does not indicate any negative impacts to those station areas in development potential. With regards to Alternative 3A (relocation), the evaluation of this goal did not consider what impacts increased train traffic on the MN&S would have on development opportunities, nor did it consider what the negative impacts of the structure needed to connect the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks would have. Between Hwy 7 and Brunswick Avenue in St. Louis Park, the MN&S tracks wind its way past several commercial properties and businesses. Virtually all of the adjoining properties in this area are less than 50 feet away from the center line of the tracks. Many are less than 25 feet away. They experience noise and vibrations today that are detrimental to their economic strength. Increasing the train traffic significantly has the potential to be detrimental to these properties and businesses. The new structure needed to connect the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks not only requires the permanent acquisition of nearly 3 acres of commercial/industrial land and the relocation of at least one business from St. Louis Park, the structure itself will make station area development in the Louisiana Station area more difficult. Property would be taken off of the tax rolls for a reroute, reducing the economic development and redevelopment opportunities in the immediate Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 33 26 area. The proposed structure connecting the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is a very large elevated structure that will have negative visual impacts on the surrounding area in general and the development potential of the Louisiana station area specifically. These impacts were not taken into consideration in the evaluation of alternative 3A’s (relocation) of the support for economic development goal. j. Support economically competitive freight rail system goal evaluation inaccurate This goal is shown for Alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1 as “support goal” vs. being shown as “does not support goal” for Alternative 3A-1 (co-location). This was not a goal identified, discussed or endorsed in the SW LRT technical advisory or policy advisory committees of the SWLRT project during the Alternatives Analysis or the SW DEIS process. Even so, it is difficult to understand the rationale for why Alternative 3A (relocation) is shown as “supports goal”, while Alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is shown as “does not support goal”. Both alternatives are shown as providing “safe, efficient and effective movement of freight throughout the region, state and nation” according to Table 11.1-1. However, Alternative 3A (relocation) is shown to provide “continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area” and Alternative 3A- 1 (co-location) is not in Table 11.1-1. This is an error. Both routes for freight rail provide continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area. Both routes provide a means for the TC&W trains to get to their current destination. The goal of improving access via the MN&S tracks to places north of the BNSF tracks is outside of the SW DEIS study area and is out of place in the SW DEIS. Furthermore no impacts from trains traveling north of the BNSF tracks have been addressed. The TC&W has indicated that they do not have any interest in going north of the BNSF tracks to access the Humboldt Yard to interchange their normal trains. The TC&W trains are headed to St. Paul and the Humboldt yards are not a desirable alternative destination. k. Operational functionality for the RRs The SW DEIS uses the engineering designs for freight rail routes that were previously prepared outside the SW DEIS and SW LRT design process. The MN&S freight rail route is the route used in the vacated Hennepin County’s EAW on the freight railroad reroute. The Kenilworth co- location route is the route prepared by SEH for the City of St. Louis Park as part of the City’s previous investigation on the potential for freight rail co- location. The SW DEIS did not advance the engineering or analysis on either option in order to resolve issues or identify impacts to provide a fair comparison. Further analysis and design is left for the Preliminary Engineering contractor. Both options will be studied during the PE phase and any evaluation of the alternative routes in the SW DEIS at this point in the process is less than complete. Many questions regarding the MN&S for re-routing Kenilworth freight trains have been identified previously and are not addressed in the SW DEIS but should be. Among them are the following. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 34 27 i. How to deal with delays in getting on to BNSF track from the MN&S? Do railroads have to be paid for this access? There is no train operational analysis to show that the reroute is a workable alternative. A train operation model would show if the longer trains can navigate the curves and grades or will require additional locomotives, possibly using distributive power (DPU). (TC&W’s locomotives are not setup to operate as DPU). ii. There are tight curves and steep grades not usually associated with mainline operations. There are grades well in excess of 1 percent. There are no track profiles included in the SW DEIS to understand the impacts and what the grades would be. iii. The Canadian Pacific Railroad (CP) and the Twin Cities & Western Railroad (TC&W) both submitted comments during the EAW process that show major issues with the reroute design. The SW DEIS does not address any of those concerns. Are there any agreements with the railroad companies regarding the reroute already in place? iv. The CP and TC&W have indicated that they would not accept ownership of the new structures; it is unclear what entity would own and maintain the track and structures, and no indication of what it would cost. v. The EAW and SW DEIS anticipates that the MN&S track would be out of service for up to 1 month during construction, which is unacceptable to the CP and its customers. vi. The EAW showed the bridge for moving freight rail over the LRT and connecting to the MN&S would have a vertical clearance of just 20’ 6” over the track; Minnesota statutory requirement for clearance is 22’. This means the bridge for freight rail would have to be even higher than currently shown. vii. The SW DEIS did not provide any additional noise and vibration field data that would help calibrate the noise and vibration models. During the EAW process, the models were based on limited data on current MN&S trains and did not use long, heavy train data or provide accurate information on impacts. It also did not include inclines and curves in its analysis; or review the potential noise and vibrations from trains idling on the proposed new BNSF siding. viii. A derailment study should be done to determine the risk of the trains transferring to the MN&S. ix. The LRT drawings in the SW DEIS show that freight tracks will terminate at Wooddale Avenue. The TC&W has indicated that they will need track east of the Skunk Hollow wye to switch about 60 car trains from the south. The DEIS must include elimination of the skunk hollow switching wye and provision of a south connection to the MN&S for this to happen. It is not shown. x. The reroute for the TC&W trains works only for north or east bound trains. The movement to the south towards Savage is still inefficient and very difficult to accomplish. Unless a new southern connection is made to the MN&S, the railroads would be required to maintain the Skunk Hollow wye or use the new siding along the BNSF to run around the train to access the MN&S south. The railroad operators would not agree to this movement, and it would have an impact on the BNSF tracks. The going north to go Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 35 28 south movement would require the southbound trains to pass through the MN&S track twice and the approval of the BNSF. Neither of these issues is discussed in the SW DEIS. If the Skunk Hollow wye is eliminated, there is a customer west of Louisiana that would have its rail access severed and would have to be relocated. xi. If the reroute alternative is chosen, there should be several modifications to the grades, curves and right of way needed to improve safety and operations. 1. The minimum right of way should be 100 feet wide. 2. The curves and grades need smoothing to minimize the roller coaster affect. 3. The area near Louisiana Avenue should be rethought. Assuming that there are no freight tracks east of the existing MN&S bridge the LRT and reroute grades could be adjusted to lower the overall height. The depth of structure should also be reviewed to lower the height. l. Circulation in Minnetonka Boulevard area There should be a circulation study in the area north of Minnetonka Boulevard to evaluation how to minimize the impacts of the proposed closing of 29th Street. One option should include new bridges, pedestrian trails and noise buffers. m. Impacts of areas adjacent to Iron Triangle and new siding on BNSF The reroute has a major impact to wetland and flood plain in the iron triangle area (section g above). Presumably, this is why the tables show an increase of two acres in impact to the wetlands and two acres to the floodplain over the co-location alternative. The north edge or the iron triangle also forms the boundary of the known peat deposit. This peat deposit could easily extend into the wetland and could require extensive geotechnical treatment that may impact additional wetland or flood plain areas. Important to note is that the track profile is 1.5 % in this area. This violates normal mainline railroad design guidelines. To resolve the profile issue, the track may need to rise, resulting in a much greater impact. Table 4.2.2 suggests that a bridge over the wetland as a potential mitigation measure but the plans or capital cost estimate do not include the cost of this structure. The iron triangle area is also a difficult area to access for construction. There is no analysis of impacts to the environment for construction access to this area. The only non-wetland public access is via the Cedar Lake Trail. n. Segment data Because of the use of segments for specific areas in the SW DEIS, data relating to 3A-1 (co- location) includes Segment A data, and Segment A extends all the way to downtown Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 36 29 Minneapolis. This means the data is adding too much information to the freight rail comparison and not accurately capturing the comparison between the freight rail alternatives. o. Train and rail-car counts need documentation Table 2.3-2 states existing number of trains on the MN&S tracks are one round trip train of 10 to 30 cars daily. There is no back up documentation to support this statement. The MN&S Freight Rail Report is given as the source for the information in the table, however there is no source or documentation for these numbers footnoted in the MN&S Freight Rail report either. The DEIS should establish by actual train and rail car counts the current level of freight rail traffic on the MN&S tracks. This is important base information needed in order to understand the impact of rerouting trains from Kenilworth to the MN&S. Experience in recent years suggests that the typical trains on the MN&S tracks are much shorter than 30 rail cars in length. Ten to 15 rail-car trains and sometimes even shorter trains are typical on the MN&S five days a week today. The number of trains and number of rail-cars stated in Table 2.3-2 is also noted as from the MN&S Freight Rail Report and should be updated with better and more fully documented information. Bob Suko, with TC&W indicated that a more accurate description of the TC&W rail operations today (12/14/12) would be the following. 1. 6-7 days per week regular train service with 65-75 cars both ways 2. 110 car unit grain trains at about 3.0 per week assuming 1.5 loaded and 1.5 empty per week 3. Ethanol is 80 car units between 6-8 per month 1/2 empty and 1/2 loaded 4. About 12-15 unit coal trains annually, no empty return 5. About 12-15 loaded DDG unit trains annually The significance of these numbers and importance of accurate numbers, is that the greater the number of trains and rail cars the more noise, vibration and disruption in the communities where the trains travel. There is no guarantee that future conditions will be the same as current conditions, but they are at least one indication of the train traffic that the communities will experience. Today the MN&S tracks are handling something on the order of 150 rail cars a week. If the TC&W trains currently operating in Kenilworth are rerouted to the MN&S that would mean the MN&S would experience an additional 1,300-1,500 rail cars per week, a 1000% increase. 3. Traffic Impact Comments a. Transit Effects The transit ridership was prepared using standard, accepted methods available at the time the draft was prepared. Station boardings are provided for each station in Appendix H, but no conclusions can be drawn specific to the reasonableness of those estimates. It is our understanding that the transit Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 37 30 ridership will be updated as part of the design phase using newly available information for the FEIS, such as the 2010 Transit On Board Survey. b. Effects on Roadways The initial comment regarding a single growth factor was not addressed in the revised DEIS. The year 2030 traffic forecasts were developed by applying a growth factor to the existing (year 2010) traffic volumes. The regional model was used to determine growth, but a single 1.12 factor continues to be applied along the entire corridor. Generally, it can be expected that this approach would understate developing area growth and overstate fully developed area growth, but specific roadways may be differently affected. A “risk assessment” approach could be used at intersections with failing or near-failing levels of service to determine the extent to which a higher growth assumption would affect the conclusions of the analysis. An existing and future intersection operations analysis was completed using the Synchro/SimTraffic software. It is stated that Synchro/SimTraffic does not have the direct capacity to model LRT. The Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update in Appendix H also states that each station and the impacts on operations and circulation will be addressed in a detailed analysis as part of the FEIS. It is our understanding that VISSIM will be used to better assess LRT operations in the design phase of the SW LRT. The operations analysis completed for year 2017 and 2030 build conditions identified intersections that are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Further analysis of the potential mitigation measures will be addressed in the FEIS. The Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update in Appendix H includes assumptions related to future LRT and freight trains operating in the Kenilworth corridor. The operations analysis assumes a freight train with 30 cars at 60 feet each, traveling at 10 mph. This results in 150 seconds for a freight train to cross an intersection. According to field observations conducted for the City in 2011, a freight train traveling across Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard required 10 minutes of vehicular delay during the morning peak hour. The significant difference between the observed delay and assumed delay for a freight train crossing could have a measurable impact on the operations analysis results for 2018 and 2030. In addition, the Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update results state that “these queues are not anticipated to impact the signal operations at the high volume intersection of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard”. Further analysis of this issue should be addressed as part of the FEIS. The At-Grade Queue Analysis in Appendix H includes the details of the queuing impacts related to various freight train lengths. This technical memorandum dated May 31, 2012 was completed after the Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update (March 21, 2012). This analysis further evaluated the 30-car train at 10 mph, in addition to a 120-car train at 10 mph. The results of the 2010 and 2030 analysis identified significant queues impacting adjacent intersections along the Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard corridors for the 30-car and 120-car scenarios. The general note Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 38 31 summarizing the analysis states that “a scenario in which a train arrives during this relatively short timeframe is possible, but would likely be a relatively rare occurrence”. As previously stated, further analysis of this issue should be addressed as part of the FEIS. The Operational Impacts at Intersections section describes the analysis conducted to identify LRT impacts on intersection operations to determine “how well intersections function to move traffic and pedestrians”. However, this section is limited to vehicular and freight rail traffic. The Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update in Appendix H states that pedestrians were not modeled due to low pedestrian counts. The impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through the intersections and roadways near the LRT stations should be considered in the FEIS. This should also include impacts on the regional trail at-grade crossing in close proximity to the future LRT alignment. 4. Vacated EAW The re-routing of trains from Kenilworth to the MN&S tracks is not a new idea. It is a concept that was the focus of an EAW that was prepared in submitted in 2011 and later that year vacated. While that process is not acknowledged in the SW DEIS, it appears that the design for the re-route proposed in the SW DEIS and the evaluation of that design is identical to the work done for the vacated 2011 EAW, with no new analyses. In 2011 the City carefully reviewed the EAW and found it to be inadequate. The City hired its own independent consultant (SEH) to help review the EAW, identify potential alternative routes for freight rail and analyze the potential of freight rail in both the MN&S and the Kenilworth routes. One of those alternative Kenilworth routes formed the basis for the SW DEIS co-location alternative (Alternative 3A-1). Since the SW DEIS essentially incorporates the 2011 EAW and SEH concept plan, the City is submitting as part of its comments on the SW DEIS, its comments on the 2011 EAW and the four technical memos prepared by SEH regarding freight rail and the freight rail alternative routes. All of the materials St. Louis Park previously submitted are attached. 5. Freight Rail Easement description in error In the Implementation of Freight Rail Relocation section of Chapter 2, page 2-27, the DEIS says that “A perpetual easement across the remediated property for the proposed freight rail connection was granted by Hennepin County to the City of St. Louis Park….”. This is incorrect. The City was required as a condition of an Environmental Remediation Fund (ERF) grant to secure an easement for the area anticipated to be needed for connecting Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S. The City holds the easement which was granted by the redeveloper of the former National Lead site. Real Estate Recycling received contamination cleanup grants from Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the State of Minnesota, as well as tax-increment financing from the City of St. Louis Park so as to facilitate the construction of the Highway 7 Corporate Center on the north portion of the property. As a result of that redevelopment project, the City of St. Louis Park holds the easement for rail purposes across the southern portion of the site. If the easement is not needed for a rail re-route Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 39 32 connection, it is anticipated that the easement would be released making it possible to construct another building in the southern portion of the site. The easement was secured by the City of St. Louis Park in 2006. The area included in the easement was based on the plan included in the 1999 St. Louis Park Railroad Study. It is important to note that the 1999 St. Louis Park Freight Rail Study contemplated that the complete connection between the Bass Lake Spur and the MN&S could be accomplished in existing right of way and an easement across the former National Lead site. The improvement was expected to involve new track starting at Louisiana Avenue and continuing east toward the MN&S tracks, eventually curving to the north and connecting with the MN&S tracks just before (to the south of) the railroad bridge over Hwy 7. The project as proposed in the DEIS is dramatically bigger than what was anticipated in 1999. It starts roughly 2000 feet west of Louisiana Avenue instead of at Louisiana Avenue. It requires the taking of temporary and permanent easements; and, acquisition of property and relocation of businesses on the south side of the Bass Lake Spur right of way that was never anticipated in 1999. It requires the construction of a new bridge over Hwy 7, and construction of new MN&S track south of Hwy 7 for roughly 1000 feet, neither of which was anticipated in 1999. These actions are in addition to using the easement secured and held by the City of St. Louis Park. The history of how TC&W trains came to be in Kenilworth in the late ‘90’s and what role the MN&S alternative route played in that decision may be hard to sort out. Many people have different opinions of what the history of that decision is, but it is absolutely clear that the scope and character of the project to connect the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is dramatically different from what was envisioned in the late ‘90’s. That is a key reason why a complete and accurate evaluation of the actual specific current proposal should be the basis for a decision on the appropriate SWLRT alternative. The project envisioned over 10 years ago is not the project proposed today. 6. Comments on the 12/12/12 DEIS update regarding questions from the Surface Transportation Board. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is an economic regulatory agency that Congress charged with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. The STB is an independent decision-making board, although it is administratively affiliated with the Department of Transportation. The STB serves as both an adjudicatory and a regulatory body. The agency has jurisdiction over railroad rate and service issues and rail restructuring transactions (mergers, line sales, line construction, and line abandonments) plus other transportation issues. The STB accepted an invitation by the FTA to be cooperative agency for the SW LRT project. The freight railroad issues on the SW LRT project may or may not be under the jurisdiction of the STB. HCRRA on December 10, 2012 answered a series of questions from the STB on the SW LRT DEIS. These questions and responses were posted on the project website on December 12, 2012. The City comments for submittal on December 31 on the entire SW LRT DEIS cover many of the issues Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 40 33 raised by the STB but they are spread throughout the DEIS comments. The City is preparing comments on the STB questions and the HCRRA responses specifically for submittal with our comments on the DEIS. Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 41 EIS PROCESS • December 31, 2012 – deadline for written comments on DEIS • Review of DEIS comments by Metropolitan Council as lead agency for development of the final EIS • Preparation of final EIS by Metropolitan Council • Preliminary engineering continues during preparation of final EIS. (Final Design activities, property acquisition and contracting cannot occur until the completion of the EIS process) • Final EIS shall respond to DEIS comments. Responses may include the following: 1. Modify alternatives including the proposed action. 2. Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency. 3. Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. 4. Make factual corrections. 5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response. • FTA approval and publication of final EIS • Minimum 30 day final EIS comment period • FTA completes and signs a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after publication of the final EIS. The ROD will present the basis for the decision, summarize any required mitigation measures and document any 4(f) approval relating to park land impacts. • Six month time period to initiate any court action challenging EIS Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 42 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: City Council Workshop RECOMMENDED ACTION: Advise staff on moving forward with preparations for the workshop. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What would the City Council like to accomplish at the upcoming workshop? BACKGROUND: For a number of years the City Council has had annual workshops for the purpose of strengthening relationships to ensure a High Performing Council and to spend time on bigger picture policy related issues. For the upcoming workshop staff would suggest the following as discussion topics: Friday (late afternoon/evening) In order to be a High Performing City Council it is important to understand the dynamics of the Council. As such, it is proposed the Council spend reflective learning time on further developing relationships, understanding roles, and brushing up on the City’s approach to governance (Carver Governance Model). Saturday (morning and afternoon) As discussed during the City Managers evaluation, it is proposed that a significant part of the day be spent discussing bigger picture policy issues related to the City’s adopted Mission and Values statements, the four adopted Strategic Directions, and the establishment of priorities that are in alignment with these statements and directions. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of the workshop is provided for in the City’s budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: The proposed agenda is directly in alignment with Vision SLP and the four Strategic Directions. Attachment: 2013-14 Planning/Alignment Chart Prepared by: Bridget Gothberg, Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Planning Mission & Value Statements Vision Strategic Direction Short Term Goals/ Priorities Plan of Action Budget Performance Management • St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. • St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consiousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. • St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. • St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. Our Mission Deliver responsive municipal services to ensure a safe, welcoming and vital community now and in the future. Our Values Respect We are stewards of the public trust who treat our colleagues and those we serve courteously, openly and equitably. Contribution We are committed to lifelong learning, personal accountability, and collaboration to ensure our best contrib- iution to this community. Stewardship We are responsible for our community’s human, environmental and financial resources. 2013-2014 Special Study Session Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: City Council Workshop Page 2 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 1. Call to Order President Santa called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. Commissioners present: President Sue Santa, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: Steve Hallfin. Staff present: Deputy Executive Director (Ms. Deno), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes August 20, 2012 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 5. Reports 5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Mavity, to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period August 11, 2012, through August 24, 2012. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Hallfin absent). 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business 7a. 2013 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification. EDA Resolution No. 12-13 Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and stated the City has historically used the HRA levy to fund infrastructure projects, e.g., Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue. He indicated the City's portion of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue project will be paid from the HRA levy fund and is consistent with the City's Long Range Financial Management Plan. He advised the maximum HRA levy is 0.0185% of the City's taxable market value for 2013 EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2012 or $900,933, an $82,641 decrease from the 2012 HRA levy. He noted that the HRA levy decrease is due to the lower taxable market value in the City and the State's elimination of the Market Value Homestead Credit and replacing it with the Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program. It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to approve EDA Resolution No. 12-13 Authorizing the Proposed Levy of a Special Benefit Levy Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and Approval of a Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Hallfin absent). 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 1. Call to Order President Santa called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. Commissioners present: President Sue Santa, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - None 4. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as presented. 5. Reports 5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period August 25, 2012, through September 14, 2012. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business 7a. Preliminary Development Agreement between the EDA and 9920 Hotels LLC. EDA Resolution No. 12-14 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained the City has declared the former Santorini restaurant at 9920 Wayzata Boulevard to be a public health hazard. He stated the property presents a prime redevelopment opportunity, which may or may not require financial assistance in the future. He advised there is currently no redevelopment proposal but the EDA may wish to provide tax increment financing at this location in the future and in order to do so, the EDA must enter into an agreement with the current owner prior to removal of the building. This agreement states the property owner agrees to demolish the building on the site at its expense and the EDA agrees to work with the EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Subject: EDA Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2012 owner towards redevelopment of the property. He noted one minor revision to Section 1(a) of the proposed Preliminary Development Agreement which states the parties agree that such demolition shall occur no later than December 31, 2012, or the date required under any City demolition order and this provision has been revised to state the parties agree that such demolition shall occur no later than December 1, 2012. He stated this revision moves the deadline up by thirty days and removes any ambiguities in the wording. He advised that approval of the Preliminary Development Agreement does not commit the EDA to provide tax increment financing and simply preserves the EDA's ability to create a TIF district on the property should it choose to do so at a later date. It was moved by Commissioner Ross, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to approve EDA Resolution No. 12-14 Approving Preliminary Development Agreement between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and 9920 Hotels, LLC. The motion passed 7-0. 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Secretary President Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 5a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: EDA Vendor Claims RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period September 15 through December 7, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: EDA Vendor Claims Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:41:55 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 9/15/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 525.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS APA 525.00 442.00 ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A LEGAL SERVICES CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC 60.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 960.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES 1,462.00 25,000.00 VICTORIA PONDS G&A REFERENDUM - TAX INC. PAY CAR PROPERTIES 25,000.00 20.89 WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 20.93 ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 TRUNK HWY 7 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 508.39 HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 215.89 PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 HOIGAARD VILLAGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.89 HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,475.00 346,690.00 DEED - E2 SOIL REMEDIATION ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR LLC 346,690.00 176.34 7015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GREEN HORIZONS 256.50 TH 7-LOUISIANA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 153.90 PARK COMMONS G&A LAND MAINTENANCE 586.74 5,690.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC 5,690.00 630.00 HARD COAT LEGAL SERVICES KENNEDY & GRAVEN 144.00 HSTI G&A LEGAL SERVICES 1,320.11 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 5a) Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 2 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:41:55 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 2 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 9/15/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 2,094.11 700.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING LEARNING JOURNEYS 700.00 9,000.00 HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICES LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 9,000.00 105.81 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING MCMONIGAL, MEG 1.75 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE 155.95 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 263.51 420.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS MNCAR EXCHANGE 420.00 5,625.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MYKLEBUST & STAN SEARS, ANDREA 5,625.00 500.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS NAIOP 500.00 625.72 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONE NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 625.72 16.96 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 16.96 14,955.37 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING SEH 14,955.37 6,308.12 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 6,308.12 193,797.85 CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-VISION ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS 193,797.85 200.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY 200.00 19.27 WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SUN NEWSPAPERS 19.27 ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 5a) Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 3 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:41:55 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 3 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 9/15/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 19.27 TRUNK HWY 7 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.27 HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 269.78 90.00 DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 90.00 Report Totals 616,295.16 EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 5a) Subject: EDA Vendor Claims Page 4 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 7a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: Special Meeting TITLE: 2013 Final HRA Levy Certification RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2013 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2013. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to levy the maximum percentage allowable by law of 0.0185% of taxable market value collectible in 2013 for purposes of funding infrastructure improvements in redeveloping areas of the City? BACKGROUND: This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analyses for future improvement projects. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly transportation infrastructure such as Highway 7 and Louisiana, the City’s current budgeted share to be paid from the HRA Levy Fund is $12,095,500 with another $200,000 from the Utility Funds. Council approved on September 4, 2012 that the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2013 budget year. By state statute, the HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the taxable market value of the City. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2013 to be $900,933 based on data from Hennepin County. This is an $82,641 decrease from the 2012 Final HRA Levy of $983,574 due to a lower taxable market value in the City and change from the Market Value Homestead Credit being replaced with the Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program in 2012. As indicated in the resolution, the EDA is allowed to authorize the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the City Council. Council action is required before certification, which is scheduled occur on December 17, 2012 also. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly related to transportation needs, staff is recommending the EDA adopt the resolution authorizing the proposed HRA levy. VISION CONSIDERATION: This levy supports St. Louis Park being a connected and engaged community relative to transportation connections. EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Subject: 2013 Final HRA Levy Certification Attachments: Resolution Authorizing 2013 Final HRA Levy & 2013 Preliminary HRA Budget 2013 HRA Levy Preliminary Budget Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Subject: 2013 Final HRA Levy Certification ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2013 AND APPROVAL OF THE EDA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA Act; and WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable market value of the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with the budget procedures of the City; and WHEREAS, based upon this budget, the Authority will levy all or such portion of the authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority: 1. The special benefit tax levy budget of $900,933 for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year 2013, as presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all respects approved, by the Authority for certification of the tax levy under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07. 2. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file a budget with the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6. 3. The special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to .0185 percent of taxable market value in City of St. Louis Park, 4. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes in 2013. EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Subject: 2013 Final HRA Levy Certification Passed and duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority this 17th day of December, 2012. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 17, 2012 Executive Director President Attest: Secretary EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Subject: 2013 Final HRA Levy Certification HRA Levy 2013 Final Budget December 17, 2012 2011 2012 2013 Actual Final Budget Budget Revenues: Property Tax Levy 989,016$ 983,574$ 900,933$ Market Value Homestead Credit 31,747$ -$ -$ Interest Income 93,269 70,000 85,422 Total Revenue 1,114,032$ 1,053,574$ 986,355$ Expenditures: Infrastructure Projects -$ -$ 9,234,174$ Legislative Lobbying Services 52,867 - - Total Expenditures 52,867$ -$ 9,234,174$ Net Transfers (1,549,826)$ -$ 3,100,000$ Beginning Fund Balance 5,102,896$ 4,614,235$ 5,667,809$ Net Change in Fund Balance (488,661)$ 1,053,574$ (5,147,819)$ Ending Fund Balance 4,614,235$ 5,667,809$ 519,990$ Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 7b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Approve Fund Transfer – Housing Rehabilitation Fund to Park Center TIF District RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund transfer. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does the EDA approve the proposed fund transfer from the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to the Park Center TIF District? BACKGROUND: A transfer of $500,000 is recommended from the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to the Park Center TIF District. This is a housekeeping item for year-end items and will ensure consistency in the financial reporting the City is required to provide. This transfer is needed to ensure we have recorded proper funding levels and to have official action on the transaction. Staff has been working on analysis for these two funds as we move into the upcoming year. Further analysis of these two funds will be done and future transfers to fund eligible housing programs will likely be recommended. These recommendations will be presented to Council in the future when staff completes the analysis work. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The action recommended will allow for consistency in financial reporting requirements. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Fund Transfer Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager EDA Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 7b) Page 2 Subject: Approve Fund Transfer – Housing Rehabilitation Fund to Park Center TIF District ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDA RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND TRANSFER WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority has created various special purpose funds; and WHEREAS, fund transfers may be required to reallocate amounts between funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority: Approval is hereby given to the Controller to make a fund transfer as shown. Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount Housing Rehabilitation Fund Park Center TIF District $ 500,000 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority December 17, 2012 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 2a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Recognition of Kathy Larsen’s 13 Years of Service RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to read the certificate and recognize Housing Programs Coordinator Kathy Larsen for her more than 13 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. BACKGROUND: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 10 years of service will be presented with a framed certificate from the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council. Kathy Larsen has retired after more than 13 years of service to the City’s Community Development Department. Kathy will be in attendance at this meeting. The Mayor is asked to read the certificate and present it to her in recognition of her years of service. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: None Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 2b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Retirement Recognition for Bill Thurston, Engineering Technician III RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present a plaque to Bill Thurston in recognition of his 40 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: City p olicy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council. Public Works Department Engineering Technician III Bill Thurston will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The Mayor is asked to read the resolution and present Bill with a plaque in recognition of his years of service to the City. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 2b) Page 2 Subject: Retirement Recognition for Bill Thurston, Engineering Technician III RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO WILLIAM THURSTON WHEREAS, Bill Thurston began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 40 years ago on May 30, 1972; and WHEREAS, Bill has been an asset to the City of St. Louis Park for his commitment and dedication to the Public Works Department as an engineering technician, inspector, project manager, public right-of-way safety coordinator, and overall public servant; and WHEREAS, Bill’s service has assisted and contributed to the successful completion of many public and private infrastructure improvements that have contributed to the safety and quality of life of the St. Louis Park community for years to come; and WHEREAS, Bill was a 2000 Spirit of St. Louis Park Award winner; and WHEREAS, Bill has served an exemplary career as a consistent and reliable steward of the public’s resources and trust; and WHEREAS, Bill looks forward to retirement when he will spend more time with family, traveling, enjoying and appreciating life; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this Resolution and public record, would like to thank Public Works Engineering Technician, William Thurston, for his great contributions and 40 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 26, 2012 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guest: Mr. Dave McKenzie (SEH Consulting). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 3 & December 10, 2012 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for December 3, 2012, and the proposed study session agenda for December 10, 2012. He indicated if Council needs more time to discuss the DEIS, this item could be added to the December 3rd special study session agenda and/or the December 10th study session agenda, followed by formal approval at a special City Council meeting on December 10th. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and advised that the light shields on the fields can be painted or changed out to reduce glare. She stated that a manufacturer has indicated that an advanced glare control package has been developed but requires replacement of the luminaire. She stated the proposed Ordinance requires that lights include a glare control package when replaced and the estimated cost for retrofitting light fixtures with the new luminaire assemblies is approximately $60,000 per athletic field. Councilmember Ross stated her primary concern was the potential cost to the City to retrofit its parks and did not want the City to have to retrofit its lighting if the current lighting is not a problem and neighbors are not complaining. She questioned whether the Ordinance could be written in such a way that lighting would not need to be replaced if the current lighting is not an issue for a particular neighborhood. Councilmember Santa stated a lot of people live near parks and live with the glare but felt that just because someone lives near a park was not a reason to be inconsiderate of them and some residents might not complain unless you ask them. She stated she felt the City should swap out all the lights, as they are due for replacement. Councilmember Ross agreed that the lights should be replaced as they come due but not before. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 26, 2012 Councilmember Sanger felt the City ought to swap out the lighting at all of its parks and that the City should set a schedule for replacing the lights in its CIP and should also require private fields to do the same. She stated that Benilde painted some of their lights but not all, which has helped but has not resolved all of the problems. Councilmember Mavity stated she was sympathetic to the residents complaining about the lighting at Benilde and understood their frustration, but did not feel it was a good use of City money to spend $60,000 per field to swap out the lighting and could not justify spending approximately $500,000 for this purpose. She stated she was willing to further discuss the Benilde situation but was not sure if there was a way the City could make it more manageable for residents. Councilmember Spano asked if the City could effectively paint the City's light fixtures and how effective that would be in reducing glare. Ms. McMonigal replied she did not know the cost of painting the light shields and advised that the City has been changing out its light fixtures as needed and replacing them with the best glare restrictive package available. She stated three fixtures have the most recent glare control package and there are at least four fixtures with no glare control, including the high school and Benilde. Councilmember Sanger requested confirmation that the replacement of lighting is already in the CIP. Mr. Harmening replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Hallfin felt the City should do its best to eliminate glare at all fields on an as needed basis and per complaints. He stated he felt Benilde wants to be in compliance with the Ordinance and was not sure Benilde could have done anything different in that regard adding that the recent painting seems to help control glare. Councilmember Sanger felt the City should prioritize this retrofitting to the extent there is a problem. She added she felt that Benilde should be required to change out their lights. Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about picking and choosing which lights to replace without some measurable standards by which lights should be replaced. Councilmember Spano stated he would like the Ordinance to include a more robust mention of landscaping to shield views of the field as well as to protect homes from glare. Mayor Jacobs stated he shared Councilmember Mavity's concerns regarding selective enforcement and spending unnecessary money. He indicated he would like to encourage Benilde to paint all their lights black and then measure the result. Mr. Harmening noted that the Ordinance does not speak to requiring replacement within a certain time period and agreed that the City should not pick and choose which lights are replaced based on complaints from the neighbors and the Ordinance needs to have a level playing field that applies to everyone in the City. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 26, 2012 Councilmember Sanger stated the Ordinance should include a date certain for replacing lights and agreed compliance should not be based on complaints. She suggested the City set a threshold measurement such that if the glare is more than "x" at residential property lines then the lights need to be replaced within a certain time period; otherwise, the lights need to be replaced by a certain date. Mayor Jacobs stated he was comfortable requiring that lights be replaced as they wear out over the course of time. Councilmember Ross stated she would be comfortable with a combination of requiring lights to be replaced as they wear out as well as requiring lights to be replaced that are a problem in a neighborhood. She added some residents might have to wait a long time for the lights in their neighborhood to wear out and be replaced. Councilmember Spano stated he would be comfortable with no timelines if it is determined that painting the shrouds black reduces glare and makes a noticeable improvement and to replace the lights as needed. Councilmember Hallfin acknowledged Councilmember Sanger's concerns but was concerned about the arbitrary period of time and did not want a time frame written into the Ordinance. Councilmember Santa stated she did not like the arbitrary periods of time and felt that replacing the lights as they wear out was sufficient. She noted that the City has already replaced lighting at five of ten fields and this seems to be a workable plan. It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to not include specific time parameters in the Ordinance and to include only performance standards for new lighting in the Ordinance. 3. Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and proposed comments to the SWLRT DEIS. Mr. Locke distributed a memo from HDR Engineering containing a notice of correction regarding a typographical error in Table 8.1-1 of the DEIS. He explained that the Professional Services line item for the LRT 3A-1 co-location alternative was incorrectly stated as $99,357 (in thousands) and should be $199,357 (in thousands) which changes the total cost estimate for co- location to $1,171,770,000. He added that all the analysis done and all comments assumed the correct number so the conclusions drawn in the DEIS have not been altered by this change. He indicated that Mr. McKenzie was not previously asked to estimate the total cost of the light rail project, and the City has asked for more detailed information behind the numbers in the DEIS so that it is easier to compare DEIS freight rail cost estimates with the work done by Mr. McKenzie and Kimley Horn during the MN&S process. He also presented the freight rail alternatives cost comparison table and MN&S mitigation measures that the City produced earlier this year. Councilmember Spano stated that he felt the tone of the City's comments on the DEIS were too pejorative and that the City's comments could be better spent focusing strictly on the facts. He felt that staff did a great job of laying out all the concerns regarding relocation of freight rail but did not spend enough time talking about the issues generated with co-location. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 26, 2012 Councilmember Mavity agreed with Councilmember Spano and stated that the DEIS comments have to be evidence based. She stated that the DEIS comments refer to trains being rerouted from Minneapolis to St. Louis Park, and she represents a ward where trains are idling, switching, and parking for several hours. She was concerned that the DEIS represents an unfair portrayal of what is actually going on in the community. Mr. Harmening stated that the City's introductory comments indicate that the DEIS does not compare both routes equitably, and the DEIS suggests no disruption with MN&S alternative but there is with Kenilworth, and the facts would demonstrate that that statement is not accurate. Councilmember Mavity stated that Council previously reviewed Mr. McKenzie's modeling done at Beltline and the delays at the light rail stations should the trains be co-located would cause significant traffic back-ups. She indicated that does not happen on the MN&S route according to Mr. McKenzie's modeling and urged the City to make sure its comments are based on these studies. She felt that the City needs to be more specific about what mitigation is needed if the trains are co-located and what mitigation is needed if the trains are rerouted. She stated that the DEIS comments should reference the 2001 position adopted by Council and should state that the City welcomes light rail but that it has issues with both co-location and rerouting. Councilmember Sanger agreed and indicated that the DEIS comments need to highlight that the co-location option is still cheaper than the reroute option and the DEIS numbers do not include the cost of mitigation in St. Louis Park which were estimated at $50 million. She stated the DEIS does not do much in the way of analyzing co-location even though they were told to do so by the FTA and the DEIS states that co-location will not work because of the use of park land. She stated the statutes referenced in the DEIS related to use of park land for transportation purposes indicate that in order to say park land cannot be used for transportation purposes an analysis must be done in which a prudent and feasible alternative is assessed including cost and whether there are still impacts to the community after mitigation; no mitigation has been offered in the DEIS. She stated the City needs to indicate what it needs for mitigation, the approximate cost, and why it is important. She stated the issues with the wye are serious and the City needs to highlight the need for a southern interconnect to replace the wye as well as the issues for the northern neighborhoods if the northern connection is used to provide access to the south on the MN&S, adding that the railroads have said they will not do that. She stated the DEIS comments also need to highlight the fact that there is nothing in the DEIS about whether the railroads have agreed to the interconnects, maintenance on the interconnects, or whether the County has reached agreement with the railroads; without that information, the City cannot fairly assess the cost. She stated that Goal 6 is new and there was no public process to get that into the DEIS and they have not involved Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, and other communities that may be affected by rail traffic going through their communities. She indicated if the DEIS is saying train traffic is disruptive to neighborhoods in the Kenilworth area then train traffic is equally disruptive to neighborhoods in St. Louis Park and there appears to be a lack of objectivity in the DEIS for either route. She agreed with Councilmember Mavity's comment regarding the issues with the wye and agreed the wye needs to be removed regardless of which alternative is chosen. She stated that the City previously provided a copy of Mr. McKenzie's study regarding co-location that showed how it could be done and the City has never received any feedback that says this works. She stated the County has never looked at whether co-location can work if the bike trail is moved and felt it was moving a bike trail that made the Kenilworth alternative cheaper and that could resolve the park land issue. She stated that costs of mitigation were not included in the DEIS cost analysis and the DEIS does not acknowledge that homes need to be taken in the City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 26, 2012 City. She stated the noise issue has not been adequately addressed and the DEIS asserts that whistle quiet zones will solve the problem but the DEIS does not acknowledge that the railroads have said they would not honor the request to not blow their horns by the high school because of the blind curves in this area. She indicated the DEIS has not done a traffic analysis in St. Louis Park and the DEIS does not adequately address the quality of life impact of light rail. She added it appears the DEIS seems to ascribe all of the quality of life problems to freight rail in Kenilworth without acknowledging issues of traffic or noise in St. Louis Park; in addition, the DEIS makes some comment about the economic impact in Minneapolis if trains are co-located but there is no equivalent analysis for the impact to businesses in St. Louis Park. She suggested the DEIS comments clearly state the need for eliminating the wye and what is required to make that work. She stated there is nothing in the DEIS comments about mitigation for the neighborhoods along the tracks north of Cedar Lake Road if the trains go north into Golden Valley and the resulting impacts north of the BN tracks. She stated the DEIS needs to provide its rationale for why co-location is a problem in Kenilworth but co-location is okay for suburbs to the west on the proposed SWLRT plans. Councilmember Santa agreed with Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger regarding eliminating the wye. She indicated the 4f considerations are inadequate and the City needs to tell them what is inadequate. She stated there needs to be more information regarding construction impacts given the DEIS statement that construction impacts are "medium." She expressed concern regarding community cohesion and stated she did not know what was meant by the "preserve and protect the quality of life" goal or the "protect the environment" goal and felt they were meaningless goals if they are not defined. She added she would like to see more comment about the wetlands and floodplain impact in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Ross agreed with the earlier comments and stated she would like to see more persuasive and decisive DEIS comments particularly related to mitigation. She indicated she wanted further information regarding how her ward will be impacted by trains going through the area. She added the DEIS comments need to point out that the reroute is fiscally irresponsible. Councilmember Hallfin commended staff for its work on the draft DEIS comments. Councilmember Mavity stated the City's comments to the DEIS should state persuasively and decisively what the City wants and suggested the introductory comments state that the City welcomes light rail and it will bring many positive benefits and challenges to St. Louis Park and that the City will need mitigation to accommodate light rail. She felt the DEIS comments should then detail the mitigation needed if trains are rerouted or co-located. She asked how many homes would be taken on the reroute within the 100' right of way. Mr. Locke replied that approximately 40 homes would be taken. Councilmember Mavity requested the record reflect that she was not in support of taking this many affordable single family homes from the community. She indicated she disagreed with Councilmember Sanger's comment regarding train traffic going north and stated the issue here is that TC&W trains need to get into Minneapolis and did not feel that notifying Golden Valley or Robbinsdale should be the City's concern. Mr. Locke stated this relates to the 6th goal regarding trains going north on the BNSF tracks as providing an alternate route and TC&W has indicated it does not want to do that; the DEIS City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 26, 2012 appears to claim this is one of the reasons why the City should approve the MN&S route but the DEIS includes no evaluation and provides no mitigation. Mr. McKenzie indicated this issue was added two months ago without any public process. Council continued its discussion regarding removal of the wye. Councilmember Sanger felt the DEIS comments should be expanded regarding the question of mitigation for the MN&S route and indicated the comments regarding the wye should state that the wye is a problem in either scenario and in order to facilitate the goal of smooth freight rail traffic, the wye has to be removed. Councilmember Santa stated the purpose of the wye is not for the smooth flow of rail traffic but for stacking, storing, and blocking of rail cars which has no place near light rail and agreed that the wye needs to be removed. Councilmember Ross agreed. Mayor Jacobs agreed with the earlier comments and stated the City cannot predict what will happen and it will be critical to have a robust mitigation plan for both contingencies clearly spelled out in the DEIS comments. Mr. Harmening stated this item will be added to the special study session agenda on December 3rd with a goal of reviewing and adopting it on December 10th. 4. Project Update – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Mr. Olson presented the staff report and advised that offers have been made to all affected property owners in the right of way acquisition. He stated that Sam's Club has presented a counteroffer which seems reasonable. The property across the street on the west side has made a counteroffer which is not reasonable. The City will meet with them in early December. The City has not received a response from the Louisiana Oaks Apartments. The Newport on 7 Apartments’ offer is being finalized, and the Oak Hill Office Complex is in the process of obtaining their own appraisal. He advised the City met with Clear Channel representatives and provided them with preliminary billboard locations near their existing signs, and Clear Channel has indicated it wants to do further analysis. Staff will provide more information regarding this at a later date. Councilmember Sanger asked if the billboards will be the same height as the current billboards. Mr. Olson replied that the billboards will be near the same height, and depending on the elevation of the road, there may be some height difference at the southwest site to make sure visibility is maintained. He noted that the City has height restrictions, and Clear Channel will not be allowed to go over the current height standards. He advised that the City held business area outreach meetings to discuss staging plans, and the City provided information on resources available during construction to help with marketing, including signage and dealing with traffic issues. Mn/DOT also provided examples of signage to minimize construction impacts. He stated that several comments were received regarding the City providing compensation for reduced access during construction. He advised that Mn/DOT has prepared significant changes City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Subject: Study Session Minutes of November 26, 2012 to the staging plans that will open up traffic on Highway 7 to four lanes in the first full year and will restore left turn lanes at the intersection with Louisiana Avenue, which will eliminate detours during the first year. In addition, the revised staging plans will have two lanes open on Louisiana Avenue in the second year, with detours required. He presented a revised staging plan document prepared after Mn/DOT's review of the construction plans. Councilmember Ross requested a schedule listing all of the City's ongoing projects so that Council can anticipate the schedule of road closures and traffic impacts. She asked if there was any way to negotiate leaving the "right off" open on westbound Highway 7 at Lake Street and expressed concern about the impact to the businesses in that area. Mr. Rardin stated that the City has discussed this with Mn/DOT in the past and agreed to make the request again to Mn/DOT. He noted that the STP funds were premised on the closing of this access. Councilmember Sanger requested that the City further research the issue of providing compensation for reduced access during construction to get some idea how this is done in other communities. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to schedule the approval and authorization of this project at the December 3, 2012, City Council meeting. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Councilmember Santa requested additional historical information in the monthly financial statements related to seasonal differences. Councilmember Hallfin reminded Council to contact Commissioner Dorfman this week regarding the additional $125,000 for the bike lane on the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge. The meeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. October 2012 Monthly Financial Report 6. Prism Dial-A-Ride Program ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 3, 2012 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guest: Mr. Dave McKenzie (SEH Consulting). 1. Discuss SWLRT DEIS Comments Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Councilmember Spano thanked staff for their efforts on the DEIS comments. He requested an update regarding why the State Rail Plan was included in the DEIS and stated that he continues to be curious about how the State Rail Plan factors into the DEIS. Mr. Locke stated that it is not yet known why the State Rail Plan was included in the DEIS. He felt it may have been included because the DEIS is now talking about freight rail, and during the EAW process there was some discussion of the State Rail Plan. Councilmember Mavity presented a copy of her written comments and stated that she wanted to make sure the City's message on SWLRT is clear by stating that St. Louis Park strongly supports SWLRT. She suggested that the second paragraph of the DEIS comments be moved to the end of the introductory section. She expressed concern that the reference to Resolution 10-005 is not accurate. The statement that "the City's support for SWLRT was in fact conditioned on these issues being appropriately addressed" is true for Council's July resolution, but that is not what Resolution 10-005 was about. Councilmember Mavity then recited her suggested language. She also suggested that the references to the resolutions include the exact language from the resolutions to be clear. She suggested that a title be added to the section regarding potential impacts starting at the bottom of page 7. She requested clarification regarding the reference to a "modest residential neighborhood" toward the bottom of page 8 and asked if this refers to moderately priced homes. She suggested that the regional trail referenced under paragraph 1(a) on page 9 include a reference to a recent report from Three Rivers indicating this is a heavily used trail with 500,000 riders per year. She requested that paragraph 1(d) on page 9 be expanded upon and recited her suggested language. She requested that Section 3 on page 10 include mitigation needed for the ramp to be built from Blake to Louisiana. She suggested additional language on page 11 that discusses mitigation for the ramp and recited her suggested language. She requested the removal of the words "potential for" in the last sentence under paragraph 3(a) on page 11. She also presented suggested revisions to the section regarding removal of the wye. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of December 3, 2012 Mr. Locke stated it is important to recognize that the wye currently fills the function of providing access to the businesses in the Oxford industrial area, the wye makes it possible for the railroads to travel north from the Bass Lake spur onto the MN&S, and the wye makes it possible for the railroads to travel south on the MN&S and removing the wye may require replacing all of those functions. He stated that the wye is only being used for one customer at the end of the wye, and trains traveling on Bass Lake are not switching to MN&S either north or south but have the ability to do so. Councilmember Mavity recited suggested language changes to paragraph 3(e) on page 11 regarding removal of 40 single family homes. She stated the 4f considerations on page 14 needs to make sure the language is factual and not subjective. Council continued its discussion regarding removal of the wye and continuous flow of freight rail. Councilmember Hallfin noted that the DEIS comments are still in draft form and the City now has until December 31st to submit its comments. He stated that Council previously adopted two resolutions, and the DEIS comments state that the City wants the County to look at co-location and prevent the reroute. The resolution also states that in the event the reroute takes place, certain mitigation needs to take place, and this is well laid out in the City's comments. Councilmember Santa stated that the DEIS comments regarding mitigation should incorporate the work done by SEH and the rail study done in 1999 that said the City will look at the reroute only if there is no other viable option, which serves as the basis for Council's resolutions. She stated that the environment goal on page 19 should expand on the wetland and floodplain impacts and added this section should point that out, that the conclusion is based on faulty information. She stated that the quality of life goal needs to address the ripple effect of Kenilworth and how people's quality of life is impacted no matter where they live, and resident's ability to go about their daily business is impacted. Councilmember Ross stated that businesses will be landlocked if the Lake Street exit off Highway 7 is closed and there will be no way to get to those businesses when trains are going through the area. Councilmember Sanger stated that the DEIS data comparing the reroute option and co-location option is faulty because it analyzes the impacts by segments that don’t correspond to the freight rail routes. She said that the evaluation of the Kenilworth route should only look at the portion of the segment from the West Lake Street station to the point where the Kenilworth corridor meets up with the Burlington Northern tracks, adding that anything else in that segment is the same, whether rerouted or co-located. She stated that the DEIS does not address train traffic going onto the Burlington Northern tracks heading east which will impact housing along the Burlington Northern track and will carry more freight rail traffic than it otherwise would, which means that the Blackstone and Cedarhurst neighborhoods will have impacts that are not counted in the DEIS. She stated that the DEIS contains nothing about the impacts of the proposed new siding in the Burlington Northern rail area nor is there any mitigation proposed. She stated that the 4f issues have not addressed the statutorily required analysis necessary before it can be stated that park land should not be used for transportation purposes. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of December 3, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Sanger recessed the Special Study Session at 7:28 p.m. in order to convene the City Council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger reconvened the Special Study Session at 10:06 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that the DEIS needs to add comments regarding the failure of the DEIS to address the study provided by SEH that showed a valid co-location option exists; in addition, the DEIS has not analyzed whether to relocate the bike trail so the Kenilworth could include both freight rail and light rail and the required mitigation. She indicated it appears that homes being taken in the Kenilworth corridor are further from the tracks than homes along the MN&S route, and there should be an objective analysis of how close the homes are to the tracks. She stated that page 8 regarding the EAW needs to highlight the issues previously raised by the City, and that all of the City's comments were ignored. She requested that the mitigation for the Beltline crossing be expanded to indicate mitigation is necessary, whether or not freight rail is there to include a bridge over both the bike trail and light rail tracks. She stated that the whistle quiet zones addressed on page 10 indicate that the railroads have stated they will not stop blowing their horns at the crossings near the high school because of the blind curves, and putting in whistle quiet zones does not solve the noise problem in this area. She stated that the DEIS does not address the question of noise coming from the locomotives going up and down the grades and did not address noise from switching and blocking, and there needs to be more stringent noise mitigation requested. She indicated that the fencing and signage referenced in Section 2(d) on page 10 needs to clarify that the City needs all this fencing at the edge of the right-of-way wherever tracks are adjacent to homes and businesses to provide a barrier. She stated that the connection to MN&S South in Section 3(c) needs to talk about how the prior proposal had trains going north and south through the neighborhoods and has already been deemed unworkable by the railroads; there is also no indication who will compensate TCW for any significant delays and who pays that compensation. She stated that Section 3(j) on page 12 should note that these parks are directly across from each other and includes a lot of foot traffic resulting in a safety issue. She stated that paragraph (f) on page 14 needs to add that northern communities were not included in the SWLRT planning process or DEIS analysis. She stated that Section 2 on page 14 should indicate the County did not evenly compare the co-location and reroute options because they did not specify the criteria that they used to make this comparison and reach their conclusion. She added that Section 2 on page 14 regarding high income housing should state there was no explanation provided as to why the high income of these residents matters and points to economic justice issues. She stated that the parenthetical statement in Section 3 on page 14 appears to contradict the statement on page 7 and should be deleted. She stated that the sentence at the end of the first paragraph on page 15 needs to be further explained and needs to point out that co-location is proposed in the DEIS for a number of miles west of 169. She stated the economic development goal on page 19 needs to address economic development issues around the West Lake Street businesses and the businesses around Highway 7 and Louisiana. She asked if the statement in Section (l) on page 20 regarding operational functionality was a quote from the EAW. Mr. McKenzie explained that when the FTA informed the County to redo the DEIS, the City thought that they were going to take the Kimley Horn work and SEH work on co-location and do more engineering studies; the County did not do that. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that paragraph (l)(iv) on page 20 regarding ownership should state it is unclear who will own it or maintain it and what the cost will be and who pays those costs. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of December 3, 2012 She stated paragraph (l)(vi) regarding vertical clearance needs to add another section stating they need to do a derailment study since there has been no analysis of the potential for derailments around the blind curves. She stated paragraph (1)(vii) needs to state the data was not based on trains going up and down steep inclines or around curves where the noise is much greater. She stated paragraph (l)(ix) on page 21 could point out how the trains going north would have to get permission from Burlington Northern to enter the Iron Triangle resulting in more blocking trains. She stated there has been nothing to indicate there has been any input into the process from the Surface Transportation Board. Mr. McKenzie indicated the Surface Transportation Board has been requested to be an associate agency and this Board is reviewing the DEIS and has stated it will submit comments if warranted. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger urged the City to request that the Surface Transportation Board make a request that the DEIS be returned for further analysis by independent reviewers not previously involved in the DEIS or EAW which would provide a further comment period. Mr. Harmening stated the purpose of the DEIS is intended to correct inaccuracies, errors, and incompleteness of the study before the final EIS is prepared. Mr. McKenzie stated that the next round of contracts awarded by the Met Council include preliminary engineering and referenced the EIS process contained in the staff report. The meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 2. Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Former Eliot School Site ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 3, 2012 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Commercial Appraiser (Ms. Nathanson), Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guests: Ms. April Crockett (Mn/DOT West Area Engineer) and Mr. Mark Dierling (SEH Consulting) 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. City Council Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Councilmember Mavity requested that the second sentence of the third paragraph on page 8 be revised to state "She felt the City needs to be careful about setback requirements because each house has a different topography and the City may find itself in a situation where a well-placed beehive may have to be moved to a location that is not ideal and possibly worse for the bees and for the neighbors." The minutes were approved as amended. 3c. Study Session Meeting Minutes November 13, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 Councilmember Santa requested that the first paragraph on page 4 be revised to state "Ms. Walsh stated that the Lenox model has some successful components but does not represent what the future will be for baby boomers adding if you set aside space for a specific age group that spaces does not get used a lot of the time. She stressed that the task force studied sites throughout the community including the Texa Tonka site which was determined to be too small to accommodate the size of facility being considered." Councilmember Santa also requested that final sentence of the first full paragraph on page 5 be revised to state "She stated the community impacts are significant and the DEIS does not indicate whether they have looked at these impacts, which could mean if they are not looking at these impacts they are not going to mitigate that means there is no money for mitigation because it runs both north-south and east-west at different points and cuts off the community." The minutes were approved as amended. 3d. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes November 19, 2012 Councilmember Spano requested that the statement in the third paragraph on page 2 be attributed to Councilmember Ross. The minutes were approved as amended. 3e. City Council Meeting Minutes November 19, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that the November 19th City Council meeting minutes were revised after publication and includes a revision to the first paragraph on page 6. The revised minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-169 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 7405 Edgebrook Drive, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 20- 117-21-21-0068. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-170 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 3253 Webster Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0021. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 12-171 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 1624 Jersey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 05-117-21-43-0078. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-172 authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,243.55 and accepting work for Fire Station No. 1 Work Scope 02 (Asphalt City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 Paving) with Omann Brothers Paving, Inc. for Project No. 2008-3001, City Contract No. 84-11. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 12-173 authorizing final payment in the amount of $2,237.83 and accepting work for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 02 (Asphalt Paving) with T.A. Schifsky & Sons, Inc. for Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 53-11. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 12-174 authorizing final payment in the amount of $2,156.50 and accepting work for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 17 (Floor Coatings) with Twin City Tile & Marble Company for Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 55-11. 4g. Appoint attorneys Marc Berris, James Gurovitsch, Dale Hansen, and Patricia Hughes as hearing officers for the administrative penalties program. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 12-175 approving an easement for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to construct and maintain the Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project (Creek Remeander Project). 4i. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 12-176 approving the eCharging Joint Powers Agreement. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. 2013 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy and Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Mr. Heintz presented the staff report. Mr. Swanson explained the budget process undertaken each year by the City and presented the 2012 adopted budget and 2013 preliminary budget for the General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund, noting the 2013 preliminary budget for these funds includes an approximate 2.1% increase over the 2012 adopted budget. He presented the proposed 2013 property tax levy, which includes a 4.00% increase over the 2012 final property tax levy. He advised the Capital Replacement Fund levy allocation was increased from 2012 to address this Fund's long term sustainability challenges after analysis of the City's Long Range Financial Management Plan. He stated the Pavement Management Fund allocation was eliminated for 2013 because this Fund receives franchise fees to pay for repairs to City-owned streets instead of assessing property owners for these repairs. He stated the Employee Administration Fund allocation did not previously have a dedicated funding source and includes an additional $99,000 for 2013 with the goal of making this Fund sustainable for the long term. He explained that the Truth in Taxation notices are mailed the second week in November and include information regarding the tax levy certified by Council in September and calculates the overall taxes from a number of taxing jurisdictions. He advised that in 2013, 74% of residential property owners will see a reduction in the City's share of property taxes City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 4 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 compared to 2012, 24% of residential property owners will see an increase less than 5%, and the remaining 1.79% will see an increase of 5% or greater. He advised that in 2013, 38% of commercial property owners will see a decrease in the City's share of property taxes compared to 2012, 58% will see an increase of less than 5%, and the remaining 4% will see an increase of 5% or greater. He stated that the City ranked 18 out of 45 for city residential taxes in Hennepin County and overall ranked 26 out of 45 for residential taxes in Hennepin County. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing. Councilmember Mavity requested further clarification regarding the City's proposed levy increase of 4.00% as it relates to the 2013 budget increase of 2.1%. Mr. Swanson explained the 4.00% property tax levy increase is allocated among five different funds while the 2.1% increase to the 2013 budget relates only to the General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated the final 2013 Budget and 2013 Property Tax Levy will be formally adopted by Council on December 17, 2012. 6b. First Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Natchez Avenue South, North of Morningside Road Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and explained that a petition was received from eight St. Louis Park residents on Ottawa Avenue to vacate a portion of the 4200 block of Natchez Avenue South 500' north of Morningside Road. He noted that the City also received a request from Edina resident Ms. Sarah Hardy to defer consideration until the City of Edina has concluded its review of a proposed subdivision adjacent to the Natchez Avenue South right-of-way. He presented an aerial photo of the site and stated that portions of the right-of-way have been vacated in the past and the remaining right-of-way contains no roads, alleys, or trails but the City will need to maintain its utility and drainage easement. He explained that the City of Edina is proposing to subdivide the property adjacent to Natchez Avenue South into eight single family lots with five lots backing up to Natchez Avenue South. He stated there is a 20' grade change from the back side of the proposed Edina subdivision and that grade change follows the City boundary; this grade change is ideal for the proposed location of the cul-de-sac and allows for the preservation of the mature trees along the Natchez Ave right-of-way. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. Ms. Katrina McDonald, 4257 Ottawa Avenue, appeared before the City Council in support of the proposed vacation and stated the grade change in this area prohibits construction of a meaningful road and would not benefit residents. She added she did not feel it was necessary to delay action on this matter as requested by Ms. Hardy since there are no plans to use this right-of-way for the subdivision in Edina. Mr. Frank Seidel appeared before the City Council and stated he is an Edina resident and is the developer of the proposed subdivision. He confirmed that he has no plans to encroach upon or use the Natchez Avenue right-of-way and supports the petition to have the property abandoned. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 5 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of the Natchez Avenue South Right-of-Way and to set Second Reading for December 17, 2012. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 6c. Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and provided historical background of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny Sara and Henry Stokman's application for a variance to the side yard setback. He stated the Stokmans propose to remove their one car garage and replace it with a living space addition slightly larger than the existing garage in the same location 10" off the property line. He presented several photographs of the property and advised that at the October 25th BOZA meeting, the Stokmans presented revised plans showing a 3' distance from the property line and during the discussion at the October 25th BOZA meeting, the Stokmans asked BOZA to consider a 2' setback, however BOZA felt a 3' setback was the minimum they would approve so BOZA denied their application for a variance. He stated the Stokmans are now prepared to request a 3' setback variance and explained that Council can direct staff to prepare a resolution overturning the BOZA decision and approving a 2' variance to allow a 3’ setback for approval at the next City Council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opened the public hearing. Mr. Henry Stokman and Ms. Sara Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and explained that they originally drew up plans for a 3' setback as BOZA requested but were trying to see if they could get an extra foot; after further consideration, they have decided to ask the City Council to approve what BOZA was originally going to approve and are asking for the 3' setback as originally presented. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact to support a 2' variance for approval at the next City Council meeting. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. First Reading of Water Access Charge Ordinance. Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and advised the water access charge (WAC) is used by cities as a buy-in charge for new development into the existing water infrastructure. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 6 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 He stated the WAC helps mitigate existing customers from subsidizing the impact of new developments, adds predictability to the rate structure and also reduces the need to bond for water infrastructure improvements. He indicated the proposed WAC is $750 for permits issued after January 11, 2013. Mr. Harmening stated the City sent a letter to developers doing projects in the City to provide notice that the City is considering the implementation of a water access charge and indicated that a number of other cities currently have a WAC. He advised the City received an email today from a Duke representative expressing concern about the WAC and indicating they had questions about entitlements that have already been approved for the Duke development project. He stated that staff will further discuss this prior to the Second Reading. Councilmember Ross noted that no other developer comments were received and requested information about when the letter was sent to the developers. Councilmember Mavity stated there was a recent newspaper article about White Bear Lake and the impact to the water table from surrounding cities' development. She stated she would be interested in learning more about the issues in White Bear Lake and whether similar issues could impact any of the development going on in the City. Mr. Harmening agreed to provide information regarding the letter sent to developers as well as the issues raised by Councilmember Mavity prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that new developments put an additional strain on the City's water and sewer infrastructure. Mr. Heintz stated it depends on the development and also depends on the site's previous use, noting that a developer would receive credit based on the prior usage and the developer is only charged for any additional usage. Mr. Harmening stated that existing users in the City have paid to build the infrastructure that exists today and the premise of the WAC is that if a developer is coming into the community and wants to tap into the system, there is a cost to buy into the system so that it is fair to existing users who built the system and paid for it through their rates. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Amending Chapter 32 of the St. Louis Park City Code Establishing a Water Access Charge and to set Second Reading for December 17, 2012. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 8b. Second Reading – Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting. Ordinance No. 2427-12 Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and explained that revisions to the ordinance were discussed at several study sessions and the consensus at the most recent study session was to proceed to Second Reading without significant changes. She advised the Ordinance requires existing lighting facilities to come into compliance with glare City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 7 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 requirements when fixtures are replaced or a facility is expanded and added that the Ordinance increases the landscape measures for light screening and these measures must be submitted with a lighting plan. Councilmember Spano advised that lighting was a major issue in his neighborhood when Park Nicollet began its construction project and they found that strategically planted trees helped to minimize light glare and spillover light and provided the neighborhood with a degree of protection from the parking ramp lights. He thanked Ms. McMonigal and her staff for all their work on this ordinance amendment. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2427-12 Amending the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning by Amending Section 36-363. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she opposed this amendment because she did not agree with the requirement to install glare packages only when new light fixtures are installed. She indicated some of those light fixtures could be up for another ten or fifteen years before being replaced and in the meantime, the glare from the lights makes some homes unusable. She stated she was not happy that the City was allowing lights to be on seven nights per week and it does not seem that the City is balancing the property rights of neighbors with the rights of those using the fields. She urged the City to require that light fixtures currently without a glare package be painted black to minimize glare. The motion passed 5-1 (Mayor Pro Tem Sanger opposed; Mayor Jacobs absent). 8c. Consider Municipal Consent Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project. Resolution No. 12-177. Mr. Brink presented the staff report and stated that a public hearing was held on November 5th to consider Mn/DOT's request for municipal consent and several comments were received at that time. He stated the current Minnetonka Boulevard bridge layout provides a multi-lane roadway and a 4' wide striped shoulder on each side for a bike lane and a 10' multi-use trail on both sides of the road. He indicated Council desired to widen the bike lane to 5' and staff contacted the County and the County is willing to pay for half of the shoulder widening to 5'. He then introduced April Crockett, Mn/DOT engineer. Councilmember Hallfin stated that Council previously discussed its willingness to pay for the widening of the bike lane and questioned whether the City should expand the bike lane to 5.5' given the County's willingness to pay for half of the widening to 5'. He added this would make the bike lane even safer and provide more useable space. Councilmember Ross asked if it was possible to expand the bike lane to 5.5'. Mr. Rardin stated that Mn/DOT has indicated the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge can be widened to accommodate up to 6' wide bike lanes. Councilmember Mavity spoke in favor of widening the bike lanes to 5' with cost sharing from Hennepin County. She stated that even wider bike lanes would be nice but felt it was fiscally prudent to stick with the 5' bike lane, which is acceptable to the bikers who City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 8 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 have been weighing in on this issue, and the 5' bike lane addresses most of Council's concerns in a fair way. Councilmember Santa felt that Council should seriously consider increasing the bike lane to 5.5' or 6' if that width can be accommodated and if money is available for this. Councilmember Spano requested clarification regarding the cost of widening the bike lane. Mr. Harmening explained that the revised cost estimate to add one foot on each side of the bike lane is $92,000 compared to the earlier estimate of $125,000. He stated the County has agreed to pay for half of the $92,000 so the City's share is approximately $45,000 to add one additional foot. He added if the City widens the bike lanes to 6' the City's cost would be another $92,000 for a total of $137,000 to construct a 6' wide striped shoulder on each side. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 12-177 for Layout Approval – Highway 100 Reconstruction, as amended to accommodate 6' wide striped shoulders. Councilmember Mavity requested a friendly amendment to the motion that would cap the dollar amount paid for the widening of the shoulders. Mr. Harmening advised that Mn/DOT has to design the bridge as instructed by the City and the actual cost of the widened shoulders will not be known until bids are taken. Councilmember Mavity withdrew her friendly amendment. Councilmember Ross agreed that the City should not exceed a set dollar amount for the striped shoulders and if the cost to construct 6' striped shoulders will be exceeded then the striped shoulders should be reduced to 5.5'. Mr. Rardin clarified that the correct term is "striped shoulder" and the County has indicated it cannot support a designated "bike lane" on either side of the bridge. Councilmember Ross requested confirmation that bikes can use the striped shoulder. Mr. Rardin replied in the affirmative. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked Ms. Crockett for all her work on this project. 8d. Project Report: Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange, Project No. 2012-0100. Resolution No. 12-178 Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and explained that work on this project started in the early 2000s and included traffic studies with its need acknowledged in an EAW performed for the Methodist Hospital expansion at that time. He stated that City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 9 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 improvements to the intersection were made in 2004 including the addition of dual left turn lanes on Louisiana Avenue and traffic signals at Walker and Lake Street; these improvements were viewed as interim improvements and it was understood that additional improvements were needed on Highway 7 due to concerns about projected future congestion at the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue intersection. He stated that the purpose and need for this project is due to significant intersection congestion leading to increased accidents, vehicle delays, poor pedestrian/bicycle accommodations, and associated environmental degradation. In addition, improving north-south transportation connections is a city priority, referring to the recently completed Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue interchange project, which set the foundation for continued improvements in that immediate area, along with addressing north-south connection concerns. He then introduced Mr. Mark Dierling from SEH Consulting, along with Ms. Crockett, who has also been involved in developing this project. Mr. Olson explained the project includes construction of a grade-separated interchange with a new bridge over Louisiana Avenue and a diamond style interchange with roundabouts as well as two 10' trails on either side of the road. He stated the project includes public art and aesthetic treatments along with landscaping and streetscape work. He presented several renderings of the project and explained that concrete surface texturing on the bridge parapet will be installed as well as colored pavers, under-bridge lighting, two vertical landmark towers, and natural plantings, trees and shrubs. He advised that seven privately owned parcels will be impacted by the project and the City is currently negotiating with these parcel owners. He stated the City conducted an extensive public process involving open house meetings, public hearings, meetings with stakeholders, and communications through mailings, newsletters, and the City's website. He indicated the City recently provided outreach to local businesses by hosting a series of meetings to help minimize construction impacts to their businesses. He stated that Highway 7 traffic will be shifted to a temporary southerly bypass and then will be maintained at nearly all times during the first year of construction with full access and no detours. Louisiana Ave. traffic will be maintained except for two possible weekend closures needed during the early stages of construction to lower the grade of the road through the bridge area. During the second year, Highway 7 traffic will be shifted onto the new highway, but detours will be needed in order to construct Louisiana Ave., the roundabouts, and the interchange ramps. He stated that the City has been working with the local businesses to address their concerns related to restricted access, detour routes, and project duration which the businesses feel will affect their businesses and result in some loss of business. He advised the City has worked to improve access and has presented revised staging plans noting the City plans to continue its business area outreach by assisting with marketing strategies and promoting businesses during construction. He stated total cost of the project is $26.3 million with $7.6 million in committed Federal STP funds, $6.4 million in committed State funds, and $12.3 million in committed local funds. He presented the construction timeline and stated construction is scheduled to begin April 22, 2013. Mr. Wade Wickens, 3915 Joppa, appeared before the City Council and stated the City has many wonderful projects but was concerned that he did not see anything about how all these projects are tied together and did not see anything about the proposed bridge for the freight rail reroute. He stated he would like to see an overall picture of what is going on in the City. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 10 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 Mr. Harmening agreed there is a lot of reinvestment going on in the City and those plans are all being done in concert with the City's long range plans and take into account the possible freight rail rerouting. Councilmember Mavity stated the City's Capital Improvement Plan lists all of the City's capital improvement projects by year and is available to the public. Councilmember Ross noted that Council requested a timeline from staff so that Council was aware of all the planned and ongoing projects to make sure traffic still flows throughout the City during all these projects. Ms. Nancy Newcomb appeared before the City Council and stated she owns the furniture store across from Sam's Club. She stated she was not sure what light rail will do for the City and questioned why the City was doing the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue interchange particularly since the improvements at Wooddale appear to have helped decrease accidents in this area. She stated the City talked about improving mobility with this project but the City is taking out the signal at Louisiana but leaving the signals at Texas and Blake and expressed concern about traffic backing up and problems with congestion at those locations. She expressed significant concern about how this project is going to affect their business and stated the City is spending $65,000 on art design and $428,000 on art but there is nothing to help the business people. Mr. Rardin explained that Louisiana Avenue carries a lot of traffic and is anticipated to carry more traffic in the future while Texas Avenue is a low volume road compared to Louisiana. He stated if additional warning devices are needed at the top of the hill on Hwy 7, the City can install flashing lights but felt it was premature to state that traffic will be an issue. Ms. Rachel O'Brien, 3320 Republic Avenue, appeared before the City Council and stated she owns Reddy Rents. She stated she and several businesses formed the "Highway 7 and Louisiana Coalition" with three purposes in mind. She stated they want the area to be thriving, they want to work with the City and Mn/DOT to have access during the construction project, and they want to promote their businesses before, during, and after construction. She stated the Coalition is very concerned about road closures and detours and the 30-40% drop in business that these projects cause. She stated the Coalition is asking for the City's help to make sure people still come to this area so their businesses can continue to thrive and are asking for any help to lessen the impact. She stated the Coalition is happy with the revised staging plans that will decrease detours and shorten the length of the project and thanked Mr. Olson, Mr. Rardin, and Ms. Crockett. She was concerned this project is a light rail project but there are no economic programs available to the businesses such as the programs being provided in the Central Corridor and the Coalition would like marketing help, loans or grants. She reiterated this is a light rail project that is being done for the future to get redevelopment going in the area and the Coalition would like as much help as possible from the City and Mn/DOT. Mr. Phil Weber, Park Tavern, appeared before the City Council and acknowledged this area of the City is an eyesore, which has not previously been an area of focus for the City. He felt this project would help the City but provides nothing for the businesses in this corridor. He urged the City not to forget about these businesses. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 11 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 3, 2012 Councilmember Ross stated she supported this project but was concerned about the closure of the West Lake Street access from Highway 7 and how this closure could choke off those businesses on the northeast side. She requested that the City consider keeping that exit open in order to allow westbound drivers to exit Highway 7 onto West Lake Street. Ms. Crockett explained that Mn/DOT has provided the funding for a full access closure at West Lake Street and felt that the Mn/DOT funding and possibly STP funding would be lost if that closure were to be removed from the plans. Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated all the work that the Highway 7 and Louisiana Coalition has done and stated it will be important for the City to continue to support its small business community and to do whatever it can to support these businesses during the construction. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 12-178 Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project No. 2012-0100 Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Improvement Project No. 2012-0100. Councilmember Spano stated that support of the business community during major infrastructure projects is a valid concern and suggested that Council have a study session discussion about creating a revolving loan fund to support these types of projects including the freight rail reroute possibility. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger thanked the business owners for their comments and encouraged them to continue working with Mr. Olson and his staff. She stated it would be helpful to have some ideas about what would be helpful to the business owners and requested that Council have a study session discussion regarding this issue. She also requested that staff keep in mind the possibility of removing the billboards and what it would cost to eliminate them entirely. The motion passed 6-0 (Mayor Jacobs absent). 9. Communications None. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Table Second Reading of Water Access Charge Ordinance RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Table the Second Reading of the Water Access Charge Ordinance and to direct staff to reschedule the Second Reading after the completion of additional public communications and input. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: At the time of First Reading it was brought to the attention of staff that there were unresolved concerns regarding implementation of the Water Access Charge. Because it was determined that further public communication and input was needed, staff recommends that Council table Second Reading to be rescheduled following the completion of the public input. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Not applicable. Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Natchez Avenue South RECOMMENDED ACTION: A motion to waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance vacating 500 feet of Natchez Avenue South right-of-way extending north of Morningside Road, and approve the summary ordinance for publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is there a need to retain this right of way for a public purpose? BACKGROUND: Natchez Avenue South was originally platted in 1910 as West Avenue in the Wooddale Park plat. Roads were never constructed in this small section of Natchez Avenue South. To this date, this right-of-way remains unimproved, meaning it does not contain a street, trail or other public improvement. Future need of right-of-way: Over the past several years, other sections of Natchez Avenue South adjacent to the subject right- of-way have been vacated by the Cities of St. Louis Park and Edina. As indicated by these vacations, the Cities of St. Louis Park and Edina Public Works Departments have determined that a road is not needed. The City of Edina was notified of St. Louis Park’s intent to vacate this section of right-of-way and they have not objected. The St. Louis Park Public Works Department also has reviewed the proposal and confirms that the right-of-way is not needed, and can be vacated. Utility companies were notified of the City’s intent to vacate the right-of-ways, and there are no objections. There is an existing power line in the right-of-way, so the city would retain a utility easement. First Reading by City Council: The Council adopted the first reading of the proposed ordinance on December 3, 2012. Recommendation: Since the right-of-way is not currently being used, and there is not a future need for it, staff is recommending that it be vacated. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Natchez Avenue South Attachments: Draft Ordinance Summary for Publication Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Natchez Avenue South ORDINANCE NO.____-12 AN ORDINANCE VACATING 500 FEET OF THE 4200 BLOCK OF NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the 500 feet of right-of-way proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on November 22, 2012 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the right-of-way is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said 500 feet of right-of-way be vacated. Section 2. The following described right-of-way as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: That part of Natchez Avenue South (formerly known as West Avenue) as dedicated in WOODDALE PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, extending 500 feet north of Morningside Road (formerly known as W. 43½ Street) to the south line of the North Half of Lot 3, Block 9, of said WOODDALE PARK. Retaining a 20 foot easement for utility and drainage purposes over, under, across and through said Natchez Avenue South. Section 3. The City of St. Louis Park shall retain any and all easements that may exist in, over, and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility purposes. Section 4. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. First Reading December 3, 2012 Second Reading December 17, 2012 Date of Publication December 27, 2012 Date Ordinance takes effect January 11, 2012 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Natchez Avenue South SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO.____-12 AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY This ordinance states that a portion of the Natchez Avenue South right-of-way extending 500 feet north of Morningside Road will be vacated. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 27, 2012 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4c Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve extending the City’s contract with Prism (People Responding in Social Ministry) to provide door-to-door dial-a-ride services to all residents of St. Louis Park through December 31, 2013. Current contract expires December 31, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The policy consideration is whether or not the City Council wants to continue to support Prism’s Dial-a-Ride program to enhance the level of transportation services available for SLP residents. BACKGROUND: City s taff and Courtney Whited, Prism Transportation Coordinator, met with the Council in July 2011 to discuss Prism’s proposed plan to expand their door-to-door Dial-a-Ride program to St. Louis Park. Council supported the proposal and the potential benefits that a flexible transportation program would provide and directed staff to proceed with the steps necessary to enter into a contract with Prism to provide Dial-a-Ride services to St. Louis Park residents. The City agreed to provide a funding contribution up to $10,000 to cover program operation costs for the initial six month period of September 1, 2011 through February 29, 2012. The contract was subsequently extended through the end of 2012. The 2012 City budget includes $20,000 in funding to cover the City’s financial contribution supporting the program. Ridership Statistics: January through June 2012. Ridership use of the program has remained relatively steady through the initial 13 months of operation. Marketing efforts for the program have included articles in the Sun Sailor, the Park Perspective and announcements on the City’s web site. Prism staff also did direct outreach to the senior center, Park Nicollet, STEP, and the faith community. Ridership for the first 10 months of 2012 is as follows: Month Rides Provided January 152 February 159 March 144 April 133 May 174 June 113 July 121 August 148 September 91 October 127 Total 1362 City Council Meeting December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Subject: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program A total of 40 unduplicated individuals utilized the Dial-a-Ride services for a total of 1362 rides through the first 10 months of 2012. Prism has indicated that they have a total of 70 individuals that are registered with the Dial-a-Ride program. Rider Characteristics Number of Riders Female 28 Male 12 60 & Under 8 61 to 70 8 71 to 80 4 81 to 85 8 86 to 90 9 Over 90 3 White 38 African Am. 1 Asian 1 Ambulatory 23 Use Cane 4 Use Walker 4 Need Lift 9 Prism has indicated that the majority of the riders are seniors that are seeking a more attentive service than what they would receive from an alternate transportation service. The door-to-door Dial-a-Ride service is more direct than many services and provides the rider the feel of running an errand. A ride to and from the store only takes 15 to 25 minutes each way versus 1 – 2 hours on Metro Mobility or the bus. The service is more similar to taxi cab service. The most frequent ride destination thus far has been to medical appointments and adult day care. Other destinations included work, shopping, and recreation and social service appointments. Ride Destination Rides Provided Medical 232 Adult Day Care 925 Shopping 50 Work 72 Social Service 6 Recreation 74 Visiting 3 Although Prism has indicated that ridership will typically continue to grow each month as more residents hear about the service, the ridership thus far in St. Louis Park has remained relatively constant. Prism has done a significant amount of outreach and will be undertaking renewed marketing efforts over the next couple of months. City Council Meeting December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Subject: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program Staff Recommendation. The Dial-A-Ride Service is showing consistent use. Seniors, the targeted ridership population, are the primary users of the service. The program provides a flexible transportation option for St. Louis Park residents. Prism has stated that they anticipate ridership will grow over time as word spreads about the program. Staff is recommending that we continue funding the service through 2013. BUDGET STATUS: The City’s 2012 budget includes up to $20,000 in funding for a Dial-a-Ride program. The City’s contribution for services provided from January through October totaled $6,568.34. Up to $20,000 in funding is being proposed for the 2013 budget. The estimated amount of the City’s contribution was determined based on community size and the anticipated number of riders annually. The Housing Rehab Fund is the funding resource for the City’s contribution. PRISM estimates that the full cost of a one way ride is $11.50. PRISM bills the City monthly on a per ride basis. The City currently reimburses PRISM at a not-to-exceed rate of $5.50 per one way ride. For 2013, Prism is proposing to lower the City’s contribution to a not-to-exceed amount of $5.00 per one ride. The additional ride expense will be supplemented by contributions from a grant from the Park Nicollet Foundation, Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging funds and the fare charged to riders. The City’s portion per ride varies depending on the amount of fare collected. The City’s average contribution per ride for 2012 is $4.82. As of September 1st, Prism adjusted the Dial-a-Ride fare structure for riders 60 and over to a sliding fee scale based on household income. Prism’s primary funding resource, the Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging (MAAA), requires their funds to be used only for riders 60 years of age or older. MAAA contributes approximately $4.50 per ride for riders 60 years of age and older. The scale is based on a household’s income as it relates to the federal poverty guidelines and the rider fee scale will range from $3.50 per one way ride to a full fare of $11.50. The fee is a suggested donation and riders are not turned away if they do not pay the fee. VISION CONSIDERATION: The need for a variety of transportation modes allowing residents and visitors to easily and inexpensively travel throughout the city and the entire metro region was identified through the Visioning process as one of the City’s primary focus areas. Creation of a dial-a-ride program that expands ridership boundaries is consistent with many of the ideas and goals proposed by the Visioning Transportation Action Team including: • Creating a superior transportation system, • Alleviate barriers, • Transportation system should strive to be simple, convenient, safe and inexpensive for everyone, • All the transportation system components and modes should be integrated and designed to support one another, • Embrace existing and future technology to make transportation more convenient and cost effective, • Our transportation system is an innovative model for other communities, and • Coordinate with neighboring cities’ transit efforts. Attachments: None Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4G Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 137-12 MSA Street Maintenance (Beltline Boulevard) - Project No. 2014-1102 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve Change Order No. 1 to Contract No. 137-12 MSA Street Maintenance (Beltline Boulevard) - Project No. 2014-1102. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Bids were received on September 20, 2012 for the MSA Street Maintenance Project. The project included mill and overlay work on Beltline Boulevard from W. 36th Street north to the Railroad crossing. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on September 6, 2012 and in the Construction Bulletin on September 10, 2012. A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: Since the low bid was below $100,000, a contract was approved administratively by the City Manager to expedite the work quickly to ensure the project was completed before the end of the 2012 construction season. Upon completion of the work, six of the contract items had overruns amounting to $7,190.98 and the contractor is entitled to a paving incentive of $2,085.03 as allowed by the contract terms. With these extra costs the contract work has now exceeded the $100,000 threshold which the City Manager is authorized to approve. In the event the $100,000 amount is exceeded, City Council approval is required. Change Order No. 1 provides for the additional costs of the project overruns and paving incentive. The total cost for Change Order No. 1 is $9,276.01. CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Hardrives, Inc. Valley Paving, Inc. $98,986.32 $99,291.50 Bituminous Roadways $102,283.70 GMH Asphalt Corp. $104,046.60 Midwest Asphalt Corp. $107,645.70 ASTECH Corp. $109,636.00 C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. $112,278.30 Engineer’s Estimate $98,821.00 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Subject: Change Order No.1 Contract 137-12 MSA Street Maintenance (Beltline Blvd) - Project 2014-1102 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Estimated Contract Cost The work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract No. 137-12 is now estimated as follows: Contract Terms All other terms of the Contract will remain the same. Funding Source All work under this contract will be paid with Municipal State Aid Funds and adequate funds are available. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Change Order No. 1 Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Original Contract $ 98,986.32 Change Order No. 1 $ 9,276.01 Total $108,262.33 Contract No.: SAP 163-291-007 Change Order No.: 1 Date: October 18, 2011 Project Name: 2014-1102 Street Project - MSA Street Rehab Project Location: Beltline Blvd. Contractor: Hardrives, Inc. 14475 Quiram Drive Rogers, MN 55374 Phone No. (763) 428-8886 Type of Work: Paving Incentive/Disincentive Amount of Original Contract: $98,986.32 Description of Work to be Added/Subtracted: In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the work as altered by the following provisions. Special Provisions 2360 of the Proposal provides for bituminous density incentive/disincentive. Incentive to be included in the Contract. The testing and computations of determining bituminous density indicates that the contractor earned an incentive of $2085.03. Information is located in the Project File. Project Items overrun during construction. Unit Contract As Revised by CO Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Paving Incentive/Disincentive L.S. $2085.03 1.0 $2085.03 Bituminous Material for Tack Coat Gallon $2.50 700 $1,750.00 800 $250.00 Type SP 12.5 Wearing Course Mix (3,B) Ton $62.80 1000 $62,800.00 106.6 $6,694.48.00 4” Solid Line White-Epoxy Lin Ft $0.71 450 $319.50 14 $9.94 4” Broken Line White-Epoxy Lin Ft $0.71 906 $643.26 14 $9.94 4” Double Solid Line Yellow- Epoxy Lin Ft $1.44 2040 $2,937.60 10 $14.40 Crosswalk Marking-Poly Preform Sq Ft $11.79 342 $4,32.18 18 $212.22 Total with Revised Quantity $9,276.01 Total Change Order No. 1 Amount: $9,276.01 Original Contract Price: $98,986.32 Previous Change Orders $0,000.00 Total Funds Encumbered with all Change Orders: $108,262.33 CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME (check one) Due to this change the Contract Time: a. [ ] Is Increased by [ ] Is Decreased by [ ] Is Increased by [ ] Is Decreased by Working Days Working Days Calendar Days Calendar Days b. c. [ X ] Is Not Changed [ ] May be revised if work affected the controlling operation City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Change Order No.1 Contract 137-12 MSA Street Maintenance (Beltline Blvd) - Project 2014-1102 Page 3 Above additional (or deleted) work to be performed (or deleted) under same conditions as specified in original contract unless otherwise stipulated herein. Recommended: Project Inspector Date City Engineer Date Approved: Director of Public Works Date City Manager Date We hereby agree to furnish labor and materials complete in accordance with the contract specifications at the above stated price. Approved: _________________________________ __________________________________________ Date Authorized Contractor Signature NOTE: This Revision becomes part of and in conformance with the existing contract. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Subject: Change Order No.1 Contract 137-12 MSA Street Maintenance (Beltline Blvd) - Project 2014-1102 Page 4 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4e Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Amend Contract No. 13-12 - 2013 Consultant Services (Reilly Superfund Site) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. 13-12 with SUMMIT for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2013. Policy Consideration: Does the City Council have any questions regarding the proposed contract amendment? BACKGROUND: History In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Over the last 26 years the City has retained the services of ten consulting engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of the RAP activities. On February 6, 2012 the City approved a one (1) year Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Due to extra work needed to satisfy Agency concerns, Amendment No. 1 was administratively approved on November 30, 2012 increasing the 2012 contract amount from $167,000 to $214,000. This contract expires on December 31, 2012 but has a renewal option (the 1st of two) for year 2013. Contract activities have included, but not been limited to: • Groundwater sampling and analysis • Drafting annual reports for agency review • Aquifer studies • Investigation of leaking wells • Soil investigations • Historical file searches • General project administration While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed, certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing activities which require consultant services. Summit has provided consultant services for the ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as an approved consultant for such activities. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Subject: Amend Contract No. 13-12 - 2013 Consultant Services (Reilly Superfund Site) 2013 Environmental Services The following work tasks describe the work and associated costs expected during 2013: Task 100 - 2012 Annual Monitoring Report: Summit will draft text and prepare figures and tables to assist the City in completing the 2012 annual Monitoring Report. The Annual Monitoring Report will include analytical results, groundwater contour maps, a historical summary of analytical results, and a data quality review. This report is due to the Agencies on March 15, 2013. Despite the fact that the Agencies found the 2011 report deficient and requested an even greater expansion of the scope of the report, Summit is optimistic that many of the differences of opinion and/or questions posed by the Agencies will be resolved by March 15, 2013. The budget shown for this task is less than the actual costs for the 2012 last year’s report and less than the historical actual and budgeted costs for this report. Task 150 - 2012 Annual Progress Report and GAC Plant Report: Summit will assist the City in completing these two reports for submittal to the Agencies on March 15, 2013. Task 400 - Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Shipping: Summit will collect approximately 118 samples from 50 wells and the GAC plant in accordance with the draft 2013 Sampling Plan. This is the bare minimum identified in the proposed Sampling Plan and includes duplicates and other QA/QC samples. The number of samples may increase based on Agency changes to the proposed Sampling Plan. In addition, Summit proposes to collect approximately 40 extra samples from 24 additional monitoring wells to be tested for possible post-cessation water quality monitoring. Additional monitoring may be requested by the Agencies to justify cessation of the shallow pumping wells. The costs shown in Table 1 include labor and expenses to collect 158 samples and shipping costs for 85 samples (two jars per sample) to Alpha Analytical, Inc. New this year, the Sampling Plan proposes to use a new lab (Alpha Analytical in Woods Hole, Massachusetts) with a less expensive analysis for the drinking water samples. The primary benefit to be derived from a lab switch is an improvement in the quality of data, especially where PAH occur at very low concentrations. If the Agencies do not approve this proposal, additional costs will be incurred by the City for laboratory testing upgrades to meet currently approved Agency requirements. Lab costs are discussed in Task 600 below. Task 480 - Sampling Plan and QAPP: This task involves the preparation of the annual sampling plan, due October 31, 2013, and the Quality Assurance Project Plan, due June 30, 2013. Task 500 - Five-Year Review Issues: Issues identified in the 2011 Five Year Review included the vapor intrusion study. No budget is shown for Task 500 in Table 1 based on the assumption that the results of the Agencies 2011 vapor intrusion study will not lead to more work that will involve the City. Task 600 - Laboratory Coordination: Table 1 provides cost estimates for five subtasks as summarized below: City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Subject: Amend Contract No. 13-12 - 2013 Consultant Services (Reilly Superfund Site) 1. Working with Alpha (and Test America, depending on how the Agencies view the switch in laboratories) and Pace Labs on implementing the QAPP, coordinating sampling events, and updating and maintaining the water quality database. 2. Providing data review and data validation to be documented in the Annual Monitoring Report. In a departure from prior years, Summit recommends validating 100% of the Test America data from 2012 as part of this task. This is due to the documented struggles of Test America with data quality and analytical results that would be rejected or modified by validation. 3. Subcontracting with Alpha for PAH part-per-trillion analyses for an estimated 85 samples. 4. Subcontracting with Pace for PAH part-per-billion level analyses for an estimated 33 samples. 5. Laboratory audits at both Alpha and Pace. Audits were not done in 2012 due to budget pressure, although the possibility exists that an audit will be necessary before the Agencies accept Alpha to work on this project. Summit recommends that the City consider adding a contingency amount to either the laboratory budget or the Task 700 budget discussed below. As shown in Table 1, the subcontracts for Alpha and Pace total $18,500 based on the numbers of samples in the 2013 Sampling Plan plus extra samples we assume will need to be collected for post-cessation monitoring. This compares with projected lab costs of nearly $39,000 for 2012. It is not likely we will realize a $20,000 cost savings for laboratory expenses given the current project status and the Agencies propensity to add more samples to our proposed Sampling Plan. Summit cautions us that laboratory-related costs could be up to $16,000 higher than the budget shown in Table 1 based on the Agencies response to our proposed 2013 Sampling Plan. Task 700 - Site Closure (Cessation of Unnecessary Operations): This task is included to follow-up on the long anticipated 2012 cessation request that has the goal of ceasing pumping of the source and gradient control wells in the Drift, Platteville, and St. Peter Aquifers. The scope of this task is open ended and may range from technical meetings with the Agencies, to installation of additional monitoring wells, to support of legal proceedings to modify the CD-RAP. Two possible well installations could cost approximately $15,000. There is disagreement between the City, Vertellus, and the Agencies over the degree of gradient control in the Prairie du Chien – Jordan Aquifer (PCJ) especially with respect to PAH migration towards Edina. To that end, there is $17,500 being budgeted towards the analysis of water level data (now that Edina’s data just became available) and an explanation of the groundwater flow patterns in the PCJ Aquifer in a submittal to the Agencies. Depending on the results of that groundwater flow analysis, the submittal may also contain a plan to address PAH migration if that is occurring. The remaining portion of the budget shown in Table 1 for this task, $5,000, is being provided as a contingency to deal with unknowns. Task 810 - Program Management and Miscellaneous: This task includes overall planning, directing, and controlling Summit’s resources to perform this project. The task also includes miscellaneous project activities throughout the year. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Subject: Amend Contract No. 13-12 - 2013 Consultant Services (Reilly Superfund Site) Summary Table 1 summarizes the estimated costs for the tasks described above. The costs are based in large part on the historic level of effort needed to perform this work in prior years. As we have experienced in the past, it is possible that the scope may change based on comments/concerns expressed by the Agencies and on the results of ongoing groundwater monitoring. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Estimated Contract Cost Past annual costs for Reilly consulting services since 1993 have ranged from a low of $64,642 to a possible high of $216,000 this year. The Summit contract for 2012 allows for possible expenses of $216,000 with actual year to date expenses through October of $198,115. The proposal received from Summit estimates the cost for 2013 work tasks at $145,000. The variation in costs from year to year is generally associated with responding to EPA/MPCA concerns identified in their 5 year reviews (Task 5) or other issues these two Agencies identify. During 2012, significant funds were expended on responding to Agency concerns over sampling, monitoring, and reporting. Following is a summary of the 2013 Summit work tasks described above and their estimated costs: Table 1 TASK ESTIMATED COST Task 100: 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (due March 15, 2013) $ 14,000 Task 150: 2010 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report $ 2,000 Task 400: Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring in 2013 $ 33,000 Task 480: Sampling Plan and QAPP $ 7,000 Task 500: Five Year Review $ 0 Task 600: Laboratory Coordination $ 44,000 Subtask: Lab coordination $ 4,500 Subtask: Data validation and review $ 12,000 Subtask: Alpha lab subcontract $ 16,000 Subtask: Pace lab subcontract $ 2,500 Subtask: Laboratory Audits $ 9,000 Task 700: Site Closure (Cessation Activities) $ 37,500 Subtask: Cessation Request Follow-up $ 15,000 Subtask: PCJ Gradient Control Assessment $ 17,500 Subtask: CD-RAP Modifications Support $ 5,000 Task 810: Project Management/Miscellaneous $ 25,000 Total Estimated Project Cost for 2013: $ 162,500 The work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract No. 13-12 is now estimated as follows: Original Contract (Feb. 2012) $167,000 Amendment No. 1 (Nov. 2012) $47,000 Amendment No. 2 (Dec. 2012) $162,500 Total $376,500 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 5 Subject: Amend Contract No. 13-12 - 2013 Consultant Services (Reilly Superfund Site) Contract Terms The following significant terms have been in the past contracts and will also be incorporated into this contract: 1. Contract terminates on December 31, 2013 with City right to extend up to one (1) additional year. 2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $162,500 for 2013. 3. Summit will defend and indemnify the City for Summit’s actions related to this contract. 4. Summit has independent contractor status. 5. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 30 day written notice. The City Attorney was involved in the preparation of this report and contract amendment. Funding Sources The 2013 Reilly Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachment: Amendment No. 2 Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Tom Scott, City Attorney Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 6 Subject: Amend Contract No. 13-12 - 2013 Consultant Services (Reilly Superfund Site) CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AMENDMENT NO. 2 to CONTRACT NO. 13-12 THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 17, 2012, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City"), and SUMMIT Envirosolutions, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as "SUMMIT"). 1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting services dated February 6, 2012 ("Initial Agreement"). The Initial Agreement authorized the CITY to extend its term for up to two (2) additional one-year periods. 2. EXTENSION. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, this Agreement is extended for a one (1) year period terminating on December 31, 2013. 3. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. The Council report dated December 17, 2012, from the City Manager, describing the year 2013 project tasks and estimated costs, is incorporated herein by reference. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. By_________________________________ City Clerk Its__________________________________ By _________________________________ Its__________________________________ Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4f Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Bill Thurston RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution to recognize Engineering Technician III Bill Thurston for his 40 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the Mayor, City Manager, and City Council. This consent item will officially adopt the resolution that honors Bill Thurston for his years of service. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Subject: Retirement Recognition Resolution for Bill Thurston RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO WILLIAM THURSTON WHEREAS, Bill Thurston began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park over 40 years ago on May 30, 1972; and WHEREAS, Bill has been an asset to the City of St. Louis Park for his commitment and dedication to the Public Works Department as an engineering technician, inspector, project manager, public right-of-way safety coordinator, and overall public servant; and WHEREAS, Bill’s service has assisted and contributed to the successful completion of many public and private infrastructure improvements that have contributed to the safety and quality of life of the St. Louis Park community for years to come; and WHEREAS, Bill was a 2000 Spirit of St. Louis Park Award winner; and WHEREAS, Bill has served an exemplary career as a consistent and reliable steward of the public’s resources and trust; and WHEREAS, Bill looks forward to retirement when he will spend more time with family, traveling, enjoying and appreciating life; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by this Resolution and public record, would like to thank Public Works Engineering Technician, William Thurston, for his great contributions and 40 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his retirement. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4g Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution overturning the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) decision to deny Sara and Henry Stokman’s application for a variance from the side yard setback, and approve a two foot variance to allow an addition to the house with a three foot side yard setback instead of the required five foot side yard setback, with conditions. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City allow an addition to a home to be three feet from a side property line? BACKGROUND: Sara and Henry Stokman own the property located at 2917 Quentin Avenue South. On August 21, 2012, the Stokmans applied for a variance to replace an attached one car garage located 10 inches from the side property line with a larger living space addition that would also be located 10 inches from the side property line. BOZA tabled consideration to the October meeting so the applicant could revise plans to show a three foot side setback. At the October BOZA meeting, the Stokmans proposed a two foot setback instead of the requested 10 inches or the requested revision of a three foot setback. The BOZA denied the request. November 5, 2012 – The Stokmans filed an appeal of the BOZA denial to the City Council, asking them for approval of a two foot side yard setback. December 3, 2012 – The Stokmans presented a revised request to the City Council, asking for a three foot side yard setback instead of the two foot side yard setback they asked the Council to consider as part of their appeal. The City Council directed staff to prepare a Resolution to overturn the BOZA decision and approve a two foot variance to allow a three foot yard side setback with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution overturning the BOZA decision, and approving a two foot variance to the required five foot side yard to allow an addition to the house with a three foot side yard setback. Attachments: Draft Resolution Overturning the BOZA Determination Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South RESOLUTION NO. 12-_______ RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL’S DECISION, AND APPROVING A TWO FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD BACKGROUND • Sara and Henry Stokman live at 2917 Quentin Ave S, described below as: Lot 19, Block 2, Starings Minnetonka Boulevard Addition • On August 21, 2012, the Stokmans submitted an application for a variance from section 36-164(f)(5) to allow a living space addition to be located 10 inches from the side property line instead of the required five feet. • The variance was considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) on September 27, 2012. The BOZA closed the public hearing, and tabled consideration to the October 25, 2012 meeting. • The BOZA considered the variance application on October 25, 2012, and denied the application based upon staff findings. • On November 5, 2012, the Stokmans submitted a letter requesting an appeal to the City Council of BOZA’s denial of their variance application, and approving a three foot variance to allow a two foot side yard setback for their proposed addition. • This matter came on for hearing before the City Council on December 3, 2012. • At the December 3, 2012 City Council meeting, the Stokmans asked the City Council to consider a two foot variance to allow a three foot side yard setback for the proposed addition instead of a three foot variance to allow a two foot side yard setback. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: 1. Granting of the requested two foot variance would not be contrary to the intent and provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed addition will replace an existing structure that is located 0.9 feet from the side property line with a new structure three feet from the property line. Replacing this structure, which is in considerable disrepair, presents a demonstrable difficulty due to its proximity to the side property line. 3. The 3.0 foot setback would allow for access to the side of the building for maintenance of the building and access to the back yard. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Subject: Zoning Determination Appeal – Sara and Henry Stokman, 2917 Quentin Avenue South 4. The variance is not required for the preservation of a substantial property right, a guest bedroom, storage space in the basement and a mudroom are not substantial property rights. However, the variance will bring the property substantially closer to compliance with the required setback. 5. The variance will improve the safety and welfare of the property by replacing the existing 10 inch setback with a 3.0 foot setback. 6. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 12-25-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Zoning Appeal’s decision to deny Sara and Henry Stokman’s application is overturned, and Sara and Henry Stockman’s request for a two foot variance to the required five foot side yard setback is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The portion of the addition located within the side yard setback required for the zoning district in which this property is located cannot exceed the building dimensions shown on Exhibit A-Construction Plans. 2. This variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder fails to initiate the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 3. This variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4K Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Vendor Claims RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period November 24 through December 7, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Vendor Claims Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 108.00 SKATEBOARD PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3RD LAIR SKATEPARK 108.00 116.14 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC 116.14 56.65 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 56.65 314.95 OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC 314.95 78.85 POLICE G & A TELEPHONE AMERICAN MESSAGING 78.85 415.67 FABRICATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES ANDERSEN INC, EARL 415.67 333.70 GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS 26.72 ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 360.42 470.90 IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES ARC 470.90 4,374.77 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI ART PARTNERS GROUP 4,374.77 1,876.57 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1,876.57 64.33 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE ATOMIC RECYCLING 257.34 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 64.33 SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 386.00 128.22 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES BATTERIES R US 128.22 246.88 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BOBIER, HEIDI 246.88 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 2 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 6,000.00 WOLFE PARK AMPHITHEATER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BRAD'S LANDSCAPING 1,500.00 BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,500.00 BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,000.00 BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 8,000.00 BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,000.00 53.05 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES BROCK WHITE CO LLC 189.66- PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 481.93 SSD 1 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 481.93 SSD 3 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 827.25 46.67 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CARLSON, DAVE 46.67 239.40 IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE CARTRIDGE CARE 239.40 619.38 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT CDW GOVERNMENT INC 619.38 15,600.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT CENTRAL PENSION FUND 15,600.00 360.24 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES CINTAS CORPORATION 447.50 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 807.74 26.45- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK 1,105.60 ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 255.98 ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 262.16 HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES 175.00 HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 8.56 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 61.07 HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING 49.74 HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 71.69 IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.00 POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE 1,360.25 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 90.32 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 199.14 POLICE G & A POSTAGE City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 3 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 77.16 POLICE G & A TRAINING 864.88 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 365.94 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,155.00 OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 565.39 OPERATIONS TRAINING 1,072.50 OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 767.65 INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING 1,047.38 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 1.72- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 14.95 ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 86.03 ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,172.92 ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING 604.36 HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 352.40 SOCCER GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.00 TENNIS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 433.14 LITTLE TOT PLAYTIME GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.13 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5.50 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.73 HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES 227.00 REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 100.00 REC CENTER BUILDING ADVERTISING 21.08 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 131.76 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 128.28- GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 2,173.21 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 30.02 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 58.10 STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A MEETING EXPENSE 6.53- SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 101.52 SOLID WASTE RECYCLING GRANT PRINTING & PUBLISHING 65.49- CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 928.73 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 17,134.52 250.00 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CITIZENS LEAGUE 250.00 166.95 IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS COMCAST 166.95 375.00 TRAINING TRAINING COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION 375.00 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 4 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 1,637.95 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER COMPASSTOOLS 3,272.63 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER 3,272.63 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER 1,637.96 SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER 3,272.63 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER 13,093.80 41.84 DAMAGE REPAIR OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS 41.84 18.03- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS COOKE JP CO 280.23 INSPECTIONS G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 262.20 6,877.00 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CORNERHOUSE 6,877.00 145.06- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CORVAL CONSTRUCTORS INC 2,255.06 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,110.00 2,306.34 BASKETBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CRYSTAL, CITY OF 2,306.34 2,130.45 CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CTC 2,130.45 517.87 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES CUB FOODS 517.87 2,646.30 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CUMMINS NPOWER LLC 2,646.30 1,557.50 ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE I 1,557.50 197.18- CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS D&B POWER ASSOCIATES INC 3,065.18 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,868.00 32.06 SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS DISCOUNT STEEL INC 32.06 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 5 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 4,643.26 POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE DO-GOOD.BIZ INC 231.86 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,715.51 SOLID WASTE RECYCLING GRANT POSTAGE 8,590.63 1,250.00 REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE DOWNHOLE WELL SERVICES LLC 1,250.00 113.68 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN 113.68 103.55- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC 1,609.79 OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 1,506.24 36.79 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE 36.79 1,499.40 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG 1,499.40 203.24 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS INC 203.24 2,000.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC 2,000.00 1,801.91 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV 1,801.91 489.49 REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC 7,299.56 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 7,789.05 120.00 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES EUREKA RECYCLING 35,710.84 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE 35,830.84 776.64 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO 776.64 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 6 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 262.00 INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING EWING, SANDRA 262.00 786.10 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO 60.76 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 846.86 276.94 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES FASTENAL COMPANY 898.69 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 16.51 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,192.14 1,700.00 OPERATIONS TRAINING FIRE INC 1,700.00 108.44 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE 108.44 32,874.75 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI GARAGE FLOOR COATING OF MN 32,874.75 29.50 YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE GARRETT, ANGELA 29.50 54.96 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES GMS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES INC 54.96 39.30 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES GRAINGER INC, WW 20.53 SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS 59.83 377.10 WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR 596.13 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 973.23 7,665.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE GROTH SEWER & WATER 7,665.00 448.56 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE GROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE 448.56 9.49- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS GYM WORKS INC City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 7 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 347.49 OPERATIONS TRAINING 338.00 875.00 ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING HAMLINE UNIVERSITY 875.00 5,000.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC HARSTAD, ERIC 5,000.00 2,769.88 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES HAWKINS INC 2,769.88 32.50 ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI 32.50 3,803.96 POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 3,803.96 799.71 ENGINEERING G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORP 799.71 302.50 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC 302.50 126.61 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES HIRSHFIELDS 219.04 WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 345.65 5.00 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A EQUIPMENT PARTS HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 26.16 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 120.58 SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES 35.20 SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS 11.69 DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 84.90 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 250.09 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 533.62 104.16 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES HOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS 32.66 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 136.82 3,142.05 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE HOPKINS AUTO BODY INC City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 8 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 3,142.05 45.00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS IATN 45.00 853.32 WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS 853.32 SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 853.31 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE 853.31 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 3,413.26 19.55 SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS INDELCO 72.85 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 92.40 50.00 HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS IPMA-HR MINNESOTA 50.00 1,743.67 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY I-STATE TRUCK CENTER 1,743.67 286.48 ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT J & F REDDY RENTS 286.48 111.37 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES JERRY'S HARDWARE 61.45 SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.82 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 189.64 54.89 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO 54.89 4,000.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW JOHNSON, ETHAN 4,000.00 84.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER 84.00 1,074.08 POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT KEEPRS INC 1,074.08 276.92 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS KELLER, JASMINE Z City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 9 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 276.92 597.40 ESCROWS KENNEDY & GRAVEN 597.40 2,131.25- WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE KEYS WELL DRILLING CO 42,625.00 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 40,493.75 4,000.00 WATER UTILITY G&A MISCELLANEOUS KLM ENGINEERING INC. 4,000.00 391.24 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KRUSE, JENNIFER 391.24 88.95 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES LARSON, JH CO 88.95 40.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 40.00 5,621.00 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE 5,621.00 371.46 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LENTNER, LAURA 371.46 114.50 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING LLC 114.50 3,000.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC LINDGREN, NANCY 3,000.00 308.58 ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR LOMBARDI, JIM 308.58 372.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 372.00 76.50 REILLY BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICE MANAGED SERVICES INC 76.50 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 10 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 29,600.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MANAGEMENT PARTNERS 29,600.00 269.34 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES MARS CO, W P & R S 245.89 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 515.23 50.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT MCMA DINNER 50.00 4.23 SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTS MENARDS 7.70 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.68 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 530.28 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 571.89 114.00 VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS 114.00 4,500.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW MICKELSON, MARVIN 4,500.00 56.77 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES MICRO CENTER 87.93 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 144.70 130.47 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 130.47 1,430.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MIDWEST TESTING LLC 1,430.00 114.00 ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR 114.00 25.00 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS MINNESOTA DEPT AGRICULTURE 25.00 21,558.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH 21,558.00 40.00 REC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 11 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 70.00 WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES 110.00 369.42 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI MOBILE MINI INC 369.42 677.50 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MODERN HEATING & AIR CONDITION 677.50 2,165.95 FABRICATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES M-R SIGN CO INC 2,165.95 438.00 REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MVTL LABORATORIES 438.00 719.00 H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE NAC MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SE 719.00 659.74 REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES NALCO COMPANY 659.74 948.32 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO) 166.17 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,114.49 5,500.00 SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES NATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC 6,900.00 SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,755.00 SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,937.25 SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16,092.25 1,050.00 IT G & A TRAINING NELSON, SCOTT 1,050.00 139.76 ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONE NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 33.74- HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE 1,170.28 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE 120.63 ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE 67.48- FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE 956.97 POLICE G & A TELEPHONE 413.06 OPERATIONS TELEPHONE 864.27 INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 12 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 487.59 ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE 549.34 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE 243.73 PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE 411.74 ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE 341.48 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE 120.63 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE 243.73 WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE 313.92 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE 432.62 WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 155.31 SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 52.71 SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE 6,916.55 14.50 HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 149.29 GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 30.55 POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.99 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 182.39 POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES 138.10 OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 94.22 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.66 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 105.18 ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 55.05 WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 1.71 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.61 HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 936.25 3,735.03 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OFFICE TEAM 3,735.03 2,557.87 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC 2,557.87 3,243.55 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGE OMANN BROTHERS PAVING INC 3,243.55 4,477.07 PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ON SITE SANITATION 356.98 OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 208.41 WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,042.46 80.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES OSDOBA, KATIE City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 13 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 80.00 894.66 NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PARK THEATER COMPANY 894.66 328.61 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES POLK, MARLA 328.61 2,004.97 IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES PRESSWRITE PRINTING INC 2,004.97 7,500.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES PROCOLOR PAINTING 7,500.00 180.81 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES PUMP & METER SERVICE 325.20 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 506.01 2,828.62 FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE RANDY'S SANITATION INC 1,093.49 REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 1,021.02 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 4,943.13 225.00 SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS RECYCLING ASSOC OF MN 225.00 22.57 POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC 22.57 278.94 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES REINDERS INC 278.94 647.33 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RETROFIT COMPANIES INC 647.33 2,724.40 IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE RICOH USA INC 2,724.40 143.67 REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT PARTS RIEDELL SHOES INC 143.67 54.47 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY RIGID HITCH INC City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 14 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 54.47 95.00 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT ROCHESTER ARBORIST WORKSHOP 95.00 546.52 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 546.52 184.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SAURER, MARTI 184.00 2,237.83 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGE SCHIFSKY & SONS INC, TA 2,237.83 1,077.67 SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SEH 1,077.67 715.52 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP 715.52 927.47 IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS SPRINT 927.47 16.95 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES SPS COMPANIES INC 210.88 REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 227.83 864.13 ESCROWS GENERAL SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 6,991.93 ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICES 7,856.06 1,000.35 TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE ST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC 1,000.35 98,368.06 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC 98,368.06 1,832.09 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE 1,832.09 23,885.46 REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC 23,885.46 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 15 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 35.97 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES SUN NEWSPAPERS 368.70 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL NOTICES 404.67 35.40 POLICE G & A TRAINING TARGET BANK 6.56 COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 41.96 104.06 BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE TERMINIX INT 104.06 12.00 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES TEXA TONKA TAILORING 12.00 232.07 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES THOMPSON, HOLLY 232.07 930.38 ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 930.38 23.41 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO 23.41 2,156.50 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS BAL S RETAINED PERCENTAGE TWIN CITY TILE & MARBLE CO 2,156.50 150.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS UNITED STATES TREASURY 150.00 240.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA 240.00 500.00 OPERATIONS TRAINING UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 150.00 TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 650.00 150.00 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS 150.00 34.43 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE UPS STORE 197.68 SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 16 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 232.11 72.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES US HEALTH WORKS MEDICAL GROUP 102.00 HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 170.08 TRAINING GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 255.12 ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 595.72 TRAINING GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 255.12 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 552.76 REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 425.20 TRAINING GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,428.00 1,566.57 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT VERIZON WIRELESS 1,566.57 327.64 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR 107.41 WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 435.05 52.80 INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL VOGEL, GREG 52.80 98.78 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY WALSER CHRYSLER JEEP 98.78 42.08 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING WALTHER, SEAN 12.00 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE 219.78 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 273.86 698.37 BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT 698.37 418,944.22 WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES WESTWOOD VILLA ASSN 418,944.22 4,105.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES WHEELER HARDWARE 4,105.00 287.79 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES WIPERS & WIPES INC 287.79 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17 12/12/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:40:19 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 17 Page - Council Check Summary 12/7/2012 - 11/24/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 342.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY WRAP CITY GRAPHICS 259.56 HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00 REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 801.56 5,947.98 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE XCEL ENERGY 5,947.98 28.53- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC 443.53 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 415.00 129.62 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ZIEGLER INC 129.62 Report Totals 996,324.12 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4i UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission August 15, 2012, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Westwood Hills Nature Center 1. Call to Order Tom Worthington, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission members present: Jim Beneke, Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin, George Hagemann, Kirk Hawkinson and Tom Worthington. Commission members absent: Sophia Flumerfelt and George Foulkes. Staff present: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, Rick Beane, Park Superintendent, Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager, and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary. 3. Approval of Minutes a. April 18, 2012 It was moved by Commission member Hawkinson seconded by Commission member Hagemann to approve the minutes. Motion passed 6 – 0. 4. New Business a. Tower Park Redevelopment Update Mr. Beane provided the Commission with general information on the redevelopment of Tower Park which is located next to the water tower off Wyoming Avenue. Mr. Beane oversaw the project, which was planned in-house. The fields are mostly used by 13-14 year olds. The area had flooding issues, no fence and no irrigation. During reconstruction, the Utility Division ran a new storm water line through the area prior to installation of the field. The reconstruction was scheduled at the same time as the high school field renovation so the city acquired 5,200 cubic yards of fill from the High School project. This saved approximately $25,000. The fill, according to Mr. Beane, has brought the area above street grade which will help reduce or eliminate flooding. Members viewed pictures of construction prepared for by Mr. Beane. To date, the project is under budget and on time. It is anticipated the fields will be available in spring. The electrical, which includes a wireless scoreboard, is about 95% complete. There are no plans to install field lighting. The project did include an access trail and drinking fountain. The area is scheduled to be seeded and sodded August 27. Prior to the project, Mr. Beane indicated, a neighborhood process took place. The four or five people that attended were happy with the plans. During construction there were no complaints except for a narrowed corner due to parking recently. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 Ms. Griffin inquired if a sign for the field will be added. Mr. Beane indicated the sign will be re-installed. There was a great deal of buckthorn and substandard bushes and weeds removed from the west side. Mr. Beane will coordinate landscape design with Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinaton. Park dedication is yet to be determined. Expenses were reduced by completing in-house and staff enjoyed the project. b. Plan Bike Ride with Council Ms. Walsh advised the City Council is interested in coordinating a bike ride with the Commission. The last bike ride was 10 miles on the Regional Trail (from Bass Lake into Minneapolis, onto Cedar Lake, through Hopkins then back). Saturday or Sunday in fall would be great. Ms. Griffin recommended a Sunday afternoon; members were interested. Ms. Walsh will inventory Council members and provide a potential date to members. c. Shelter Restroom Accessibility (dates open) Ms. Walsh indicated Commission Chair and herself generally meet with the City Council to discuss what the Commission has worked on in the past and what they would like to work on in the future. Council discussed they would like to have restrooms open longer. Ms. Walsh indicated fiber optics to the buildings would be needed. With fiber optics, cameras could be installed and the option to lock the buildings at specific times would be beneficial. It would be expense otherwise. Ms. Walsh advised the City of Edina tried keeping their restrooms open longer without success. People hid in their buildings and either partied in them or vandalized them. Mr. Beane provided an example of a park building that people entered and dismantled the lights, lived in, and partied in. Staff has increased the number of portable toilets in the parks. Mr. Worthington indicated that there currently is not a good solution. There currently is no resolution, indicated Ms. Walsh, but will revisit once fiber optic is installed. 5. Old Business a. Minnehaha Creek Clean-Up Review Mr. Worthington indicated the event was a very successful day! The water was low, the weather was nice and there were no injuries. Mr. Hagemann indicated a women’s outdoor activity group supplied people for the clean-up and suggested that if we need more people for this type of event, social media might be an option. Mr. Worthington felt it was a good turnout of Cub Scouts, bank members, the Lacrosse team, etc. We could try to coordinate with other groups, Mr. Worthington indicated, but what we do is working well. Members discussed the most interesting item to pull out of the creek. Items included a come-along; usable football; pool cover; ladder; chicken wire; roll of carpeting; 1980 boom box; a homeless camp; and identification (military discharge papers, cards, etc. from 1940). Ms. Walsh advised park maintenance staff will watch for good areas to clean next year and will advise the Commission. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 3 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 b. Northside Park Grand Opening Mr. Beane advised there was a great turnout for the Northside Park grand re-opening held on Saturday, May 12. Approximately 500-600 people attended with smiles from everyone. Fire Station No. 2 had their ribbon cutting the same day. The fire station and park fit together well. City staff has half of a garage for storage; the other half is for Little League. There were no parking complaints from the event. TC from the Twins was a big hit and Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman attended. Hot dogs, ice cream, soda and chips were served. Northside Park will not contain a winter ice rink. All three fields were utilized and continue to function well. c. Council Meeting Recap with PRAC Ms. Walsh indicated Commission Chair and herself generally meet with the City Council to discuss what the Commission has worked on in the past and what they would like to work on in the future. Council discussed they would like to have restrooms open longer. Please see item 4c for restroom discussion. Council was very pleased with the Commission Ms. Walsh advised. The Council is thrilled that various groups/associations are invited to monthly meetings for discussion. Mr. Worthington advised the Council was very appreciative of everyone volunteering their time to be on the Commission. With the Council, Ms. Walsh and Mr. Worthington discussed the Minnehaha Creek clean up, restoration of the creek (to which they are supportive). The Council thanked all members and advised to “Keep it up”. 6. Staff Reports: Tour Pond and Waterfall at Westwood Hills Nature Center Mr. Oestreich briefly described the construction process of the waterfall and pond area outside Westwood Hills Nature Center building. The building was originally built in 1981 with the hopes of a native prairie surrounding the building. Instead of an established prairie, various undesired plants grew. When the building was remodeled in 2004, landscaping was to be added but it was put on hold due to various maintenance projects. During construction of the pond, contractors dug down around 12 feet and never came across asphalt or contaminated material. The Nature Center staff works with numerous preschoolers who cannot be taken far from the building. Taking that into consideration, along with the area, it was decided to add a pond and waterfall area. Included in the water area is a demonstration of what can be done with native plantings. This project was also designed as a wellness area for people to enjoy. A list of plants included in the water garden area was distributed by Mr. Oestreich. The DNR plans to stock the pond in 2013 as part of the FIN (fishing in your neighborhood) Program. This will allow children an opportunity to catch and keep various fish. Mr. Oestreich pointed out a screened enclosure in the front, currently in progress, and indicated the Nature Center Raptors will be relocated to that enclosure during daytime hours. The Red- Tailed Hawk will be on display along with a Peregrine Falcon that will be acquired from the Raptor Center. The Falcon has permanently injured talons and cannot be released into back into the wild. The Peregrine Falcon is the fastest flying falcon. Once the permit from the State is City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 4 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 approved, the Nature Center will acquire the bird. Mr. Oestreich indicated the Nature Center would like to acquire an Owl also to have three raptors. Visitors will be able to view the screened enclosure from inside the building or outside. The enclosure also allows the captive raptors to be exposed to the natural environment (i.e. rain, sun, etc.). Mr. Oestreich advised members that their summer camp season ends tomorrow. This summer, they p aired two age groups of campers at one time with staff split between those groups. This was in response to a change in registration numbers. The Center will be quiet for a couple weeks before fall activities begin. A generator for the building is scheduled to arrive next year. Street, Parks and Facility Maintenance staff will pave and install a culvert behind the Nature Center building in anticipation of this project. This will also prevent the hallway from flooding during heavy rains. Other improvements included the removal and replanting of all plum trees and installing a butterfly prairie garden outside the front building entrance. The wildflower trail will be also repaired and paved this fall. Mr. Worthington commended Mr. Oestreich on a nicely run facility; members agreed. 7. Other / Future Agenda Items a. Community Recreation Facilities Task Force Update Ms. Walsh mentioned that at the last task force meeting, members listed and ranked site criteria to provide to the City Council. These were created from a list of types of items that were heard from the public. Mr. Beneke inquired on potential sites and commented that the City owns land by Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7. Ms. Walsh advised the south side of that area will be LRT. The parking lot (owned by the EDA) will be removed when the bridge project for Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue begins. Highway 7 will go over Louisiana Avenue with round-abouts on both ends. The area will be very pedestrian friendly. Ms. Walsh inquired if the Commission members would like an engineer to visit and explain how the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue interchange will look. Ms. Griffin inquired when the project will begin. The City is applying for grants, advised Ms. Walsh, and hopes to begin in 2013 if funding comes through. Land acquisition is currently underway. Mr. Hagemann briefly described conversations and ideas to include bike lanes in the area. Members would like to discuss the project with the City Engineer. Mr. Worthington commented the Council did not back away from suggestions of an indoor pool, nor other big items even with the understanding it would cost a lot. They would like to see cost estimates. Conversations have included the future of seniors and trends in aging which Lisa Greene has also been involved in advised Ms. Walsh. The largest trend is as boomers retire, they would not join a senior center; they are looking for a community center which includes all ages. The task force would recommend a large community room which could be subdivided into a gathering place to play cards but is not recommending a specific senior area. The area could be utilized for any age group (i.e. magician, teen event, etc.). There are no age specific places in the recommendations. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4i) Page 5 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 b. Picnic Date Mr. Hagemann explained that the Commission hosts a picnic annually for Parks & Recreation staff as an appreciation. Members serve grilled burgers, hot dogs, chips, etc. The members that can attend help grill and serve the food. Ms. Walsh advised staff, especially maintenance staff, really appreciates this recognition. The picnic will be held at Oak Hill Park’s Main Shelter with the enclosed pavilion reserved in the event of inclement weather. Members discussed dates and decided to hold the picnic on Thursday, September 27 from 11:30 a.m. – 1 p.m. Ms. Voelker will reserve the Oak Hill Park Main shelter and the enclosed pavilion. c. October Meeting Date Ms. Walsh asked members if the October meeting could be moved from October 17 to October 24. Members agreed to change the date of the October meeting. Ms. Voelker will send out a reminder of the change. d. Member Comments Members will see construction begin at Belt Line Boulevard at the trail connection, Mr. Hagemann shared. The City Council voted to move ahead with a design to include a full median in the trail. The project will cost approximately $150,000 to widen Belt Line Boulevard north of the trail to allow a median in the middle for refuge from traffic when crossing. Ms. Walsh advised Minneapolis is seal coating on the Cedar Lake trail also. This is not part of the same project as the median project. Mr. Worthington reminded members of the all-school reunion to be held on August 25. Ms. Walsh advised members the precast concrete was set for the Dream Elevator art work on the corner of West 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue today. Artist, Randy Walker will begin the weaving soon. 8. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member Hagemann seconded by Commission member Hawkinson to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. The motion passed 6 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4j UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission September 19, 2012, 6:30 p.m. Meeting Rec Center Programming Office 1. Call to Order Tom Worthington, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission members present: Jim Beneke, George Hagemann, Kirk Hawkinson and Tom Worthington. Commission members absent: Sophia Flumerfelt, Sarah Foulkes, Elizabeth Griffin and George Foulkes. Staff present: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent, Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator and Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary. 2. Presentation: Baseball Association Matt Farley, President of the Baseball Association and Little League, introduced himself to the Commission and thanked them for the invitation. The St. Louis Park Baseball Association partners with American Legion (Junior and Senior Legion Baseball), SLP Traveling Baseball, Babe Ruth Baseball (Prep League, Jr. Babe Ruth and Senior Babe Ruth) and Little League Baseball to offer opportunities for boys and girls ages 7 to 18. There are approximately 160 participants playing baseball between the ages of 13 and 18. Little League and Traveling Baseball offer baseball opportunities for 8 to 12 year olds and the number of participants this past season was approximately 450 in these age groups. It is great to have the new Northside Park fields available, Mr. Farley indicated. The fields are good and are available when they are needed for the Baseball Associations programs. Mr. Birno advised Tower field will be available for play soon next spring. Mr. Farley indicated the Baseball Association is willing to be a financial partner in future upgrades to parks such as batting areas, etc. Mr. Birno complimented the Association on their continual work with staff. Mr. Hawkinson inquired how many parks currently have batting cages. Mr. Birno advised there are two at Skippy Field and three cages at Northside Park. Staff is trying to limit Skippy field and Northside Park fields for games only and use the other fields for practices. Mr. Worthington thanked Mr. Farley and everyone in the association for their contribution to serve the city. 3. Approval of Minutes a. August 15, 2012 There was no quorum to approve the minutes. The minutes will be presented and approved at the meeting on October 24, 2012. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 19, 2012 4. New Business a. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Trail Presentation Mr. Vaughan introduced James Wisker, Director of Planning, Project and Land Conservation Programs at Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”). Mr. Wisker indicated the design plans for the remeander project are complete and ready to accept bids for winter construction. The bid will be awarded the end of October and mobilization will begin shortly after. It is more cost effective when it is very cold as the frozen ground allows large equipment into the area. There will be 4,000 linear feet remeandered. Mr. Wisker showed the Minnehaha creek stream channel and described how the urban landscapes have changed over the years from the 1930’s to present. Members viewed various wetlands, the creek, and public property surrounding the creek. MCWD is trying to mimic hydrology to slow down the water, provide a base flow into the creek which provides habitat for fish. MCWD is attempting to meet livable community goals along with other various goals in the city, one of which is to get people to recreate on the Creek. The master vision was reviewed by members which included the goal of restoring habitat, creating recreation areas and sharing the history of the creek. Mr. Wisker described the initial partnership with Methodist Hospital to remeander the creek in that area. The project was very successful and has increased recreation. Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Wisker viewed and discussed improving the canoe landing/park which may increase recreation in that area. A $300,000 grant has been received for the project. MCWD purchased property (known as the Weiss property) in the area to assist in the project and is currently attempting to locate land or space behind Japs Olson to treat water. They are currently working with the county and the Hopkins City Council for the area by the Blake LRT station. In 2010 the City of Hopkins approached the MCWD to purchase the Cottageville Park area. They did purchase the Cold Storage Site which is 17 acres with 1,000 feet of creek frontage. This area can be utilized for assistance in filtering water, runoff, drainage, etc. MCWD hopes to have a design completed for that area within the next year. The city asked MCWD to design a trail system along the creek during the remeandering project. Mr. Wisker advised of a proposed trail that would go from Cottageville Park in Hopkins, along the creek, to Methodist Hospital. MCWD has worked with the city to acquire the funding to get the trails done at the same time as the remeander project. Alternate bid for trails along the creek from Meadowbrook to Louisiana Avenue, will be added to contract bid documents this October with the hope for next spring to complete, if finances are worked out for this aspect of the plan. There will be two base bids: moving the creek and storm water management, with trails being an alternate bid. The trails would be the last thing to get built in late summer or fall. The remeandering will occur in the winter; area will be seeded in spring. Mr. Hagemann inquired on Mr. Wiskers thoughts on adequate access points and parking to which Mr. Wisher responded there might be parking issues if people drive to the recreation area. The hope is the areas would be walking/biking destinations. The MCWD will partnership with the city’s involved to include educational signage in the areas. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 3 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 19, 2012 There’s also a potential for trail spurs to residential/business areas and potential fencing needed to protect businesses along trail. Access is a large part of the project and the MCWD will work through various issues through the next five to six months. Mr. Worthington inquired if the MCWD will do water quality sampling to see if the meandering changes the water quality. Monitoring has taken place since the 1960’s and will continue advised Mr. Wisker. Water quality must be tracked for a decade before any changes may appear. Mr. Wisker commented on the Commissions involvement in the project. The MCWD would like to create a vision from Hopkins to Methodist and have it named. Mr. Hagemann commented he is excited to see as was one of past discussions and is now becoming reality. Funding options could be opened for the type of trail discussed. Mr. Wisker indicated the water project is $1 million and the trail project is $1 million. It would be half of a million dollars to get a major connection piece. Mr. Worthington feels the city could connect with Hopkins to discuss key places to highlight, the naming opportunity, and to ensure unified signage. Mr. Wisker indicated the Friends of Minnehaha Creek are interested in unified signage, branding around the creek, access points, etc. They did express interest in putting a shuttle program in place (1-2 year demo program). That would greatly increase people enjoying the creek. Mr. Birno advised on City’s current shuttle program. b. No Smoking in Parks Policy Mr. Birno reviews the “Tobacco-Free Parks” policy where signs are added to parks indicate the area is smoke free. Tobacco-Free Youth Recreation” provides signage for the parks is the policy is adopted. Enforcing the policy was discussed. Members recommended adopting the policy and adding signs to the bigger parks/youth athletic facilities. This is a policy or guide, not an ordinance. Mr. Birno mentioned our conduct policy includes the statement, “no tobacco, drug or alcohol use around dugouts, fields, etc.”. Mr. Hagemann inquired if associations abide by it to which Mr. Birno indicated they abide by it and police it. There have been no complaints. St. Louis Park is one of the few metro suburbs that does not have the policy in place. Members feel it promotes a healthy lifestyle and parallels Hennepin County’s Active Living promotion. This would also provide association’s additional support to ask people not to smoke. Mr. Birno will schedule to meet with the Police Advisory Commission to present the “Tobacco Free Parks” policy. Members discussed and recommending blending the signs into the current signage or limit the signage as there are a lot of signs around currently. Members recommend moving forward with the policy. c. Dakota Park Baseball Field Renaming Presentation Mr. Birno received a proposal from a community group to name the field at Dakota Park Derrick Keller Field. Derrick Keller’s history and proposal were reviewed. Members briefly discussed the proposal. Mr. Worthington indicated there is a waiting period of two years which has not been met. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 4 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 19, 2012 Members discussed the policy and recommended the proposal be considered when the waiting period has been met. 5. Old Business a. Employee Appreciation Luncheon Assignment Discussion (Sept. 27) Members discussed the luncheon and assigned duties/supplies to bring. 6. Staff Reports Mr. Birno indicated it was a great pool season and overall a great summer season! Program participant numbers were good, the Minnesota Public Theater Company’s Romeo & Juliet program had good weather and great attendance. Parktacular’s new street dance location at West End was a huge success and the entire community celebration was well received by the community. Participation in youth athletics has increased and adult activities are full. Tower Park has been renovated and includes a full fence, netting, new dugouts and backstop, scoreboard, pitching warm-up area, a 52” mound, and stormwater pipe has been repaired for better drainage. The intermediate field is great for 13 year olds. Parking remained the same. Public meetings were held prior to the project. Approximately 20 trees will be planted this fall also. Building of the new skate shop in the Rec Center has begun with a projected opening date in late October. Staff is working with the Hockey Association to determine who will staff the shop. The shop will offer skate rental, skate sharpening and general hockey items for sale. The Banquet Room and Gallery are currently being renovated with an anticipated completed date in late September. The new ADA laws which were implemented in March of 2012 will require improvements to many Park & Recreation parks and facilities. Staff has hired a consultant to review park areas and facilities to provide a list of recommended updates to ensure ADA standards are met. This will allow planning and improvements for years to come. Girl Scouts supplied a Little Free Library in the Rec Center hallway which will be maintained and stocked by volunteers. Mr. Vaughan indicated a Little Free Library can be found in various parks as well. Mr. Birno advised the Library will be advertised in the brochure. Jim Vaughan provided an update on various Environmental programs. Staff is looking at acquiring a weevil that will kill Purple Loosestrife, which is an invasive species, no other plants to help control the Loosestrife. Emerald Ash Borer has spread to St. Paul and St. Louis Park may see it in two to three years. The AIS program has been taken over by the Watershed District. They are struggling with boat checks at boat launches but continue to do so. There have been coyote incidences throughout St. Louis Park Mr. Vaughan advised. Discussions amongst various groups have taken place what to do about the animals. Signage has been included in parks to educate the public on how to live with coyotes and not attract them. The deer City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 5 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 19, 2012 population has also increased. Staff will hire someone to assist in thinning the deer population this winter. Staff continues to plant trees to make up for trees lost from disease and draught. With the Boneyard (Brush Disposal Site) open this growing season, it has helped decrease dumping in parks. The yard was open to residents and staffed on weekends plus Tuesdays. The funding came from Public Work’s solid waste fund. Mr. Vaughan indicated the Girl Scouts will stencil 1,000 drain catch basins with “this water drains to your nearby water area”. Senator Franklin volunteered to speak with the Scouts at Oak Hill Park. The City Council is exploring an Environmental Commission to review and guide sustainability and natural resources. Fifteen people were chosen and will meet five times to determine the need for an Environmental Commission. Mr. Vaughan indicated there were six nominations for the Evergreen Award with three winners. The winners were presented a certification and tree at a recent Council meeting. 7. Other / Future Agenda Items a. Community Recreation Facilities Task Force Update Mr. Beneke indicated the Task Force met a couple weeks ago and staff provided possible locations to the group. Mr. Worthington indicated a variety of sites were presented and the task force scored various sites with specific criteria specified. Mr. Worthington commented on the interesting discussion on population density of housing as properties discussed included city owned, school district owned and potential private owned property. This list will be reviewed at the next meeting. b. Member Comments Mr. Hawkinson inquired if the MN Wild skates at The Rec Center. Mr. Birno advised they being practice in The Rec Center in August and continues until the season begins. Mr. Hagemann announced Friends of The Arts is recruiting for a High School student representative. He also indicated a Town Hall meeting will be held on Thursday, October 25 at 7 p.m. in City Hall to discuss what Friends of the Arts has done and goals for the future. Mr. Birno indicated the Arts and Culture Grant applications will be reviewed in October. Approximately $16,000 will be allowed to provide grants to various art projects. Mr. Hagemann advised approved to carry funding over to next year if not granted in one year. Mr. Birno updated the Commission on the Randy Walker art piece which is on the corner of West 36th Street and Walker Street. Mr. Worthington indicated over 2,000 people attended the all school reunion! There were graduates from 1936, 1939 and various other years. A great time was had by all. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 6 Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 19, 2012 Mr. Birno advised dates were unable to be coordinated for the bike ride with Council so the ride is postponed until spring. Mr. Beneke indicated he has applied for a School Board seat and will advise if he is accepted. The Commission’s meeting schedule of October 24 and December 5 was confirmed for the remainder of the year. 8. Adjournment It was moved by Commission member Hawkinson seconded by Commission member Worthington to adjourn at 8:26 p.m. The motion passed 4 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Stacy Voelker Stacy Voelker Recording Secretary Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4k MINUTES St. Louis Park Housing Authority Aquila Room, St. Louis Park City Hall Wednesday, November 14, 2012, 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Suzanne Metzger Commissioner Osman Mire arrived at 5:04 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Justin Kaufman STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Michele Schnitker 1. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for October, 2012 The Board minutes of October 10, 2012 were unanimously approved. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Approval of Housing Choice Voucher Utility Allowance, Resolution No. 618 Ms. Schnitker stated that Section 8 utility allowances must be analyzed on an annual basis. This year both gas and electric rates were virtually unchanged, with a 1.8% increase in Section 8 electric rates. Gas allowances decreased by an average of 26%, a reflection of the mild winter experienced last year. The amended utility allowances will be effective January 1, 2013. Commissioner DuFour moved to approve Resolution of the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Amending the Section 8 Utility Allowance Schedule, Resolution No. 618. Commissioner Metzger seconded, and the motion passed 4-0. b. Training and Resources for Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS) Update Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA has been notified by HUD that it will not receive the Housing Choice Voucher FSS Coordinator renewal grant for Federal FY 2012 (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2013). The HA has requested a debriefing with HUD staff and a review of the decision, and letters were sent to Representative Elliason, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken requesting their intervention. To date, Ms. Schnitker has received word from Senator Klobuchar’s City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Subject: Housing Authority Minutes November 14, 2012 office confirming receipt of the HA’s letter. HA staff is exploring additional means of funding the program throughout 2013, with a reduction in Coordinator hours. National NAHRO has indicated that HUD may be revisiting their funding decisions. A contract extension will be presented for Board consideration at the December meeting. Terms will be dependent on further word from HUD regarding the status of 2013 funding. c. Continuing Discussion: Strategies and Tools for Creating Affordable Housing Ms. Schnitker suggested that the Commissioners discuss their “next steps”. After discussion, the Commissioners decided to first draft a policy statement and then set-up a working meeting with experienced St. Louis Park developers to brainstorm various development options and determine what obstacles might exist for developing affordable housing in St. Louis Park. Ms. Schnitker reminded the Commissioners that the Maxfield Research housing inventory study will be completed in approximately two months. The Commissioner also discussed whether to address the strategies during regular meetings or hold extra meetings; it was decided to begin with strategies at the December Board meeting. d. Eliot School Redevelopment Site: Housing Authority Board Comments Ms. Schnitker presented the Commissioner comments regarding the Eliot School Redevelopment Site that are to be presented to the City Council and the Planning Commission. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List – November, 2012 b. Communications 1. Monthly Report – November, 2012 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Metzger moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner DuFour seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________ Renee DuFour, Secretary Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan and 2013 Utility Rates RECOMMENDED ACTION: • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2013 Budgets and authorizing the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy • Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2013 Final HRA Levy • Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2013 - 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) • Motion to Adopt Resolution setting the 2013 Utility Rates POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the City Council desire to approve the 2013 Budgets for General, Park and Recreation, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects Funds? Also, does the City Council desire to approve the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy at $24,712,941, which is an increase of $950,190 or approximately 4.00% over the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy? • Does the City Council desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of taxable market value allowable for HRA purposes, which is $900,933, or an $82,641 decrease from 2012, to assist in paying for infrastructure needs in redeveloping areas? • Does the City Council desire to approve the 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)? • Does the City Council desire to set the 2013 Utility Rates as proposed? BACKGROUND: At the September 4, 2012 Regular City Council meeting, the City Council adopted a 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy of $24,712,941 which is an increase of $950,190, or an approximate 4.00% increase from the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy. This levy is utilized to support the operations of the General Fund, Park and Recreation Fund, Capital Replacement Fund, Park Improvement Fund, and the Employee Administration Fund. In addition, the levy will provide for the pay down of principal and interest payments for the Debt Service Funds. The City Council and EDA also adopted a 2013 Preliminary HRA Levy of $900,933, which is $82,641, or approximately an 8.40% decrease from the 2012 Final HRA Levy of $983,574. By law, this levy can only be used for infrastructure, housing and redevelopment purposes. City Council has reviewed and discussed the 2013 Proposed Budget, property tax implications, the 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and utility rates over the course of the year. The Truth in Taxation Public Hearing was held on Monday December 3, 2012 with information reflecting a 4.00% levy increase approved on September 4, 2012. Based on the results of the public hearing, the City Council has directed staff to proceed with the 4.00% levy increase, with the total amount being $24,721,941 as the 2013 Final General Property Tax Levy. Formal adoption of the 2013 Budget, 2013 Final Levy adoption for the City and HRA levies, 2013 Utility Rates, and the 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan are scheduled for this evening, December 17, 2012. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates PROPERTY TAX LEVY The breakdown of the 2013 Proposed Property Tax Levy by fund is shown in the following chart: 2012 2013 Dollar Change Percent Change Final Final From 2012 From 2012 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,169,798 $20,657,724 487,926$ 2.42% Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00% Capital Replacement Fund 438,300 1,108,132 669,832 152.83% Pavement Management Fund 315,000 - (315,000) -100.00% Debt Service 1,929,629 1,937,085 7,456 0.39% Employee Administration Fund 100,024 200,000 99,976 99.95% TOTAL TAX LEVIES $23,762,751 $24,712,941 $950,190 4.00% Additional Property Tax Levy Information: • A 4.00% or $950,190 increase from the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy compared to the 2013 Preliminary Property Tax Levy is reflected above. • General Fund levy allocation increased due to increased unwinding or elimination of transfers dating back to LGA elimination in 2003 and operational needs. • Capital Replacement Fund levy allocation was increased by a total of $669,832, of which $315,000 was shifted from the Pavement Management Fund, with the remaining $354,832 added based on potential future projects and to aid in achieving long term sustainability. • Pavement Management Fund levy allocation was eliminated and shifted to the Capital Replacement Fund due to a franchise fee increase within the fund for 2013. • Employee Administration Fund levy allocation was increased in the effort to achieve long term sustainability. FISCAL DISPARITIES The City’s net fiscal disparities contribution has increased significantly from 2010 to 2012, increasing from approximately $1.2 million in 2010 to over $3.2 million in 2012. This increase equates to approximately 3.17% of the City’s total 2012 tax capacity. For Proposed 2013, the City’s net contribution decreased by approximately $280,000, to a total net contribution of approximately $2.94 million, or approximately 4.74% of its total tax capacity to the fiscal disparities pool. This net contribution increases the City’s tax rate. 2013 FINAL HRA LEVY This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies and analyses for future improvement projects. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, particularly transportation infrastructure such as Highway 7 and Louisiana, the City’s current budgeted share to be paid from the HRA Levy Fund is $12,095,500 with another $200,000 from the Utility Funds. Council approved on September 4, 2012 that the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2013 budget year. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. By state statute, the HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the taxable market value of the City. Therefore, Staff has calculated the maximum Final HRA Levy for 2013 to be $900,933 based on data from Hennepin County resulting in an $82,641 decrease from the 2012 Final HRA Levy of $983,574. The EDA is requested to approve the 2013 Final HRA Levy on December 17, 2012 before the Regular City Council meeting. 2013 Budgets Attachment 1 is a resolution that includes summary budget data for the General, Park and Recreation, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects Funds. These summaries are consistent with previous years, as staff thought it was important to continue showing a more comprehensive picture of the resources the City is entrusted with and, subsequently, have the City Council formally adopt these budgets. Therefore, the total expenditures that the City adopts a budget for is approximately $60.5 million, with $30.3 million or 50.1% attributed to the General and Park and Recreation Funds with the remaining $30.2 million or 49.9% attributed to the other funds. 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) The City Council reviewed the CIP at study sessions throughout the 2013 Budget process. The next five years will continue to have aggressive infrastructure construction. This is evident with the Highway 7 and Louisiana Ave. interchange project scheduled to begin in 2013 and Highway 100 improvements scheduled to begin in late 2014. In addition, continued investment in the regular cycle of street reconstruction projects, utility infrastructure improvements, and replacement of existing vehicles and equipment is occurring. Therefore, it is vital that careful planning continues to occur in an effort to maintain financial stability while still investing in capital. The 2013 – 2017 CIP shows that: • $130.5 million in planned investment over the next five years • $71.4 million of these costs are being paid for from sources or revenue streams the City has direct control of such as cash on hand, tax levy dollars, current and future utility rates and future bonding. • $59.1 million of this is planned as non-City resources such as federal, state and county government, in addition to Municipal State Aid (MSA), Met Council and other jurisdictions (not all of these dollars have been committed by these entities). Costs not included in the proposed 2013 - 2017 Capital Improvement Plan at this time include: • A civic/community center (Vision item). • Expansion of the city’s streets and utility systems (other than interchange projects). • Cost estimates for expanded sidewalks/trails – the project is listed as a placeholder only. Only those projects included in the CIP for 2013 are authorized for purchase during the next year. The out years, 2014 - 2017 are for planning purposes only and do not in all cases represent a firm commitment to construct or purchase any specific assets until authorized by the City Council. Any projects estimated to cost more than $100,000 will be formally bid and brought back for acceptance by the City Council. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates 2013 Utility Rates City staff, in conjunction with consultants, analyzed the City’s utility operations and capital plans over the next 10 years to determine if rate adjustments are needed to maintain long term sustainability in each of the four utility funds. The City Council reviewed and discussed information provided by staff over the course of the year to determine the proposed utility rates for 2013 to be considered this evening. Based on analyses from information in the CIP and the plan approved by Council, which is the continued phased-in increase to the fixed fee for the Water Fund as a means to reduce some of the seasonal volatility, changes in utility rates are being recommended. The changes are consistent with information Council received in the past and are in line with the goals of achieving long-term sustainability in the funds. For 2013, the approximate cumulative effect on a typical residential property for all the utility rate adjustments would be an increase of $36.24, or 4.09% for the year, or approximately $3.02 per month. This calculation is based on a family of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500 gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service. The recommended rates will be in place for consumption or services provided beginning on January 1, 2013. The attached resolution provides specific information on the recommended rate adjustments for each fund. Estimated City Impact on Residential Homestead Property for 2013 for Taxes and Utilities Based on a 4.00% levy increase, and realizing that there are many variables in estimating the City impact on a residential homestead property, a “typical” property in St. Louis Park valued at approximately $211,400 for taxes payable in 2013 and having typical utilities as shown in the table on the previous page, would experience an overall increase of approximately $2.87 per month or approximately $34.44 for the entire year. Of this estimated $34.44 increase, approximately a $36.24 increase would be attributed to utility rate adjustments and approximately a $1.80 decrease would be attributed to the City’s share of property taxes. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed budgets, tax levies, and utility rates will support necessary city services to be provided during 2013. In addition, the 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan provides a plan in an effort to fund the City’s infrastructure and equipment needs over the next five years. VISION CONSIDERATION: Vision, including strategic directions, was used in preparing the budget documents and many of the projects in the CIP have a direct relationship to the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council. Attachments: 1) Resolution - Adopting 2013 Budgets & Authorizing 2013 Final Property Tax Levy 2) Resolution - Authorizing the 2013 Final HRA Levy 3) Resolution - Adopting the 2013 – 2017 Capital Improvement Plan 4) Resolution - Adopting the 2013 Utility Rates 5) CIP – Funding Source Summary – 12-17-12 6) CIP – Projects & Funding Sources By Department – 12-17-12 Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2013 BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING THE 2013 FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax levy and a budget in December of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the 2013 Budgets are adopted as presented in the 2013 budget document; and General Fund and Park & Recreation Summary of Budgeted Revenues 2012 2013 Dollar % Change Final Proposed Change Final to '13 AVAILABLE RESOURCES Gen. and Park and Rec. Rev.: General Property Taxes 20,169,798$ 20,657,724$ 487,926 2.42% Licenses and Permits 2,375,399 2,481,603 106,204 4.47% Intergovernmental 1,232,579 1,300,191 67,612 5.49% Charges for Services 2,341,104 2,475,197 134,093 5.73% Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 328,150 335,150 7,000 2.13% Investment Earnings 125,000 153,500 28,500 22.80% Miscellaneous Revenue 1,095,150 1,110,531 15,381 1.40% Transfers In 2,053,003 1,831,563 (221,440) -10.79% Total Gen. and Park and Rec. Rev.29,720,183$ 30,345,459$ 625,276 2.10% General Fund and Park & Recreation Summary of Budgeted Expenditures 2012 2013 Dollar % Change Final Proposed Change Final to '13 Total General Government 6,780,392 6,907,355 126,963 1.87% Total Public Safety 12,509,994 12,702,346 192,352 1.54% Total Public Works 3,921,989 4,032,403 110,414 2.82% Total Park & Recreation 6,327,808 6,523,355 195,547 3.09% Total Non-Departmental 180,000 180,000 - 0.00% Total General & Park Funds 29,720,183$ 30,345,459$ 625,276 2.10% City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates 2012 2013 Final Proposed HRA Levy Fund Total HRA Levy Revenues 1,053,574$ 4,086,355$ Total HRA Levy Expenditures - 9,234,174 Cable TV Fund Total Cable TV Revenues 541,692 561,726 Total Cable TV Expenditures 697,422 690,621 Development Fund Total Development Fund Revenues 1,001,676 1,370,278 Total Development Fund Expenditures 1,463,077 1,729,914 CDBG Fund Total CDBG Revenues 186,000 173,000 Total CDBG Expenditures 199,382 186,373 Housing Rehabilitation Fund Total Housing Rehab Revenues 1,059,389 1,014,205 Total Housing Rehab Expenditures 1,218,267 1,290,419 Water Utility Fund Total Water Revenues 6,198,734 5,934,360 Total Water Expenses 4,667,224 5,450,219 Sewer Utility Fund Total Sewer Revenues 5,930,858 6,187,350 Total Sewer Expenses 5,745,246 5,849,191 Solid Waste Utility Fund Total Solid Waste Revenues 2,972,000 3,121,675 Total Solid Waste Expenses 2,860,335 2,927,426 Storm Water Utility Fund Total Storm Water Revenues 2,064,655 2,138,714 Total Storm Water Expenses 1,708,035 1,842,766 Employee Administration Fund Total Employee Benefits Revenues 217,722 490,712 Total Employee Benefits Expenses 544,000 846,000 Uninsured Loss Fund Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 58,000 114,318 Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 170,898 151,347 Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue and Select Capital Project Funds Summary of Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2012, collectible in 2013 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes: City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates 2013 FINAL TAX LEVY 2013 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund $20,657,724 Park Improvement Fund 810,000 Capital Replacement Fund 1,108,132 Debt Service 1,937,085 Employee Administration Fund 200,000 TOTAL 2013 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY $24,712,941 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2013 FINAL HRA LEVY WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA Act; and WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable market value of the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with the budget procedures of the City; and WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council: 1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2013, such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2013-2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report from the Controller related to proposed capital spending for 2013-2017; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital stock in order to enhance the city’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and WHEREAS, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council and staff exercise over the physical plant of the city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, MN, that: 1. The 2013-2017 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted. 2. The City Manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal year 2013 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes. 3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final approval. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION SETTING UTILITY RATES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report through the Controller related to proposed utility rates; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain charges in an amount necessary to cover the cost of providing service to users; and WHEREAS, maintaining rates through regular adjustment is a recommended practice rather than large intermittent increases; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, MN, that: 1. The water rates as recommended are hereby adopted. Description Units of Usage* Adopted Rate Tier1 0 - 40 units (0-30,000 gallons) $1.44 Tier 2 41-80 units (30,001 – 60,000 gallons) $1.80 Tier 3 >80 units (>60,000 gallons) $2.69 Commercial All units $1.44 Irrigation All units $2.69 *1 unit equals 100 cubic feet or 750 gallons 2. The water meter charges recommended are hereby adopted. Residential/Multi- family Quarterly Fee Commercial Monthly Fee Meter Size 2013 2013 5/8" $15.03 $5.01 3/4" $15.03 $5.01 1" $21.04 $7.01 1.5" $27.05 $9.02 2" $43.59 $14.53 3" $165.33 $55.11 4" $210.42 $70.14 6" $315.63 $105.21 2" compound $43.59 n/a 3" compound $165.33 n/a 3. The Minnesota Department of Health for state testing for water quality will continue to be imposed at a rate of $1.59 per quarter for residential and multi-family and $0.53 per month for commercial accounts. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates 4. The sanitary sewer usage rate recommended is hereby adopted at $2.61 per unit. 5. The sanitary sewer base charge recommended is hereby adopted at $13.43 per quarter for residential and multi-family accounts and $4.48 per month for commercial accounts. 6. The storm sewer rate recommended is hereby adopted at $16.00 per quarter per residential equivalent unit or $26.67 per month per residential equivalent unit for commercial accounts. 7. The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Charge pass through for properties located within the Bassett Creek Watershed Management District will be $1.93 per quarter per residential equivalent unit or $0.64 per month per residential equivalent unit. 8. The solid waste service charges per quarter recommended are hereby adopted. Service Level In Gallons Rates – with tax 30 $49.51 60 $62.97 90 $76.42 120 $89.90 150 $103.35 180 $116.80 210 $130.27 240 $143.73 270 $157.18 360 $197.57 450 $237.93 540 $278.31 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Capital Improvement Program City of St. Louis Park, MN FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY 2013 thru 2017 TotalSource20132014201520162017 Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 399,80038,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 Capital Replacement Fund 16,590,6845,027,251 3,912,100 2,673,009 2,809,406 2,168,918 E-911 Funds 170,00030,000 65,000 75,000 EDA Development Fund 882,500085,000 740,000 35,000 22,500 G.O. Bonds 125,000125,000 Henn Co Youth Sports Grant 250,000250,000 Hennepin County 620,000320,000 300,000 HRA Levy 13,108,04212,095,500 1,012,542 Met Council Grant 39,000,00012,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 Municipal State Aid 3,534,892185,000 228,314 2,174,578 395,000 552,000 Other Jurisdictions 900,000900,000 Park Improvement Fund 7,505,5001,163,500 1,332,000 2,497,000 1,388,000 1,125,000 Parks & Recreation 65,00065,000 Pavement Management Fund 8,534,2581,758,697 1,806,750 1,414,815 2,117,598 1,436,398 Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 198,000198,000 Police & Fire Pension 1,558,375758,125 622,625 142,625 35,000 PW Engineering Budget 17,5005,000 7,500 5,000 PW Operations Budget 1,771,906410,100 336,800 339,000 341,218 344,788 Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,227,362400,900 133,052 1,235,410 238,000 220,000 Special Assessments 933,000110,000 658,000 125,000 35,000 5,000 State of Minnesota 6,619,0006,619,000 Stormwater Utility 9,859,000445,000 6,041,000 1,575,000 1,100,000 698,000 Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,776,5093,776,509 U.S. Government 7,630,0007,630,000 Unfunded 000 Utilities 10,00010,000 Water Utility 4,206,0001,473,900 130,500 925,000 1,051,600 625,000 Youth Assoc - Park Improvement Fund 10,00010,000 50,805,873 27,708,441 30,334,737 14,336,423 7,316,854 130,502,328GRAND TOTAL Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 12 Capital Improvement Program City of St. Louis Park, MN PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT 2013 2017thru Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority Buildings 20091600 2,000,0002,000,000City Hall 1st Floor Renovation 3 2010B2 30,00030,000Renovate City Hall Interior Stairway 1 2012CH1 400,000400,000City Hall Exterior Architectual Features 5 2012CH3 60,00060,000City Hall Desk Conversions 3 2012CHPD1 50,00050,000City Hall/PD Generator Emissions Control 1 2013CH1 420,000420,000City Hall 2nd Remodeling 1 2013CH2 20,00020,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 1 2013CH4 65,00065,000City Hall/PD Power Generator Upgrades 1 2013CH5 7,0007,000City Hall East Prkng Lot - chip seal and re-stripe 1 2013MSC1 8,0008,000MSC Office Humidification System 3 2013PD/CH2 45,00045,000Police Station/City Hall Fire Alarm Panel 1 2013PD1 100,000100,000Police Station Exterior Finishes and Repair 1 2013PD2 5,0005,000Police Squad Parking Lot 1 2013PD3 7,0007,000PD Patio Replacement and Armory Exhaust Vent 1 2013PD4 18,00018,000Police Station - HVAC Computer upgrade 1 2013PD6 10,00010,000Police Station Dispatch workstation remodel 1 2013PD7 50,00050,000PD Replace Front Admin Office Furniture 3 2013WNC1 50,00050,000Westwood Nature Center Generator 1 2014CH1 310,000310,000City Hall 3rd Floor Covering and Furniture 1 2014CH3 25,00025,000City Hall Recoat Pedistrian Bridge 1 2014MSC1 45,00045,000MSC - Chip Seal and Re-Stripe parking lot 1 2014MSC2 30,00015,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO systems 1 2014PD1 10,00010,000Police Station ERC Audio Visual System 3 2014PD2 30,00030,000PD Kitchen/lunchroom remodel 3 2014WNC1 11,00011,000Westwood Nature Center Parking/Driveway 1 2015CH2 30,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 1 2015PD1 35,00035,000Police Station Seal for Air Infiltration 3 2016CH2 100,000100,000Roof Top AC Units Serving 1st and 2nd floor 1 2016CH3 100,000100,000City Hall Roof Top AC Unit Serving 3rd Floor 1 2016CH4 8,0008,000City Hall Chip, Seal, Stripe Main Parking Lot 1 2016FD1 4,0004,000FS #1 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 3 2016FD2 4,0004,000FS #2 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 3 2016PD1 70,00070,000Police Station/MSC - FOB controller replacement 1 2016WNC1 70,00070,000Westwood Nature Center Flooring 1 2017PD1 100,000100,000Police Station Floor Covering 1 2017PD2 60,00060,000Police Station replace boiler system 1 Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 13 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 4,387,0002,730,000 686,000 410,000 331,000 230,000Capital Replacement Fund 4,387,0002,730,000 686,000 410,000 331,000 230,000Buildings Total 4,387,0002,730,000 686,000 410,000 331,000 230,000Buildings Total Cable TV 399,80038,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 9,250Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant TV-201301 300300Annoucer Monitor 3 TV-201302 40040050' audio snake 1 TV-201303 500500Shotgun mics 1 TV-201304 300300Hand-held mics 1 TV-201305 1,5001,500Behringer Audio Equipment 1 TV-201306 900900Camera Monitors 1 TV-201307 35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 1 TV-201401 500500DVD Recorders 1 TV-201402 30,00030,000Slow-motion replay 1 TV-201403 70070012-channel audio mixer 1 TV-201404 7,5007,500Digital camcorders 1 TV-201405 10,20010,200NLE stations 1 TV-201406 900900Microphones1 TV-201501 120,000120,000Van Cameras 3 TV-201502 20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 3 TV-201503 13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 3 TV-201504 15,00015,000LCD monitors 3 TV-201505 2,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 1 TV201506 6,0006,000Converter for Recorder 1 TV-201507 36,00036,000Tripods for On Location 1 TV-201508 16,50016,500Video Switcher 1 TV-201509 4,2004,200SD/HD converter 1 TV-201510 1,5001,500DVD recorders 1 TV-201511 1,5001,500Tripods1 TV-201512 900900Unit pro light kit 1 TV-201513 28,20028,200Playback systems 1 TV-201601 750750Announcer Headsets 3 TV-201602 500500Shotgun mics 1 TV-201603 300300Hand-held mics 1 TV-201604 35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 1 TV-201701 2,0002,000Wireless mic systems 1 TV-201702 7,0007,000CG1 TV-201703 250250CD Player 1 399,80038,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 9,250Cable TV Total Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 14 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 399,80038,900 49,800 265,300 36,550 9,250Cable TV Total Community Development 000Unfunded 000Community Development Total CD-002 000CD-Sidewalks 5 CD-003 00CD-Trails 5 000Community Development Total Fire 500,00030,000 410,000 30,000 10,000 20,000Capital Replacement Fund 500,00030,000 410,000 30,000 10,000 20,000Fire Total 2013F1 60,00020,000 20,000 20,000Outside Warning Sirens 1 2013F2 40,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Thermal Imagers 1 2014F1 400,000400,000SCBA Replacement 1 500,00030,000 410,000 30,000 10,000 20,000Fire Total Parks & Recreation 20071010 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 3 20120200 6,0006,000Rec Center Rental Skate Purchase 5 20130010 20,00020,000Ball Field Backstop Repl - Brndl&Penn Pks 1 20130020 10,00010,000Basketball Hoop Replacement-Jr. High School 3 20130030 15,00015,000Birchwood Park field regrade/reseed 1 20130040 40,00040,000Cedar Knoll Park Storage & Concession Bldg Remodel 3 20130050 30,00030,000Court Resrfcg-Crpntr, FrnHl, Twn Lks Parks 3 20130060 6,5006,500Historical Society Building Concept 5 20130070 510,000510,000Louisiana Oaks Park Field Lighting (NW fields)5 20130080 15,0005,000 5,000 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)3 20130090 70,00070,000Park Shelter Flooring-Brwndl, Nlsn, & Oak Hill P 3 20130110 35,00035,000Pennsylvania Park Sun Shelter Replacement 3 20130120 100,000100,000Playground Eqpt Repl.-Oak Hill Park 1 20130130 80,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips 1 20130140 15,00015,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pump Rebuild 1 20130150 19,00019,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Tile Showers 3 20130160 12,00012,000Rec Center Banquet Room Chair Purchase 3 20130170 40,00040,000Rec Center East Arena Repainting 5 20130180 55,00055,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Flooring 3 20130190 50,00050,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Flooring 3 20130210 20,00020,000Rec Center Window Replacement 3 Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 15 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 20130220 65,00035,000 30,000Trail Sealcoat 3 20130230 70,00070,000Westwood Hills NC Brick & Rental House Imprvmnts 5 20130240 10,00010,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House Main Parking Lot 5 20130250 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Exhibit & Signage Rplcmt 5 20130260 50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC N Staircase&lower deck Replcment 1 20130270 40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Y-Dock Replacement 3 20130280 50,00050,000Hampshire Park Playground Addition 3 20140010 25,00025,000Cedar Knoll Park / Carlson Field Renovation 3 20140020 270,000270,000Dakota Park Baseball Field Lighting 1 20140030 22,00022,000Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot Seal Coat 3 20140040 35,00035,000Park Shelter Buildings Keyless Entry System 5 20140050 10,00010,000Park Shelter Bldg Stain-Browndale & Nelson Pks 3 20140060 180,000180,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Dakota & Wolfe Parks 1 20140080 40,00040,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sand&Water Area Shade 3 20140090 80,00080,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Waterslide Resurface 1 20140110 480,000480,000Rec Center Roof Rplc (east arena & main lobby)1 20140120 50,00050,000Rec Center West Arena Painting 3 20140130 15,00015,000Rec Center Programming Office Carpet 3 20140140 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Decking Replacement 3 20140160 15,00015,000Wolfe Lake & Cattail Pond Re-landscaping 3 20150010 25,00025,000Aquila Park Tennis Court Resurface 3 20150020 15,00015,000Basketball Court Resurface-Mkda V & Penn Pks 3 20150030 14,00014,000Court Resurface(tns)-Bass Lk & Northside Pks 3 20150040 400,000400,000Junior High School Multi Field Lighting (2)3 20150050 10,00010,000Kilmer Pond Shoreline Restoration 3 20150060 15,00015,000Louisiana Oaks Park Pond Shoreline Restoration 3 20150070 10,00010,000Minikahda Park Backstop Replacement 1 20150080 180,000180,000Playground Structure Repl-Jersey, LA & Nelson 1 20150110 80,00080,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Concession Shade Structure 3 20150120 15,00015,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Mechanical Rebuild 1 20150130 75,00075,000Rec Center Exterior Building Repair 3 20150140 12,00012,000Rec Center Gallery Flooring 1 20150150 380,000380,000Rec Center West Arena Dehumidification 1 20150160 1,000,0001,000,000Rec Center West Arena Refrigeration Replacement 1 20150170 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 3 20150180 30,00030,000Trail Recon. Along CLR - Quentin Ave to Ridge Dr 1 20150200 6,0006,000Westwood Hills NC Wildflower Trail Restoration 3 20150210 100,000100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement (south end)3 20160010 60,00060,000Carpenter Park Ball Field Fence Replacement 3 20160020 5,0005,000Court Resurface (bb/Tns)-Browndale Park 3 20160030 250,000250,000Dakota Park Softball Field One Lights 3 20160040 30,00030,000Louisiana Oaks Park NW Sun Shelter 1 20160060 120,000120,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Blackstone,Justad&Rnbw 1 20160080 180,000180,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pool Resurface 1 Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 16 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 6,658,6841,030,551 1,577,900 1,302,309 1,599,706 1,148,218Capital Replacement Fund 250,000250,000Henn Co Youth Sports Grant 7,505,5001,163,500 1,332,000 2,497,000 1,388,000 1,125,000Park Improvement Fund 10,00010,000Youth Assoc - Park Improvement Fund 14,424,1842,454,051 2,909,900 3,799,309 2,987,706 2,273,218Parks & Recreation Total 20160090 20,00020,000Rec Center Aquatic Park-Rplc Chem Control System 1 20160110 100,000100,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Drop Slide Replacement 3 20160120 8,0008,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet 3 20160130 150,000150,000Rec Center West Arena Dasher Board Replacement 1 20160140 110,000110,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface/Recoat 3 20160150 40,00040,000Trail Mill & Ovrly-Bass Lake, LA, OH, & Wolfe Pks 1 20160160 125,000125,000Trail Lights (LED) at Shelard Park 3 20160170 55,00055,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House Storage Garage 5 20160180 50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Ravine Bridge Replacement 1 20170010 450,000450,000Aquila Park - Upgrade field 1-4 lights and poles 1 20170030 60,00060,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Feature Replacement 3 20170040 35,00035,000Parking Lots Mill&Ovrlay-Dkta, Fern Hill & OH Pks 1 20170050 160,000160,000Playground Eqpt Repl-BassLake,Shelard,TL&Webste 1 20170060 150,000150,000Rec Center East Arena Dasher Board Replacement 1 20170070 85,00085,000Rec Center Melting Pit Replacement 1 20170080 40,00040,000Rec Center Scoreboards - both arenas 3 20170090 50,00050,000Rec Center West Arena Locker Room Remodel 3 E - XX01 6,658,6841,030,551 1,577,900 1,302,309 1,599,706 1,148,218Annual Equipment Replacement Program 1 14,424,1842,454,051 2,909,900 3,799,309 2,987,706 2,273,218Parks & Recreation Total Police 69,00026,200 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700Capital Replacement Fund 69,00026,200 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700Police Total PD - 1 69,00026,200 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700Laser/Radar and Message Board 3 69,00026,200 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700Police Total Public Works 20052000 3,188,0003,188,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1 20072400 215,000215,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)1 20082500 250,000250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 5 20100005 320,000320,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5 20101500 600,000600,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 1 20120100 26,319,50026,319,500Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.5 20121000 1,438,3161,438,316Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)1 Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 17 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 20121300 2,000,0002,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5 20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 5 20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 5 20121500 1,110,0001,110,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1 20130001 308,381308,381Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)1 20130003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1 20130004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1 20130006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1 20131000 1,504,7501,504,750Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)1 20131100 515,000515,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Walker)1 20131101 160,000160,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Parkdale)1 20131200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1 20131301 250,000250,000Railroad Proj. - RR Xing Devices on Brookside Ave 1 20131400 263,900263,900Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1 20132200 175,900175,900Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 1)1 20132300 125,000125,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 Generator Replacement 1 20140001 290,000290,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1 20140003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1 20140004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1 20140006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1 20141000 1,184,8151,184,815Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)1 20141100 500,000500,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Edgewood)1 20141200 185,000185,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1 20141201 5,826,0005,826,000Storm Water Proj - Bass Lake Preserve Rehab 1 20141400 130,500130,500Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1 20142200 75,55275,552Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 2)1 20150001 250,000250,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)1 20150003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1 20150004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1 20150006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1 20150100 1,000,0001,000,000Street Project - TH 169 Noise Wall 3 20151000 1,887,4421,887,442Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)1 20151100 420,000420,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (CLR / Flag)1 20151102 1,139,5781,139,578Bridge Project - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek 1 20151200 175,000175,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 3)1 20151201 770,000770,000Storm Water Project - Oregon Pond Basin Rehab 1 20151400 25,00025,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 3)1 20152200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 3)1 20152300 57,50057,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #9 & FM Rehab 1 20152301 85,41085,410Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Forcemain Rehabs 1 20160001 248,674248,674Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)1 20160003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1 20160004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1 20160006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1 Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 18 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 240,000240,000EDA Development Fund 125,000125,000G.O. Bonds 620,000320,000 300,000Hennepin County 13,108,04212,095,500 1,012,542HRA Levy 39,000,00012,000,000 12,000,000 15,000,000Met Council Grant 3,534,892185,000 228,314 2,174,578 395,000 552,000Municipal State Aid 900,000900,000Other Jurisdictions 8,534,2581,758,697 1,806,750 1,414,815 2,117,598 1,436,398Pavement Management Fund 198,000198,000Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 17,5005,000 7,500 5,000PW Engineering Budget 1,721,906360,100 336,800 339,000 341,218 344,788PW Operations Budget 2,227,362400,900 133,052 1,235,410 238,000 220,000Sanitary Sewer Utility 20161000 1,202,1381,202,138Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)1 20161100 395,000395,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Pennsylvania)1 20161200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 4)1 20161201 870,000870,000Storm Water Project - Oak Pond Rehab 1 20161400 551,600551,600Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 4)1 20161500 500,000500,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #2 1 20162200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 4)1 20162300 88,00088,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #1 & FM Rehab 1 20170001 253,648253,648Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)1 20170003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1 20170004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1 20170006 30,00030,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1 20171100 192,000192,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)1 20171101 360,000360,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave)1 20171200 100,000100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 5)1 20171201 130,000130,000Storm Water Project - Sumter Pond Rehab 1 20171202 438,000438,000Storm Water Project - Browndale Pond Rehab 1 20171400 25,00025,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 5)1 20172200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 5)1 20172300 70,00070,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #13 & FM Rehab 1 20211102 228,314228,314Bridge Project - W 36th St @ Minnehaha Creek 1 M - XX06 221,00040,500 41,000 43,000 47,500 49,000Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets 1 M - XX07 55,00010,600 10,800 11,000 11,200 11,400Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals 1 M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair 1 M - XX10 681,000135,000 142,000 135,000 134,000 135,000Street Light Project - System Replacement 1 M - XX12 31,00031,000Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements 1 M - XX13 308,000110,000 158,000 35,000 5,000PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1 TEMP-0012 302,500302,500Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1 TEMP-0015 39,015,00012,005,000 12,005,000 15,005,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - MCES Hopkins Interceptor 1 103,250,46943,403,097 21,641,916 24,256,803 10,067,467 3,881,186Public Works Total Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 19 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 933,000110,000 658,000 125,000 35,000 5,000Special Assessments 6,619,0006,619,000State of Minnesota 9,859,000445,000 6,041,000 1,575,000 1,100,000 698,000Stormwater Utility 3,776,5093,776,509Tax Increment - Elmwood 7,630,0007,630,000U.S. Government 4,206,0001,473,900 130,500 925,000 1,051,600 625,000Water Utility 103,250,46943,403,097 21,641,916 24,256,803 10,067,467 3,881,186Public Works Total Technology ACCT-1 75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000ACCT- Insight Budgeting Annual Maintenance 3 TRF-001 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Hardware / Telephone Replacement 1 TRF-002 750,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000IT: On-going Software Replacement 1 TRF-003 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Network Replacement 1 TRF-111 660,000660,000Fire/Police: 800 MHz Radio/Console Replacements 1 TRF-215 25,00025,000PW: Asset Mgmt Software / iPads / Site License 3 TRF-218 200,00025,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 25,000IT: On-going SAN Storage Additions 1 TRF-220 100,000100,000IT: E-Mail Archival / Document Management Solution 3 TRF-221 10,00010,000Parks: Point of Sale Equipment Replacements 3 TRF-222 6,0006,000Assessing: Wireless Equipment for Field Work 3 TRF-306 15,00015,000IT: Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, La Ave-Hopkins 3 TRF-307 20,00020,000IT: Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3 TRF-308 65,00065,000IR/SS: City Hall Production Copiers 3 TRF-309 30,00030,000PW / Parks: MSC Copiers (2)3 TRF-310 75,00075,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice Recorders 1 TRF-312 20,00020,000IT: Fiber Conduit - TBD 3 TRF-313 5,0005,000IT: Wireless Controller and Hotspots 3 TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center: Copiers 3 TRF-315 100,000100,000Police: Mobile Replacements 1 TRF-316 5,0005,000Fire: Firehouse Web / Inspections iPads 3 TRF-321 250,000250,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App Replacement 1 TRF-322 210,000210,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement 1 TRF-323 82,87527,625 27,625 27,625Police: Motorola CAD/RMS/Mobile App Replacement 1 TRF-335 100,000100,000IT: Telephone System Upgrade 3 TRF-342 10,00010,000Fire: EOC Equipment 3 TRF-344 15,0007,500 7,500IT: Smart Boards 5 TRF-345 15,00015,000Admin Serv: Council Laptops / Tablets 3 TRF-346 105,000105,000Admin Serv: Voting Machines 1 TRF-347 25,00025,000IT: Tablet Training / Help Desk 3 TRF-348 55,00055,000Parks: Nature & Rec Centers Surveillance Cameras 3 TRF-352 8,0008,000Parks: Square Rigger Mobiles 1 TRF-353 35,00035,000IT: Server Farm / UPS Enhancements 3 TRF-355 75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 - ParkAlert 3 Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 20 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 4,976,0001,210,500 1,227,500 920,000 858,000 760,000Capital Replacement Fund 170,00030,000 65,000 75,000E-911 Funds 642,500085,000 500,000 35,000 22,500EDA Development Fund 65,00065,000Parks & Recreation 1,558,375758,125 622,625 142,625 35,000Police & Fire Pension 50,00050,000PW Operations Budget 10,00010,000Utilities 7,471,8752,123,625 2,000,125 1,562,625 893,000 892,500Technology Total TRF-356 10,00010,000PW: HP Scanner / Plotter / Copier 3 TRF-400 100,000100,000IT: Network Switches 1 TRF-501 50,00050,000IT: Tape Library Replacement 1 TRF-503 100,000100,000Fire: Stations Media Package 3 TRF-505 75,00075,000Admin Serv: Property Data System Replacement 1 TRF-506 75,00075,000Parks: Class / E-Connect (Parks) Replacement 1 TRF-507 30,00030,000Insp: Permits / E-Permits System Replacement 1 TRF-508 23,00023,000Police: Jail Cameras 1 TRF-509 12,00012,000Police: Exterior Cameras 1 TRF-510 20,00020,000IR: Video Conferencing 5 TRF-511 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IT: Mobile Device and Service Cost Consolidation 5 TRF-512 150,000150,000IR / Support Serv: Microfiche Conversion to Images 3 TRF-513 30,00030,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Intercity Backup 3 TRF-515 10,00010,000Utilities: SCADA Server 5 TRF-516 50,00050,000PW: AVL 5 TRF-551 650,000650,000Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite 5 TRF-552 30,00015,000 15,000IT: Plotter Replacements 3 TRF-553 10,00010,000Parks: Rec Center Speaker System 3 TRF-554 10,00010,000Parks: Multi-Function Device in Programs Office 3 TRF-555 20,00020,000IT: Fire 1 / Rec Ctr / 511 Fiber Redundancy 3 TRF-556 25,00025,000PD: Texa-Tonka COP Shop Fiber Connection 3 TRF-561 5,5005,500Police: Booking and Intox Room Cameras (2)3 TRF-562 55,00055,000Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing Workstations 5 TRF-563 27,00027,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras 3 TRF-565 45,00045,000Parks: Rec Center Camera Additions 3 TRF-566 20,00020,000Fire: Regional CAD Data Pooling 3 TRF-570 00IR: Study-Placeholder for Citywide Fiber Projects 5 TRF-571 85,00085,000IR: Study - Park Nicollet Fiber 5 TRF-572 500,000500,000IR: Study - Fiber to PW and Parks Bldgs.5 TRF-573 35,00035,000IR: Study - Fiber to Park Glen Water Tower 5 TRF-574 22,50022,500IR: Study - Fiber to SLP Library 5 7,471,8752,123,625 2,000,125 1,562,625 893,000 892,500Technology Total Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 21 Total20132014201520162017DepartmentProject#Priority 130,502,32850,805,873 27,708,441 30,334,737 14,336,423 7,316,854Grand Total Monday, December 10, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Adoption of 2013 Budgets, 2013 Final City and HRA Levies, 2013 - 2017 CIP, and 2013 Utility Rates Page 22 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Fund Equity Transfers and Operating Transfers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity transfers and operating transfers. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: • Fund Equity Transfers - Does the Council concur with the staff recommendation on the level of fund balance within the General Fund after the transfers to the Park Improvement Fund, Uninsured Loss Fund, Park & Recreation Fund, and Benefits Administration Fund? • Operating Transfers - Does the Council concur with the other proposed fund transfers from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) to the Capital Replacement Fund and from the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to the Park Center TIF District? BACKGROUND: Equity Transfers As per the December 31, 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund was $10,799,829, which was equal to 46.2% of the 2012 budgeted expenditures. The City’s Fund Balance Policy states that the City will strive to maintain a fund balance in the General Fund that is within a range of 35% to 50% of the following year’s budgeted expenditures, and that any amount greater than 40% can be transferred to other funds. The City’s policy follows the Office of the State Auditor’s recommended fund balance guidelines. At the end of 2012, Staff anticipates that the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund will increase to approximately $12.4 million. This is based on projections that were prepared by Staff using actual year to date numbers through October 2012 and working with departments to project activity through the close of the fiscal year end. As a result, the projected end of year unassigned fund balance in the General Fund would grow to approximately 52% of the 2013 budgeted expenditures, which would exceed the range of 35% to 50% stated in the policy. Therefore, it is recommended that an equity transfer from the General Fund of $1,160,000 be made in 2012, with $500,000 transferred to the Park Improvement Fund, $400,000 to the Uninsured Loss Fund, $225,000 to the Park & Recreation Fund, and $35,000 to the Benefits Administration Fund. In addition to these equity transfers, Staff is recommending an assignment of $550,000 of fund balance in the General Fund, which would aid in mitigating future permit revenue volatility within the City. Per the City’s Fund Balance Policy, this assignment can be done by either the City Manager or Controller. As a result of these recommendations, the fund balance within the General Fund would be projected to be in a range of 43% - 47% of the 2013 budgeted expenditures, with the target goal being approximately 45%, depending on 2012 final year end results. Given the nature of the City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Subject: Fund Equity Transfers and Operating Transfers economy and other factors, staff feels maintaining a fund balance in this range is advisable. A more detailed explanation of the recommended transfers follows: Park Improvement Fund – Transfer in of $500,000: The Park Improvement Fund is used to cover capital expenditures for the replacement and improvement of park facilities. It is funded through a property tax allocation and park dedication fees. This transfer in of $500,000 from the General Fund will help to keep this fund sustainable for approximately 10 years based on projections in the Long Range Financial Management Plan. Uninsured Loss Fund – Transfer in of $400,000: The Uninsured Loss Fund covers liability claim deductibles and losses not covered by insurance. It does not have a dedicated funding source. Based on the Long Range Financial Management Plan projections, the transfer in of $400,000 should help this fund to be sustainable for ten years. Without the $400,000 transfer, the fund would potentially have a deficit fund balance in five years. Park & Recreation Fund – Transfer in of $225,000: The Park & Recreation Fund is a Special Revenue Fund with seven divisions that provide for all recreational programs and activities, park maintenance, environmental, and vehicle maintenance. These activities are funded mainly through a property tax allocation and program user fees. The City’s fund balance policy for the Park & Recreation Fund is to maintain a fund balance in a range of 10% – 25% of the subsequent year’s budgeted expenditures. As per the December 31, 2011 CAFR, the assigned fund balance was $713,201 or 11.3% of the 2012 budgeted expenditures. Preliminary projections indicate that there may be a deficit in this fund for 2012 of approximately $150,000, which would cause the fund balance to fall to 8.6% of the 2013 budgeted expenditures. A transfer in of $225,000 is recommended to cover the anticipated current year deficit and to keep the fund balance within the range required by the policy. As has been discussed in the Monthly Financial Reports, the projected deficit for 2012 is due to expenditure overages for fuel, tires, and equipment parts and service in the Vehicle Maintenance Division and for maintenance and repair expenses in the Rec Center Division. Budgeted increases have been recommended for the 2013 Budget in an attempt to avoid another deficit. The $225,000 transfer from the General Fund would help to keep the fund balance in the Park & Recreation Fund within a range of 10% - 14%, with the target goal being approximately 12%, depending on year end results. Benefits Administration Fund – Transfer in of $35,000: The Benefits Administration Fund covers costs such as workers compensation, tuition reimbursement, unemployment, retirement flex leave payouts, wellness, and other employee initiatives. This fund began receiving a property tax allocation in 2012, as it did not previously have a dedicated funding source and relied on periodic transfers from the General Fund. The recommended transfer in of $35,000 in 2012 is needed to cover expenses related to a new vendor that will provide oversight of the City’s wellness incentive program. Other Operating Transfers Staff is also recommending additional transfers between funds in 2012 as follows: Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) to Capital Replacement Fund – Transfer of $300,000: The Capital Replacement Fund provides for all technology, equipment, and municipal building improvement projects. This fund began receiving a property tax allocation in 2011, but will City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Subject: Fund Equity Transfers and Operating Transfers continue to have sustainability challenges in future years without additional revenue sources. A transfer in 2012 of $300,000 from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) to the Capital Replacement Fund is recommended. An annual transfer of this nature will be proposed going forward to help the Capital Replacement Fund move toward long term financial stability. Sewer Utility to Water Utility – Transfer of $1.2 million: On December 21, 2009, an Interfund Loan was approved to cover a cash deficit in the Water Utility Fund by utilizing available resources from the other utility funds, including Sewer and Solid Waste. The Long Range Financial Management Plan projections indicate that the Sewer Utility Fund has the capacity to permanently transfer funds to the Water Utility Fund in order to enable the Water Utility to pay back the loan. A transfer in the amount of $1.2 million is recommended in 2012 from the Sewer Utility Fund to the Water Utility Fund. Housing Rehabilitation Fund to Park Center TIF District – Transfer of $500,000: A transfer of $500,000 is recommended from the Housing Rehabilitation Fund to the Park Center TIF District. This will allow for consistency within several areas of the City’s internal and external financial reporting requirements. Further analysis of these two funds will be done and future transfers to fund eligible housing programs will likely be recommended. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The actions recommended will allow the General Fund to retain a healthy fund balance within fund balance policy requirements, and direct resources to other funds where there are funding challenges. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Authorizing Fund Equity Transfers and Operating Transfers 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 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Subject: Fund Equity Transfers and Operating Transfers RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND EQUITY TRANSFERS AND OPERATING TRANSFERS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and WHEREAS, some of those funds rely on transfers from other funds for their continued operation; and WHEREAS, operating transfers may be required to reallocate amounts between funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council: 1. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to transfer the following sums of money from the General Fund to the designated funds as shown. Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount General Fund Park Improvement Fund $ 500,000 General Fund Uninsured Loss Fund $ 400,000 General Fund Park & Recreation Fund $ 225,000 General Fund Employee Administration Fund $ 35,000 2. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to make additional transfers between funds in the amounts as shown. Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount Sewer Fund Water Fund $1,200,000 Permanent Improv Revolving Fund (PIR) Capital Replacement Fund $ 300,000 Housing Rehabilitation Fund Park Center TIF District $ 500,000 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8c Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to allow for High Density Residential on the Eliot School site, and approve the summary resolution for publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the request to modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to facilitate rezoning and PUD for the redevelopment of the Eliot School site for a combination of apartments and single family homes? REQUEST: Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt & Associates) has requested an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road. This amendment would: • Modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Civic to High Density Residential (RH) on the majority of the site, and to Low Density Residential (RL) to the north. • Allow the applicant to request a rezoning of the property, approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and platting of the property for its development proposal. The request for an amendment was originally considered by the City Council on October 15, 2012, and failed by a vote of 3-3. At the November 5, 2012 City Council meeting, the request was brought to a vote for reconsidering the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and discussing it at a Study Session. At the November 19, 2012 special study session the City Council discussed the proposed amendment and directed staff to place this topic on the agenda for the December 17, 2012 Council meeting. The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to review of rezoning and PUD to move forward. Those two applications are discretionary actions by the City Council, and will include a detailed site plan review and analysis of the proposed development. The proposal for the site includes two 69-unit apartment buildings of two and three stories in height, and three new single family lots, for a total of 141 new residential units. A detailed map depicting the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is attached. RH – High Density Residential Background: The St. Louis Park School District listed the Eliot School property for sale in 2011, and Eliot Park Apartments, LLC (Hunt & Associates) has entered into a purchase agreement with the School District for the site. The developer held a neighborhood meeting on July 17th to obtain input on the proposed redevelopment. Following the neighborhood meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposal at a Study Session on July 23rd. Development Proposal: The proposed development is for two new market rate apartment buildings with a total of 138 units and underground parking, and three new single family lots. The existing school building would be razed. Each apartment building would have a total of 69 units. The proposed three new single family lots would be sold to a different development group, although Hunt & Associates would be consulted about the homes’ design. Graphics and plans depicting the proposed apartment buildings are included as attachments. The proposed buildings are mostly three stories in height, and reduced to two stories in areas near existing homes. The proposed site plan includes areas for stormwater management, outdoor recreation, and landscaping. Parking for residents would be provided underground, with additional guest parking on a private street between the two buildings. As proposed in the concept plan, the development exceeds the parking requirements found in the Zoning Ordinance, There is also proof-of-parking available in the adjacent lot to the east of the site, across Hampshire should a need for even more parking become apparent in the future. All proposed parking spaces are accommodated on-site; no on- street parking is included in the calculation for parking provided. The concept site plan was designed to allow for additional setback area to the north of the site. There is adequate space to the north of the apartments for the development of three new single family lots. As proposed, one lot faces Hampshire and two lots face Idaho. Together with the apartment buildings, a total of 141 new residential units are proposed for the site. The overall density of the site would be 33 units per acre. Site Conditions: The site is 4.39 acres in size and features a vacant multi-level school building. There is also a playground on the northern portion of the site. The school building is not being used and is in relatively poor condition. It would be razed as part of the development proposal. Located between Idaho and Hampshire Avenues, and just north of Cedar Lake Road, the proposed development site is surrounded on all sides by single family homes. The site is located at a high point in the City; as such, the northern half of the site drains to the north, and the southern half to the south. As a result, it is located in two separate watersheds, with separate governing authorities (Bassett Creek Water Management Organization and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District). Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The current request is to change the overall Comprehensive Land Use Plan to allow redevelopment of this site. City ordinance requires that the Land Use Plan be changed prior to consideration of the zoning and development review of the site. Detailed site plans would be analyzed and brought forth with applications for rezoning, PUD, and plats following the City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 2 Comprehensive Plan amendment. A summary of the proposed development is provided below; further detailed analysis will be undertaken with future development applications. Evaluation of Request: The request is to change the designation on the Comprehensive Plan from “Civic” to “RH – High Density” and “RL – Low Density” residential. A request for amending the City’s land use plan and zoning map should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. In the case of the Eliot School site, an amendment request has been anticipated since the School District decided to close the Eliot Community Center in 2010. To help plan for the expected amendment request, a process to guide development for the site was also completed and adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan, called the “Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study / Design Guidelines.” The guidelines can be found on the City’s website, at: http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/Comm_Dev/design_guidelines_report_final.pdf. This amendment request is driven by a specific proposal for development. General Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The City’s land use plan is built from the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the requested change. The proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan map meets many principles found in the Land Use chapter, including: − walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods − accessible to the neighborhood − human scale development − unique community and neighborhood identity Changing the Comprehensive Plan map will allow for a new housing type in the immediate area surrounding the segment of Cedar Lake Road. At the present time, the area is dominated by single family houses constructed in the 1950s and 60s. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an increase in the availability of neighborhood housing choices and a broader range of housing types. The proposed development would do so, while also providing a buffer between existing homes and the new apartments both through the use of setback and the creation of three new single family lots. This buffer / transition area is another strategy discussed in the Comprehensive Plan to meet goals for residential areas of the City. Consistency with the Eliot Community Center Design Guidelines: In anticipation of redevelopment of the site, design guidelines for the Eliot School site were proactively developed with the neighborhood in 2010. The process of creating the design guidelines included extensive neighborhood input, including a neighborhood committee that reviewed and recommended the final design guidelines document to the City Council. The City Council adopted the design guidelines document by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. The site reuse principles include: City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 3 1. Mix of Medium Density Residential Land Uses The Guidelines suggest a mix of Medium Density (RM) residential land uses would be appropriate for the site. The developer is proposing a mix of uses with apartment buildings and three new single family lots to the north to provide a buffer for the existing homes. In response to City Council interest in more multi-bedroom units, the Developer has changed four 2-bedroom units to 3-bedroom units further increasing the mix of housing opportunities provided by the proposed development. As proposed, the development is slightly over the “RM” units per acre allowances in the Comprehensive Plan and the Developer therefore applied for “RH” designation in the Comprehensive land use plan. Medium Density allows up to 30 units per acre; the proposed development equates to slightly over that amount, at 33 units per acre. Beyond the number of units per acre however, the Developer has proposed a number of site and building attributes that reduce the overall impact of the buildings on the site. The maximum height is 3 stories, with several 2 story portions of the buildings. This is in contrast to the up to 5 stories suggested in the guidelines. In addition, because the proposal includes a vast amount of underground parking, the site has a large amount of green space it would not otherwise have with surface parking. The site plan shows approximately 48% in green space overall. This is a strong attribute of the proposed plan, because it reduces the overall intensity of development on the site. While density is often calculated by units per acre, this calculation does not tell the whole story. Units per acre does not take into account the number of bedrooms per unit, or the impact that it might have. The Developer could alter the number of units by changing the mix of one, two and three-bedroom units, however this could result in more bedrooms overall, which may not result in reduced impacts in the area. The mix of units in the proposed buildings is guided by information provided to the Developer by his market research firm. Summary The proposal would require the property to be designated a combination of High Density “RH” and Low Density “RL” in the Comprehensive Plan, resulting in 33 units per acre overall, just slightly over the Medium Density “RM” designation of 30 units per acre. Density as determined by “units per acre” alone does not include other measures of project density and intensity of site use, such as height, green space, or impervious surfaces. A five story building on the development site would have substantially different impacts to the neighborhood in contrast to the current proposal. The specific number of units per acre in this development is mitigated by fact that the buildings are just 2 and 3-stories in height, and the underground parking results in green space on 48% of the site. Through the combination of these items, the site plan works to limit the density overall on the site as suggested in the Design Guidelines. 2. Transition Building Heights across the Site from South to North The guidelines called for building heights of between two and five stories, with the higher structures to be located near Cedar Lake Road, tapering to a lower height at the north end of the site. As proposed, the apartment buildings will be three and two stories City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 4 in height with a flat roof. The proposed height of the building is approximately 38 feet for the three story portions. The two story step-down portions of the buildings are located closest to the north end of the site. The single family lots to the north of the apartments also allow for a transition between the apartment buildings and the existing neighbors, and should be scaled appropriately to meet the current standards for new single family houses. A height diagram from the design guidelines is attached for review. 3. Complement Existing Development Scale and Character The proposed apartment buildings would be three stories with segments at two stories. Resident parking would be provided underground. Setbacks for the buildings along the east and west sides of the site would mimic the existing setbacks for nearby single family homes. The massing of the buildings is sensitive to its surroundings. 4. Neighborhood Open Space Included in the site plan is a mini-park area to serve neighborhood residents with children. The mini-park would be located near the south side of the site, in the open area recommended in the design guidelines. The building setbacks incorporate generous green spaces that will maintain the neighborhood’s aesthetically pleasing streetscape areas. A private roadway is also proposed between the two apartment buildings; neighborhood access through that roadway, particularly for pedestrian access, will be maintained. Open space on the site is increased due to the location of parking for apartment residents. Proposed underground parking will accommodate all resident parking and some guest parking; by placing the parking below the buildings, the developer made possible the wide setback areas with more space for Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) and additional landscaping. It is expected that the DORA and landscaping proposed for the site will exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance due to the substantial amount of space reserved around the buildings for resident and neighborhood use. 5. Community Landmark and Neighborhood Gateway The developer has provided elevation drawings depicting the proposed materials and design of the apartment buildings. The intent is that the buildings will respect the previous presence of Eliot School along Cedar Lake Road, while preserving the green space in the site’s southwest corner. The developer has stated that the buildings will be designed at a level of quality and workmanship commensurate with the original school building. 6. Neighborhood Connectivity The development proposal includes an east-west connection through the site. It allows pedestrian access between Hampshire and Idaho, without encouraging cut through neighborhood vehicular traffic. The area is well-served by existing City streets already. 7. Redevelopment Feasibility The proposed development is consistent with the terms of the developer’s agreement with the School District. At the proposed development density, the development is expected to be feasible. The developer expects to request financial assistance from the City in the form of Tax-Increment Financing, to fund some of the extraordinary site costs such as demolition of the school building and the construction of underground parking. Details regarding the TIF request are not yet available, as the official application has not been submitted to the City. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 5 8. Owner-Occupied Housing Based on current market conditions, the developer plans to construct market-rate apartments that will be offered for lease. Staff concurs with the developer regarding the feasibility of constructing owner-occupied housing at this time. It is possible that the apartment buildings could be converted to owner-occupied housing in the future. It is expected that the three new single family lots created as part of the project will result in three new owner-occupied houses. 9. School Building Reuse The developer and City Inspection’s Staff have reviewed the condition of the existing school building. Reuse of the building is not feasible at this time. 10. Interim Property Maintenance The City continues to work with the School District to ensure the building is maintained in a safe condition as the development request proceeds. Impacts to Surrounding Properties and the Physical Character of the Neighborhood Redevelopment of the Eliot School site has been expected since 2010, when the School District indicated that the site would be sold. With the removal of the existing school building, there will be some changes to the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development follows the height, massing, and articulation recommendations of the design guidelines, and in doing so minimizes the impacts of redevelopment on surrounding properties. The greatest change to the physical character of the neighborhood will be the loss of the open space to the north of the existing school building. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department has indicated that the area was reviewed and found to have adequate park amenities already in place; for this reason, the Comprehensive Plan does not call for any additions to the City’s park system in this area. The developer has retained some of the open space characteristics of the area, and has shown an interest in adding a mini-park area at the south end of the site to install a play area for neighborhood use. Public Process: To date, the following meetings and communications have occurred: • July 9, 2012: City Council Study Session Report on Development Proposal • July 18, 2012: Neighborhood Input Meeting, held at the West End • July 23, 2012: City Council Study Session Discussion • August 9, 2012: Housing Authority Summary Review of Development • August 16, 2012: Planning Commission Summary Review of Development • September 19, 2012: Planning Commission Public Hearing • October 15, 2012: Consideration by City Council and vote of 3-3 – request failed • November 5, 2012: Vote to reconsider Comprehensive Plan Amendment • November 19, 2012: Discussion by City Council at Study Session If the Comprehensive Plan map amendment is approved, the developer intends to apply for the necessary zoning approvals. The developer is also in the process of preparing their project’s financial pro-forma. It is anticipated that the developer will seek tax-increment financing (TIF) assistance. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 6 An additional neighborhood meeting may be held between the approval of the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and the submittal of additional applications for rezoning, PUD and preliminary plat. The neighborhood meeting would be another chance for neighbors to review the proposal in more detail and provide input regarding the development. Availability of Infrastructure: The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and found the underground infrastructure (water and sewer) in the area to be adequate to serve the proposed development. A traffic study is currently underway to review the capacity of adjacent roadways. Traffic has been noted as an important issue for neighbors in the area. The Comprehensive Plan identifies Cedar Lake Road as an “A Minor Augmentor.” Between now and 2030, there is the possibility that there may be some capacity issues for Cedar Lake Road, so the traffic study will include analysis of how the proposed development will impact the overall number of vehicle trips in the area. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On September 19, 2012 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Several people were present to speak (draft minutes are attached). The Commission recommended denial of the application as presented, and instead approved a motion to recommend the Comprehensive Plan be changed to Medium Density residential rather than High Density residential. The Commission believed that the Medium Density designation was more consistent with the Design Guidelines dwelling unit per acre standard for the site. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock. Attachments: Resolution Summary Resolution for Publication Planning Commission Draft Minutes from 9-19-12 City Council Minutes Excerpt from 11-05-12 City Council Minutes Excerpt from 11-19-12 Comprehensive Plan Map – Existing/Proposed – Eliot School Area Excerpt, Eliot School Design Guidelines Proposed Development Site Plan and Related Documents Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 6720 and 6800 CEDAR LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on December 21, 2009 and provides the following: 1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and community facilities and service decisions affecting the City. 2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical, financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work and a setting conducive for new development. 3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful, interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at variance with the public interest. 4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the development and preservation of the community. 5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range considerations into determinations affecting short-range action; and WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change, thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended denial of an amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for High Density Residential and recommended approval of an amendment for Medium and Low Density Residential on September 19, 2012; and City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 8 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 12-24-CP); and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File Case No. 12-24-CP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, is hereby amended as follows: Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from CIV - Civic to a combination of RH – High Density Residential and RL – Low Density Residential. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 9 SUMMARY RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road This resolution states that the Comprehensive Plan designation of 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road will be changed from CIV–Civic to a combination of RH – High Density Residential and RL – Low Density Residential. Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 27, 2012 City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 10 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Dennis Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Shapiro STAFF PRESENT: Adam Fulton, Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Nancy Sells 1. Call to Order – Roll Call B. Eliot School Site – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Location: 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road Applicant: Eliot Park Apartments, LLC Case No.: 12-24-CP Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report. The request is to modify the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Civic to High Density Residential and Low Density Residential. This modification would allow the applicant to request a rezoning of the property, and, if necessary, a Planned Unit Development, for its development proposal of two 72-unit apartment buildings and three new single family lots. Mr. Fulton spoke about the public process for the site, including a traffic study which was initiated in August. Staff has seen a draft of the traffic study. As soon as details of the study are available they will be shared with the neighborhood, the developer, the Commission and City Council. Mr. Fulton discussed the Eliot Community Center Site Reuse Study/Design Guidelines which were adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. He commented on the request for overall density of 34.4 units per acre rather than medium density residential recommended by the design guidelines. He said density refers not just to number of units per acre, but the bulk and size of buildings, and overall aspects of the development. He said the way in which other recommendations of the design guidelines are met exceeds the issues posed by moderately exceeding the density recommendation. He summarized by saying the development meets the general standards of the Comprehensive Plan and, considered as a whole, the proposal exceeds the recommendations of the design guidelines. Commissioner Robertson asked why a rezoning isn’t requested at the same time as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 11 Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the zoning ordinance requires two sets of processes for a major land use change. Once the Comprehensive Plan amendment is passed the rezoning and development review can be requested. Dana Hunt, president Hunt Associates, said having the design guidelines in place made it much easier for them to move forward. He said they gave up a lot of height for a little more density. He said they worked very hard to make the development fit in with the neighborhood. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Laura Nolan, 2037 Hampshire Ave. S., asked about studies which indicate if there is a demand for this size of unit, this size building and this rental amount. She asked if these buildings might end up half empty. Ms. McMonigal responded that the developer could address that question. She added the city has seen a high demand for rental housing. Mr. Hunt stated that the rental market is very good currently. He added that new product is a move-up for many people. Many people don’t wish to buy in the current market or no longer want to own a home. He said it is the lenders and equity partners who determine whether a project goes forward. Judy Dvorak, 6636 W. 16th St., stated she is a block captain and she did not receive notification of the public hearing. She suggested that the city create a place on its website for community feedback on this project, as has been done with other city issues. She went door to door and found that some neighbors had received notification of the public hearing. She and a couple of her next door neighbors did not receive notification. Ms. Dvorak said she lives on the dead end which has been closed for years. She stated that 13th and Hampshire is all apartment complexes and the dead end was placed there for the purpose of keeping residential separate from apartments. The current proposal will put apartments in an area that is residential on all four sides. She said years ago the city tried to block the two uses from being together and she asked how things have changed with the city. Ms. Dvorak spoke about an apartment complex in her backyard called The Gables at Park Point. She said noise and traffic comes from those apartment buildings all night long. She said it should be of concern to put apartment buildings in the middle of a residential area. Ms. Dvorak stated that she went to all the apartments on 13th and Hampshire. All of those apartments except one have vacancies. The building with the lowest rent had no vacancies. She asked what market rate means, what price range does that mean. She asked if the proposed buildings would also have high vacancy. She said she was disappointed with the proposed high density as the design committee favored medium density. Ms. Dvorak asked about number of parking spaces allowed per apartment unit. She said there will only be 56 extra spots at the new development. She spoke about parking which occurs all over the neighborhood already. Traffic will increase. She said years ago they tried to get a stop sign installed on the corner and the city denied the request. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 12 Elaine D. Mense, 6712 Cedar Lake Road, said she has lived right next to the school for over 50 years. She said she conducted a survey three times and has petitions at home. She said everyone she spoke with said they would like a two-story building, not a three story building. She said all the neighborhood wanted family homes to be built, not apartment buildings. She said she is also concerned about parking and traffic. Ms. Mense said she had concerns about rezoning without taking the neighborhood into consideration. This was a neighborhood. They had a school without any problems. Now high density apartments are being proposed. She said there are new apartments all over the city, but not in residential areas. She said old people in the neighborhood do not plan on renting an apartment. The neighborhood does not want apartments. She said they are a neighborhood and she asked why the neighborhood doesn’t have a choice. Commissioner Johnston-Madison recommended that Ms. Mense bring the petitions to city staff. Ms. McMonigal said what is being proposed is also residential. She said the suggestion to be able to make online comments is a very good idea and staff will see if that can be implemented. She said parking and traffic will be addressed with the zoning and Planned Unit Development when final plans are available. The traffic study will be reviewed at the next set of public hearings. She remarked that the proposed density is slightly above the medium density category in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of units/acre. She said what is different about the proposal is that there isn’t surface parking taking up the site and the height is lower than the design guidelines which said 2-5 stories, and the proposal is topping out at 3 stories in height. She added that underground parking and lots of green space on the site are also elements that make up density, it isn’t just units/acre. A lot of apartment complexes are built with a lot of surface parking and very little green space. She explained what really comes to play in density is the look, feel, and location of the buildings on the site and the green space. The medium density and multi-story buildings were recommended by the design guidelines committee. That was part of the agreement and work of the committee. Ms. McMonigal stated that this proposal, while slightly outside of the medium density units/acre, really does meet the overall idea of what was promoted in the design guidelines and that is why the development is under consideration. Chair Kramer asked if the dead end between homes and apartments that was mentioned was to prevent cut through traffic. Mr. Fulton said there are a number of locations in the city that have those cul-de-sacs. In many cases they are constructed to avoid cut through traffic. Mr. Fulton stated that staff did receive Mrs. Mense’s petition at the neighborhood meeting. The petition is on file and has been provided to the City Council. Mrs. Mense indicated that she had another petition that could be provided to the city. Gretchen Garcia, 6630 W. 16th St., said she appreciated the clarification about density. She said when she was reading about the project in the Sun Sailor in late spring it was her understanding that the designed use was going to be single family residences. She wasn’t able to follow the summer meetings and was not able to attend the meeting located at the City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 13 West End. She said she wasn’t sure when the single family vision changed. She was excited by that prospect as it would continue a single family dwelling residential area that is the Eliot neighborhood. She remarked that the neighborhood is currently bordered by apartments. She said she’s very concerned about adding that degree of density to the neighborhood. Schools operate five days a week. Apartment buildings will impact the neighborhood 24 hours/day. There are no sidewalks one block from the school site. People skateboard and bicycle in the street. Families from the apartment buildings walk through the neighborhood to a lovely park north of the site. Children walk to the park all the time. She said the neighborhood can’t afford sidewalks but the increase of traffic is a significant concern for pedestrians. Ms. Garcia said she doesn’t believe the neighborhood has had adequate input to prepare for the dramatic change being proposed. She stated that she is glad there is more opportunity for review with rezoning but said she’d like to nip this in the bud and take high density off the table, saying it isn’t appropriate for the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Ms. Garcia if she had ever seen the design guidelines. Ms. Garcia responded that she had not seen the guidelines. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the guidelines which the neighborhood agreed to are available on the city’s website. Ms. McMonigal said the guidelines were finalized in the summer of 2010. Kristopher Petrie, 2049 Jersey Ave. S., said he attended one of the design guideline meetings. The overwhelming response was for low density, owner occupied housing. Guidelines for other design elements were also discussed. Mr. Petrie said the committee did a tremendous job in incorporating the guidelines discussed for high density, but the first choice was for single family owner occupied properties. He said he was concerned if high density is approved that the neighborhood will end up with some other developer who does not share the same vision and will build 5 stories with no setbacks. Mr. Petrie said he’s concerned with some of the uncontrolled intersections and high density, specifically at 18th and Kentucky and 22nd and Kentucky. He said parking issues won’t become evident until the property is developed. Jan Agren, 1810 Hampshire, a block captain, said she is not happy about adding 200-300 people to the block. Perspectives has eight projects in St. Louis Park and she doesn’t think there is need for additional apartments. She said she was concerned about problems if the proposed building management isn’t able to get higher rents and has to lower the rent. She said she was also concerned about the three proposed single family homes in the back. She asked why one of the lots couldn’t be a beautiful playground. Ms. Agren commented that the only playground in the whole area is Jersey Park. The school had a beautiful playground. She asked the city to give the neighborhood something, perhaps a park. John B. Lang, 6610 Cedar Lake Rd., said he is in construction and from a construction standpoint he feels that Hunt and Associates has done a nice job with the proposed apartments. He said they could have done far worse. He said he is concerned about City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 14 traffic on Cedar Lake Rd. Mr. Lang stated that throughout the year he cannot get out of his driveway during rush hour. He said 25 years ago he and another resident tried to get the city to install a stop light on Edgewood. That request was refused. He said if the city were to address some of the traffic problems, a lot of the neighborhood would be less antagonistic towards the proposed development. Angela Lange, 2001 Hampshire Ave. S., said that adding the apartment buildings will dramatically lower the value of all of the surrounding homes. She said she purchased her home in 2001. She has been experiencing financial hardship since 2008. Because of the economy and the state of the housing market she said has been unable to sell her house. She had an offer on the house in late August 2012. The potential buyers found out the school site was being zoned for apartment buildings and they backed out of the deal. She asked the Commission to consider not approving the proposal and to find another useful way to use the land. Tammy Nelson, 1849 Hampshire Ave. S., lives at the corner of Franklin and Hampshire. She said currently there is a problem at that intersection because no one stops at the stop sign. A trail comes out there which children use all the time. Adding increased volume to the neighborhood is going to increase the likelihood that someone will get hurt at the intersection. There are no sidewalks and people walk down the street all the time. Ms. Nelson said she is also concerned about the value of her house decreasing. She said no one wants to buy next to a giant apartment complex. Jamie Calle, 2055 Kentucky Ave. S., said he purchased his home in 2004. He’s very happy in the neighborhood. He has two children who play in the streets. The family is very happy in St. Louis Park. He said the city talks about various studies for a development, but no one does a study about the neighborhood, how the development will affect the people who live in the neighborhood. He said he came from South America with a dream to own a house, to live happily, to have safe streets, and a safe neighborhood. He said he understands the businessman’s perspective. He asked who will pay the consequences if the development goes badly, if something goes wrong. He said the neighborhood, his kids, and other kids will pay the consequences. He said he wants his children to live happily and to go to nice schools. He said he works hard at two jobs to keep his house. He said all he wants is to raise his kids with the dream he has in his heart. Wade Hammer, 2201 Jersey Ave. S., said he wanted to point out changes from the design guidelines. One of the principles of the study was for medium density residential land use, not high density. He said the city continues to talk about medium density as 129 units/acre. He said on page 9 of the design guidelines the range of medium density residential is 6 – 30 units/acre. That is a range of 26 – 129 units on that site. Mr. Hammer said that while the city continues to talk about medium density being the highest end of the range, when you start at high density it tends to gravitate to looking at the higher end of medium density. He said he might suggest the medium range of medium density is something much less that 129 units on the property. He said he couldn’t speak to the economic feasibility of that. Mr. Hammer continued by saying he would recommend that the city continue to look at the entire range of medium density as opposed to just the high end of medium density. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 15 Mr. Hammer said another principle which has not been mentioned is No. 8, the preference for owner occupied housing. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Morris said he was glad to hear the community’s valuable input. He said they have a good comprehensive argument for medium density. He said the impact of the development is a city-wide impact, not just neighborhood impact. He said many discussions and study sessions on the site have been held but there seems to be a compelling argument for medium density. Commissioner Robertson stated that he sat in on the design guidelines meetings. He said high density was not embraced at all and the neighborhood said with hesitation that medium density was understandable. He said he didn’t see a big difference between the high end of medium density and the low end of high density. Medium density is the buffer between single family low residential and high density. He said this development has no buffer. Existing home owners at the north end of the school did not buy homes next to an apartment building. The proposed new single family homes would buffer those existing homes to the north from apartments. He said he thought the idea of the new three single family homes on the north end of the site is that the buyers would know what they were getting into. He said he didn’t see a buffer between single family homes on one side of the street and high density on the other side of the street. He said he agreed that medium density at the high end meets the developer’s needs and protects and respects the neighborhood a little bit more. Commissioner Person remarked on a comment made that if high density was adopted and the development did not go ahead, then the upper range of high density would be a possibility for the next proposal. Ms. McMonigal said in this case if the Comprehensive Plan was changed and the development proposal didn’t go through, the city would recommend that the site be reguided from high density back to Civic or to a lower medium density category. Commissioner Robertson said that makes him uncomfortable in that reguiding and rezoning changes should stand alone, not with a particular development in mind. Chair Robertson said more discussion needs to occur about the traffic impact. He commented that other new high density developments in the city have been on the edges of communities, not in the middle of communities. He said he wasn’t even sure about medium density and traffic impact in that area. Mr. Fulton said the draft traffic study which has just been received needs substantial refinement. Generally the traffic study indicates making turns on and off Cedar Lake Rd. is a concern. He said there is a lot of traffic on Cedar Lake Road and he thinks substantially more than 192 units would have to be built to make a difference in how that traffic operates today. There is an impact to Idaho and Hampshire. Details do need to be analyzed further. As soon as the study is available it will be shared with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 16 Commissioner Morris added that the school site is a substantial site. It is going to be residential. No one in the last 10-15 years has proposed single family homes for this kind of site. It is not an economic feasibility. The city should be guiding this to a medium or low density type of residential development. He said he got the impression from comments made by the neighborhood that apartment dwellers are not neighbors, they are second class citizens. He said he is looking at retirement and wants to downsize and not have yard work and he is considering rental. He said he has bad neighbors living in single family homes. He has bad neighbors living in rental homes. Traffic will increase because the site will support multiple families. Something will change unless the site sits as a vacant lot for the next 10 years. He said he wondered if a condominium development was being proposed if the sentiment would be the same. Commissioner Robertson said he would not support high density and he would support medium density. He said he respected the process of the design guidelines which recommended medium density. Commissioner Morris noted that the guidelines and neighborhood would support medium density, but along with that will come traffic. He commented that children should not be playing in streets just because there are not sidewalks. The city is trying to get more sidewalks. He said he applauds the development and thinks it can go forward but not with as much density as proposed. He said he gives a great deal of weight to the community’s input. Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending denial of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for high density residential designation. Commissioner Johnston- Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Morris made a motion recommending the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan for a medium density residential designation and a low density residential designation. Commissioner Person seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Mr. Fulton said the item is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council on October 15, 2012. He asked anyone who did not receive Planning Commission notification to leave their addresses with him for future notifications. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 17 OFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 5, 2012 8d. Reconsider Vote taken by the City Council on October 15, 2012, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential for Eliot Park Apartments Councilmember Spano stated that Council previously voted on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the rezoning of the Eliot School site from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential. He explained that he was raising the issue again because after the vote was taken on October 15, 2012, it came to his attention that one of the pieces of information considered by Council was not accurate, i.e., he had asked if any offers had been made on the Eliot School property for a single family development and Mr. Clark said there had been a few and he later learned from the School District that Mr. Clark's statement was not accurate. He stated that a large part of the reason he voted against the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was based on Mr. Clark's statement and he would like Council to revisit this matter. It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to reconsider the vote taken by the City Council on October 15, 2012, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential for Eliot Park Apartments. Councilmember Sanger stated the developer has indicated he would come back with his revised plans and added she was not interested in having a discussion regarding something Council has already discussed and voted on. Councilmember Spano stated this was a material piece of information that was critical to his vote and that information was not accurate and served as the foundation for his opposition to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He added that knowing the statement was not accurate merits additional discussion by Council. Councilmember Ross stated this issue will come back to study session for discussion by Council and the developer will be there to clear up any confusion. Councilmember Sanger requested Mr. Scott's opinion regarding the process for reconsideration when the City Council has already voted on something. Mr. Scott advised that matters can be brought up at the next meeting and a motion can be made by anyone on the prevailing side of the original vote; in this case, the vote was 3-3 which meant the motion failed and Councilmember Spano, as one of the "no" votes, would be on the prevailing side. He further advised it has to be brought up at the next meeting by someone on the prevailing side who brings the motion and a majority vote is required to pass that motion. He strongly recommended that Council not take action this evening and that whatever action is taken be done at a future meeting. He explained that the City is under time constraints unless the applicant waives those requirements, stating that the 60 day rule has been continued to 120 days and the City is more than one month away from the 120 day deadline to take action. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Santa absent). City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 18 OFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 19, 2012 2. Reconsideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential for Former Eliot School Site Mr. Locke presented the staff report and advised that Council needs to put this item on its agenda in a timely fashion for action following the vote to reconsider the action taken on October 15th. He also stated it was important to understand that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be followed by a zoning amendment and PUD approvals; and all of these actions need to take place in order for a project to be developed on this site. Mr. Dan Hunt, Hunt Associates, appeared before the City Council and stated they felt they met most of the design guidelines by proposing a building that fit into the neighborhood and advised that they have modified the plan by adding six three-bedroom units and reducing the total housing units from 147 to 141 which still leaves them higher than 30 units per acre. He stated if Council requires 30 units per acre or a total of 129 dwelling units on the site then they will be unable to add the three single-family lots because it uses up too much land. They would only have room for 129 units of apartments. He explained the original plan had 147 total housing units with an overall density of 34.5 units per acre; the apartment portion has 38 units per acre and the three single lots are six units per acre. He stated the current proposal has a total of 141 housing units with a density of 33 units per acre; the apartment portion has 36.6 units per acre and the three single lots remain at six. He indicated that they are asking for the High Density Residential designation on the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate both 3 single-family lots and 138 units of apartments in two buildings for a total of 141 units on the site and an average density of 33 units per acre. Mr. Locke explained the calculation for the site is 4.3 acres times 30 units per acre, which results in 129 units. He stated if the developer takes the north portion of the site and turns it into three single family lots, the apartment site is the remainder of the parcel. If you put 126 apartments on that portion of the site, the density is higher than 30 units per acre because it is technically sitting on a smaller parcel. He advised that if Council wanted single family homes on the north end of the site, the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan would have to be High Density even though the site would be zoned something much less than high density. He explained that before anything can be built on the site, Council must approve one of the land use designations for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and later also approve a zoning designation for the site. An appropriate zone for the site is R4, which allows 30 units per acre. Mayor Jacobs asked if the land use designation could be changed back to Civic if for some reason the developer does not follow through with his proposal after the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved. Mr. Locke replied in the affirmative and stated the City would not rezone the site until it had a full development proposal and Planned Unit Development (PUD). Councilmember Ross indicated a similar issue came up in another area where the zoning was changed then the owner sold the business and plans for the site changed. She asked if the City City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 19 could get something written in a contract that if the developer goes away the site would automatically revert back to its original use. Mr. Harmening replied that it would have to go through the normal process. Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that changing the Comprehensive Plan does not commit the City to any particular zoning district and if the City approved an R4 zoning, that would be 30 units per acre without a PUD to go above that amount, or the equivalent of Medium Density and to go above that amount the developer would need to obtain PUD approval. Mr. Locke stated that this was correct and added the rezoning and PUD would be done simultaneously through the public process. Councilmember Sanger asked if the revised proposal would still have the same building footprint design and size and include the same amount of green space. Mr. Hunt stated the revised proposal uses the same footprint and includes three single-family lots and 138 apartment units in two buildings as well as the addition of six three-bedroom units in the two buildings. He indicated the original proposal had a number of large two-bedroom units and six of those units were converted to three-bedroom units. Councilmember Spano stated one of the key pieces of information presented at the October 15th Council meeting had to do with whether any developers had expressed an interest in developing single-family units on the site. He had asked at the October 15th meeting if there had been any offers presented and the response from Mr. Clark was that there were a few. He stated Mr. Clark's response was important in his decision-making process and added that a School Board member has since indicated to him that there have not been any offers presented for the site. Mr. Locke stated there were inquiries but he was not aware of any offers being made for the site. Mr. Garfield Clark approached the City Council on behalf of the School District and stated the question he responded to at the October 15th Council meeting was whether there was any interest and there were a "couple." He stated his response to the question of whether there was interest would be "yes" and his response to the question of whether a Purchase Agreement was entered into would be "no." Councilmember Spano stated that given the fact that there were no offers for a single family development and given the fact that Mr. Hunt has decreased the density, he would be okay with approving the High Density Residential land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan with the understanding that the City has mechanisms in place to limit the total number of units on the site. Councilmember Mavity stated she liked the revised proposal and felt it fits with the guidelines. She indicated her concern that the guidelines say medium density housing and the City and Council needs to be clear with this developer that the guidelines say medium density. She stated the City has a lot of land coming under development and she did not want to go through this again and did not want to see a situation where the City amends the Comprehensive Plan to expand the site's potential and raise expectations in the community that that is what this land will be used for only to have the developer go away and someone else comes in asking for 50 units City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 20 per acre. She indicated the proposed design has followed the spirit of the design guidelines and she was comfortable with 33 units per acre. Councilmember Hallfin asked if two single-family homes could be constructed on the site instead of three to make the land equation work for medium density. Mr. Hunt replied they would pick up some land but not enough because the density is so low on the single-family lots. Mr. Locke agreed to further explore reducing the number or size of the single-family lots and its impact on the Medium Density land use designation. Councilmember Santa stated she was still uncertain but cautiously optimistic about the proposal and it was important to her that Council honors the wishes of the neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood said they wanted medium density and they want to see home ownership. She indicated she was interested in seeing three-bedroom apartments that are larger and she wants to see a project that is conducive to families. Councilmember Sanger stated she appreciated that the developer has made changes and did not want to see less than three single-family homes on this site. She indicated if Council wants more single-family housing it may need to have a discussion about whether it is willing to put TIF financing into building more single family housing in the City. She stated she would like to see some analysis done by staff on what it would take to do TIF financing on this site in order to have more single-family houses. She felt that the School District and developer had decided the highest and best use of this land but this is the City's decision to make and felt the negotiated sale price was too high and wondered if a project could be built on the site that was more within the design guidelines in terms of medium density with single family homes if the sale price were renegotiated. She expressed concerns about the developer's likely TIF financing request and did not know if she could support TIF financing for the site. Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Sanger's concerns regarding TIF financing but felt it was premature to make a judgment regarding this until Council knows what will be built on the site. She stated the developer has presented a proposal that meets the majority of the design guidelines and she was okay with the High Density land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan knowing that Council has the ability to stop this later if necessary and has the power to say the site will not go over 33 units per acre. Mayor Jacobs expressed support for amending the Comprehensive Plan with the understanding that Council retains control of the future zoning on the site. It was the consensus of the City Council to reconsider the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 17, 2012. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 21 Eliot School SiteComprehensive Plan Amendment Request September 14, 2012 Prepared by the St. Louis Park Community Development Department Existing: Proposed: Legend RL - Low Density Residential RM - Medium Density Residential RH - High Density Residential MX - Mixed Use COM - Commercial IND - Industrial OFC - Office BP - Business Park CIV - Civic PRK - Park and Open Space ROW - Right of Way RRR - Railroad Cedar Lake RoadCedar Lake RoadIdaho Ave. S.Idaho Ave. S.Hampshire Ave. S.Hampshire Ave. S.Civic HD LD City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 22 Page 7Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines The Site Reuse Principles embody the community’s general desires and intentions for appropriate future reuses of the Eliot Community Center site. These ten principles provide the community’s big picture view and a means for guiding and evaluating future proposals for reusing this site. These general principles are supported by the detailed design guidelines in Section 4. 1. Mix of Medium Density Residential Land Uses Future land uses should be a mix of at least two medium density residential uses that contribute to the community’s long-term goal of being a livable community with a variety of lifecycle housing options and leverage the site’s location and proximity to transit, parks, trails, bike routes, and commercial areas 2. Transition Building Heights across the Site from South to North Concentrate taller and higher density buildings on southern half of site toward Cedar Lake Road and locate lower buildings on the northern half of the site 3. Complement Existing Development Scale and Character Building form, scale, placement and massing should be sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding homes 4. Neighborhood Open Space Reuse of the site should incorporate open space that is located along a public street, visible to the public, and ideally allows public access 5. Community Landmark and Neighborhood Gateway Reflect the site’s role as a long-time community landmark and Eliot neighborhood gateway on Cedar Lake Road by preserving the mature trees and enhancing the triangular open space area fronting on Cedar Lake Road 6. Neighborhood Connectivity Support neighborhood connectivity by incorporating an east-west pedestrian connection through the site 3. Site Reuse Principles City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 23 Page 8 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines 7. Redevelopment Feasibility Reuses of the site should achieve a reasonable financial return for the School District balanced with the appropriate fit with the City’s goals and these reuse principles 8. Owner-Occupied Housing Owner occupied housing is preferred, however, assisted living services could be an accessory use to an owner-occupied senior housing development 9. School Building Reuse There is neither strong community preference nor opposition to reusing the existing school building; however, future developers are encouraged to evaluate the condition of the building to determine the possibilities of reuse for residential units 10. Interim Property Maintenance It is important for the property owner to keep the site and building properly maintained and in safe condition prior to and during redevelopment construction City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 24 Page 9Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines The Site Design Guidelines address the following site level considerations: Land use and development density » Open space » Setbacks » Vehicular access and circulation » Parking » Traffic » Pedestrian circulation » Stormwater » Landscaping and buffering » Regulatory process » A. Land use and development density Reuse of the site should be guided for Medium Density Residential development allowing a net residential density from six (6) to 30 dwelling units per acre or between 26 and 129 dwelling units on the Eliot School property. Residential development should include a minimum of two types of residential land uses that expand the variety of lifecycle housing options in the neighborhood. Potential housing types are single family detached, attached townhome, and multi-family buildings. Redevelopment of the site is envisioned as a single complementary development consisting of two housing areas. The southern area is to be higher density than the northern area of the site reflecting its location on Cedar Lake Road, which is an arterial and transit street, and the scale and massing of the existing Eliot Community Center building. The northern area is envisioned as lower density than the southern area reflecting the local street frontages and surrounding single family residences. Taller buildings should be located in the southern area and transition down to lower buildings in the northern area. Civic or institutional buildings, such as a community center, place of worship, senior activity center, or educational facility, would also be appropriate in the southern area of the site. Use of the small remnant piece of the Eliot School property located east of Hampshire Avenue should be determined in conjunction with redevelopment of the overall site. The remnant land currently contains a small parking lot. Potential uses include, but are not limited to, guest parking for the future redevelopment, parking for the church located south of Cedar Lake Road, or sale to the adjoining residential property owner to the east. 4. Site Design Guidelines City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 25 Page 10 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines Site Design Diagram City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 26 Page 11Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines B. Open space The triangular green space along Cedar Lake Road should be preserved and enhanced to reflect the site’s history as a community landmark and gateway to the Eliot neighborhood. Regardless of whether or not the existing school building is reused, this green space should continue to be a landmark that remains generally as open space. This open space should not be used for parking. It is encouraged that some open space on the site be oriented to the street, rather than enclosed between the buildings, to enhance the visual character of the site’s redevelopment from adjacent homes and the street. The development will need to meet the City’s zoning code requirements for Designed Outdoor Recreation Area as well. Although public open space is not planned for this sites, recreational open space is encouraged on the site since this school site has historically had open space that was accessible to the neighborhood. Open space on the site should be privately owned and operated. Public access to the open space, as appropriate, is encouraged. C. Setbacks Building(s) fronting onto Cedar Lake Road should have a setback from Cedar Lake Road similar to that of the existing school building and achieving requirements of the City’s zoning code. Building(s) should generally complement the setbacks of existing houses from Hampshire Ave., Idaho Ave., and the northern property line. D. Vehicle access and circulation Current conditions: Today the site has one access point on Cedar Lake Road, one on Hampshire Ave, and three on Idaho Ave. Cedar Lake Road is a designated A Minor Arterial (major roadway) and Hampshire Ave. and Idaho Ave. are local streets. All three streets are under the City’s jurisdiction.Vehicle access points to the site should be located on Hampshire Ave and/or Idaho Ave rather than Cedar Lake Road. Driveways for individual housing units should generally be located internally, accessed by shared driveways, to reduce the impact of and visibility from adjacent homes and the street, with the exception of single-family detached houses. Vehicle circulation within the site should not create a direct connection that has the potential for attracting cut-through traffic. E. Parking Adequate parking should be provided on the site for residents and guests to minimize the need for on-street parking. The provision of parking spaces will meet the requirements for residential land uses as defined by the City’s zoning code and/or independently commissioned studies. Parking for residents should be provided in garages or below the building(s). Guest parking could be provided in the form of on-site surface parking areas. Surface parking spaces for building(s) fronting onto Cedar Lake Road should be located on the north side of the building(s) so that they are generally not visible from Cedar Lake Road. On-site surface parking areas should be located convenient to building entrances to encourage on-site parking over on-street parking. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 27 Page 12 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines All off-street surface parking areas should be located internally on the site and visually buffered from public streets. Landscaping in surface parking lots must meet the requirements of the City’s zoning code. F. Traffic New traffic generated as a result of site redevelopment will be limited by development density restrictions. Additional traffic analysis may be required, contingent upon land use and density. G. Pedestrian circulation Sidewalks should be retained and enhanced on all three streets in conjunction with redevelopment. A publicly accessible, landscaped mid-block pedestrian connection should be provided to enable an east- west connection between Hampshire Ave. and Idaho Ave. Design of this pathway is encouraged to be a meandering route rather than simply a straight east-west route to create an aesthetically pleasing amenity that integrates well with the new development and the neighborhood. The width of this pedestrian connection and mid-block open space could be designed to provide a visual break and transition space between the northern and southern buildable areas if appropriate. Ideally, a mid-block connection would accommodate walking and biking. H. Stormwater Site related stormwater runoff should be managed to meet the City’s and watershed on-site water storage and water quality requirements using best management practices (BMPs) as identified in the City’s subdivision code, such as rain gardens, detention/treatment basins, pervious pavements, and green roofs. I. Landscaping and buffering Landscape and/or architectural buffering should be incorporated into redevelopment for adjacent properties to the north. Appropriate landscaping, including street trees, should be provided along Hampshire Ave. and Idaho Ave. Existing mature trees should be preserved where feasible. J. Regulatory process The rezoning and development approach should be commensurate with the Medium Density Residential (6 – 30 housing units per acre) land use designation. Replatting of land at time of development should include dedication of the southeast corner of property as public right-of-way for Hampshire Ave. Park dedication should be received as cash in lieu of land since public park land is not planned in this area of the City. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 28 Page 13Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines 5. Building Design Guidelines The building design guidelines address the following building level considerations: Massing and placement » Height » Frontage and articulation » A. Massing and placement The greatest building mass should be located in the southern area of the site in the general vicinity of the existing school building. The goal is to allow a greater building mass nearer to Cedar Lake Road since the existing building is a larger building mass and Cedar Lake Road is an arterial street with higher traffic levels and transit services. Placement of buildings should relate to the north-south streets (Hampshire and Idaho Aves.) rather than the diagonal alignment of Cedar Lake Road. Building(s) in the southern area of the site should not be located parallel to Cedar Lake Road. B. Height Building heights in the southern area of the site should be a minimum of two stories and up to five stories. The Eliot School Site Reuse Task Force’s preference is for lower building heights, if possible. Depending upon the actual placement and size of the building(s) in the southern area of the site, stepbacks for upper floors (above three stories) may be desirable. For example, if a portion of the building is located further north than the existing school building, stepbacks of the 4th and 5th floors are recommended. Building heights in the northern area of the site should be one to three stories. A variety of heights for both the taller and lower buildings is preferable to soften the overall scale of the new development and prevent a cookie-cutter look. Taller building(s) should be oriented toward Cedar Lake Road. For the taller building(s), it is preferable to have multiple heights rather than a uniform height. The existing school building is a mix of two and three stories. This approach also enables building heights to be concentrated at the appropriate locations while maintaining lower heights at the edges closest to the existing single-family residences. C. Frontage and articulation Building façade “fronts” should face existing public streets, where possible. Building(s) in the southern area of the site should have a frontage toward Cedar Lake Road, including a clearly visible pedestrian entrance to the building, since this site has historically had a landmark building and open space fronting onto Cedar Lake Road. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 29 Page 14 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines Building Design Diagram City Counil Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 30 August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK 1 Eliot Park SITE PLAN 144 APARTMENT UNITS 190 PARKING STALLS BELOW 20 PARKING STALLS AT CGRADE 210 STALLS TOTAL (1.46/UNIT) 200 BEDROOMS (88 1BR & 56 2BR UNITS HAMPSHIRE AVE.CEDAR LAKE ROAD IDAHO AVE. NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOT NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOT THREE STORIES TWO STORIES BALCONIES City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 31 August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK 2 Eliot Park Apartments GARAGE FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0” City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 32 August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK 3 Eliot Park Apartments FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0” City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 33 August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK 4 Eliot Park Apartments SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0” City Counicl Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 34 August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK 5 Eliot Park Apartments THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0” City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 35 August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK 6 Eliot Park Apartments ELEVATION City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 36 August 17th, 2012ST LOUIS PARK 7 Eliot Park Apartments ELEVATION City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Subject: Eliot Park Apartmenets - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Page 37 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8d Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the proposed SWLRT DEIS comments for submittal to Hennepin County by December 31, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the proposed comments on the SWLRT DEIS address the key issues and concerns of the City? BACKGROUND: The City Council has discussed draft comments on the SW LRT DEIS at five of the last six City Council meetings, including the study session preceding Monday nights regular City Council meeting. The City Council is asked to approve the City’s comments for submittal to Hennepin County by the December 31, 2012 deadline. Between now and the December 31st deadline, the comments will be further polished and a table of contents prepared. The final version of the comments with the table of contents and a cover letter including a conclusion will be submitted along with the list of attachments to the comments on the DEIS. The attachment list consists mostly of resolutions and previously prepared documents from past freight rail and light rail planning and review efforts. As has been pointed out throughout the drafting of the comments on the DEIS, the City’s resolutions regarding freight rail and light rail have been at the heart of the City’s evaluation of the SW LRT DEIS documents. The comments were developed in large part by comparing the SW LRT DEIS with the City policy on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) and freight rail as expressed in resolutions 10-070 and 11-058. These resolutions provide the context in which the City’s draft comments have been prepared. The purpose of a DEIS is to provide information and analysis needed to plan actions and make decisions. It is expected to explore alternatives and identify one or more preferred alternatives. In the case of the Southwest Transitway DEIS, five alternative combination LRT/freight rail routes were evaluated along with an enhanced bus service and a no-build alternative. The DEIS concluded that LRT alternative 3A, the alternative that located LRT in the Kenilworth corridor and re-located TC&W freight train traffic to the MN&S/BNSF tracks, was the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative.” The key points of the City’s policy provide the outline (please see attached outline) for the comments attached. They specifically include: • The City of St. Louis Park strongly supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS) • The City of St. Louis Park continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met: a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists; b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle; c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park; d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS tracks; e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties; f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor. In addition, there are comments related to the LRT project and mitigation measures, as well as overall DEIS concerns and comments. Additional, specific comments are still being added to the document. UPDATE to the SWLRT DEIS: STB Questions. On December 12, 2012 an update to the SWLRT DEIS was posted on the southwesttransitway.org webpage. The update was a four page memo, plus three map attachments that responded to questions asked by the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency responsible for aspects of freight rail systems that is reviewing the SWLRT DEIS. Their questions dealt primarily with the freight rail elements of the project and generally were focused on better understanding the proposed freight rail improvements. In section H of the City’s DEIS comments, comments on the STB update have been added. Here is the posting from the southwesttransitway.org webpage including the links provided to the new documents. Coordination with the Surface Transportation Board - Response to Questions on the DEIS The U.S. Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation Board (STB) is a Cooperating Agency on the Southwest Transitway DEIS. In response to questions from the STB's Office of Environmental Analysis regarding potential changes to freight rail facilities and service as described in the DEIS, the Federal Transit Administration, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, and Metropolitan Council have prepared the following documents: Memorandum to Federal Transit Administration, Region V: Questions and Responses for Surface Transportation Board Figure 1: Relocation Alternative, MN&S Spur Figure 2: Relocation Alternative, Skunk Hollow Wye Track and New Connection - Bass Lake Spur to MN&S Spur Figure 3: Relocation Alternative, Re-Established Connection - MN&S Spur to Wayzata Sub City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Page 3 Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS) NEXT STEPS: With approval of the DEIS comments, and following any last minute refinements, the final documents and attachments will be submitted to Hennepin County no later than the deadline for submittal of comments, December 31, 2012. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has engaged several consultants to aid in review of the Southwest Transitway DEIS; the costs will be paid for through the Development Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to being a connected and engaged community, including SW LRT. Attachments: Outline of Draft Comments and Attachments List Letter Proposed Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments EIS Process Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and, Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager DEIS Comments Outline Letter Introductory comments: SW LRT and Freight Rail Policies -Support SWLRT -Resolutions on SWLRT and freight rail -However, DEIS fails to satisfy SLP conditions A. Is there a viable route to MN&S for freight rail: 1. Section 4f conclusion is unproven 2. Dismissing co-location is premature 3. Evaluation needs to wait for Preliminary Engineering B. Mitigation in DEIS is inadequate: 1. Track improvements and upgrades 2. Mandatory environmental requirements 3. Whistle Quiet Zones 4. Fencing and signage 5. Reroute coal trains 6. Rail lubricators 7. Concrete ties 8. Eliminate CP tracks east of Wooddale 9. Visual blight of an elevated structure to connect from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S 10. Removal of switching wye 11. Connect to MN&S south 12. Grade separated frontage road on Highway 7 13. Create a100’ wide minimum corridor along MN&S 14. Pedestrian underpass to Dakota Park at 27th and 29th Streets 15. Pedestrian overpass at Dakota Ave 16. Mitigation for sound and vibration impacts at SLP High School 17. Pedestrian bridge over Highway 7 18. Underpass and Roxbury and Keystone parks 19. Beltline Boulevard grade separation 20. Wooddale Avenue grade separation C. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 4 D. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and tracks east of interconnections from Bass Lake to MN&S E. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated F. Creation of a Whistle Quiet Zone G. LRT related concerns 1. Mitigation needs a. Grade separation of the regional trail b. Maintain access to Lilac Park c. Trails/sidewalks along both sides of LRT trail d. Noise from LRT crossing signals and train horns 2. Potential improvements to SWLRT project a. Regional trail switches sides at Wooddale b. Alternative alignment at Louisiana c. Alternative alignment at Beltline H. DEIS Concerns and Comments 1. New goal and State Rail Plan 2. Comparison of freight alternates is incomplete/impacts are not properly addressed a. Freight rail operational impacts b. Costs c. Construction impacts of reroute are significant d. Community Cohesion e. Continuous flow of freight rail f. Improve mobility goal g. Protect the environment goal h. Quality of life goal i. Economic development goal j. Economically competitive freight rail system k. Operational functionality for the railroads l. Circulation in the Minnetonka Boulevard area m. Impacts and costs of building an interconnect over the severely contaminated Golden Auto site n. Show impacts to areas affected by new siding along BNSF o. Segment data doesn’t allow for even comparison p. Number of trains on each and rerouting City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 5 3. Traffic Impacts 4. Vacated EAW and other processes 5. Freight rail easement description in error 6. Comments on the 12/12/12 DEIS update regarding questions from the Surface Transportation Board. Attachments: 1. City of St. Louis Park Resolutions: 10-070; 10-071; 10-005 2. FTA letter of 9-2-11 3. Letter to Metropolitan Council dated 9-23-11 4. Letter from Metropolitan Council dated 10-21-11 5. City comments on EAW 6. MnDOT EAW Withdrawal Resolution 7. SEH Technical Memos 1-4 8. Southern connection drawing 9. Skunk Hollow wye area 10. Letter to HCRRA dated 10-14-08 11. North frontage road under MN&S 12. CP letter 13. Wider r-o-w north of Highway 5 14. Track profiles by Kimley Horn and AECOM 15. Wooddale Avenue grade separation 16. Beltline Boulevard grade separation 17. Comparison of Alternative 3A and 3A-1 Freight Rail Corridor Widths and Proximity to Homes 18. SRF traffic comments 19. TKDA Study 20. TKDA Plan Set 21. Railroad Easement 22. RL Banks Study Presentation 23. Amfahr Study City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 6 December 21, 2012 Hennepin County Housing, Community Works & Transit ATTN: Southwest Transitway 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 SUBJECT: Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SW DEIS) The City of St. Louis Park appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SW DEIS). Attached are comments derived from applying the City’s SW LRT and freight rail policies to the information presented in the SW DEIS, and general comments regarding information and analyses in the SW DEIS. In its September 2011 letter to the Met Council, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) required that routing of freight rail traffic be incorporated into the SW Transitway project and DEIS as a condition of the FTA’s funding of the SWLRT project. Alternative 3A-1 (co-locating freight rail and light rail in the Kenilworth corridor) was subsequently added into the SW DEIS. The SW DEIS concludes that Alternative 3A (LRT in Kenilworth corridor and freight rail re- located to the MN&S/BNSF) should be considered the “Environmentally Preferred Alternative.” Overall, the City of St. Louis Park does not finds information in the SW DEIS that supports this conclusion. There is not an even comparison of the freight alternatives, and the data provided does not equate with the summary conclusions put for the in the SW DEIS. The DEIS shows alternatives 3A and 3A-1 to be equal in many regards. Both achieve the basic purposes of constructing a LRT project well; ridership projections are equal, and operating costs are estimated to be equal. Improvements of regional mobility, access to jobs, and improvements to air quality are also equal. However, it is unclear on what basis Alternative 3A (relocation) was judged to be superior to alternative 3A-1 (colocation); we explain in detail our specific concerns in the attached comments. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 7 St. Louis Park requests that Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council address the inadequacies in the SW DEIS to provide a much more fair and even evaluation of the two freight rail alternatives in order that the Metropolitan Council has a sound basis for making a responsible routing decision. Sincerely City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 8 1 Evaluation and Comments on the Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SW DEIS) in the Context of the City of St. Louis Park’s LRT and Freight Rail Policies SW LRT and Freight Rail Policies The City of St. Louis Park has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Southwest Transitway LRT project. We look forward to implementation of SW LRT and the initiation of light rail train service for the benefit of our residents, our businesses and the region at large. Expansion of the transit system in the Metro area is a wise and prudent investment supported by the City of St. Louis Park. We have been eager and willing participants throughout the SW Transitway planning process and look forward to our participation in the SW LRT design process. The City’s support for SW LRT was memorialized in Resolution 10-005 (attached) sent to the Metropolitan Council in January 2010. The resolution stated the City’s support for the SW LRT project and the Locally Preferred Alternative for the light rail trains, alternative 3A (relocation). It also acknowledged that construction of the SWLRT line would require changes to freight rail in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, and it expressed concerns that the impacts of the freight rail changes be identified fairly and addressed fully. The support for SW LRT was stated again in Resolution 10-070 in July 2010. That resolution also recognized the continued challenge presented by freight rail for the implementation of the SW LRT project and stated the conditions under which the rerouting of train traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to the MN&S tracks would be acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park. The resolution established the conditions under which the City would accept relocation of the freight trains to the MN&S tracks. Below is the text from Resolution 10-070 which states the city’s policy regarding freight rail rerouting. It says: “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the City of St. Louis Park: 1. Supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project; and, 2. Continues to support the May 23, 2001 Railroad Task Force Recommendations adopted by the City Council October 21, 2001; and, 3. Opposes the introduction of any rerouted freight rail traffic north and south through the City of St. Louis Park; and, City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 9 2 4. Opposes the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met: a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists; b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle; c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park; d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS tracks; e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties; f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.” Paragraphs 4a through 4f in Resolution 10-070 (above) spell out the conditions under which the City of St. Louis Park would find re-routing Kenilworth train traffic to the MN&S tracks acceptable. Key among the conditions are (1) that it be shown that no other viable route for freight rail exists; and, (2) if freight trains were to be rerouted to the MN&S, adequate mitigation must be provided. The SW LRT project as described in the DEIS and the analysis provided in the DEIS fail to satisfy the conditions the City of St. Louis Park established as the basis for accepting rerouting of freight trains to the MN&S line. St. Louis Park believes that co-location in the Kenilworth corridor could be a viable route for freight rail; and, even if it proves not to be, the mitigation and other conditions under which the MN&S route would be acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park have not been met. The failure of the DEIS to address these issues is described below. A. Is there a viable alternative to MN&S for freight rail? The first condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4a: City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 10 3 “a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable route exists;” For St. Louis Park the acceptability of the MN&S tracks for re-routed Kenilworth trains starts with the question, is there any other viable alternative route for the freight trains? The City’s consultant, SEH completed analysis that showed how co-location in the Kenilworth corridor is viable. This analysis and attendant drawings were used as the basis for the co-location alternative and comparison in the SW DEIS. The SW DEIS does not show that co-location of freight rail and light rail in the Kenilworth corridor (alternative 3A-1 co-location) is not viable. 1. Section 4(f) Conclusion is Unproven The DEIS concludes that co-location is not feasible primarily based on the conclusion that co- location requires the acquisition of .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park. It also concludes that this would not be a de minimis taking of parkland and that it would “constitute a section 4(f) use”, which means use of the Cedar Lake Park land would not be allowed by the federal Secretary of Transportation, thereby making alternative 3A-1 (co-location) unfeasible. Section 7.0 of the SW DEIS is labeled draft Section 4(f) evaluation. Its preliminary two-fold conclusion that the use of Cedar Lake Park “would likely not be avoided” or considered to be de minimis is unsupported by any factual analysis, does not comply with applicable federal rules, and exhibits a total disregard for any fair and objective analysis of co-location as a feasible alternative. There are no facts set forth anywhere in the SW DEIS identifying the purported .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park to be acquired, nor how the calculation was made. It appears that the area in question is not actively used by the public, is former railroad property and is the current location of freight rail tracks in the Kenilworth corridor. At page 7-21, the DEIS states that “conceptual engineering completed to date” identifies the 0.81 acres. SW DEIS Appendix F (part 3) contains “conceptual engineering drawings.” They are the drawings prepared for the City of St. Louis by SEH in 2010. There is nothing in the appendix that addresses or identifies what land needs to be taken for the relocation of the existing-freight rail tracks; however the SEH co-location concept plan drawings show the freight rail essentially where the existing freight rail tracks are today. At ES-7 and 2-41, the SW DEIS states that the Kenilworth tracks “would need to be reconstructed to meet BNSF design standards for clearance requirements.” It is unclear whether a claimed clearance requirement is linked to the claimed .81 acre impact on Cedar Lake Park. The co-location assumes a 25’ distance between the freight railroad and light rail tracks. This 25’ distance is being used by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) for similar projects. Assuming this separation distance, there is no apparent need to relocate the freight rail track to the west into Cedar Lake Park City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 11 4 any further than it is shown on the concept drawings for alternative 3A-1 (co-location). The freight rail track would remain in its present location. The Section 4(f) rules require that a project be designed to avoid or minimize the impact on 4(f) property. Specifically 23 C.F.R. § 744.3 requires the Metropolitan Council, as part of the co- location design process to analyze feasible and prudent alternatives, avoid the use of 4(f) property and if avoidance is not possible, to perform “all possible planning” to minimize harm to the parkland. There is absolutely no evidence in the DEIS that any attempt has been made, as part of whatever conceptual engineering on co-location has been performed, to avoid impact to Cedar Lake Park, if in fact an impact even exists. One seemingly obvious concept would be to shift the alignment east onto HCRRA property. There are also no facts or analysis as to why any impact to park land that might occur would not be considered “de minimis” which is defined by applicable rule as an impact that “will not adversely affect the features, attributes or activities” of the park land. There are no facts or analysis as to why any minor shifting of the freight rail track along the border of Cedar Lake Park, assuming it cannot be avoided, would not be de minimis. There are also no facts or analysis, even on a conceptual level, as to why the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board would, potentially arbitrarily, refuse to consider such an impact to be de minimis, especially if mitigating steps were taken to lessen any impact. The HCRRA and its consultants prepared the SW DEIS. The Metropolitan Council will lead the process for the development of the SW FEIS. The SW DEIS concedes that no avoidance or mitigation analysis has been done on any of the alternatives. At Section 7.2 the SW DEIS states: A series of coordination meetings will be conducted with the parties that control these Section 4(s007Aazf) protected properties, and/or the regulatory agencies responsible for these properties, to discuss the potential for the use of these properties and the results of avoidance and minimization efforts. The majority of these meetings would occur during preliminary engineering and would be presented in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. At Section 7.4.1.2, the SW DEIS states: This summary is preliminary because design is not sufficiently advanced to conclude that avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted. Additional efforts will be made during Preliminary Engineering to avoid or minimize the use of any of these Section 4(f) properties. The results of this additional analysis will be presented in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. Despite this acknowledgment and the total lack of any facts in the SW DEIS relating to the claimed use of Cedar Lake Park, HCRRA at Section 7.4.1.5 of the SW DEIS concludes that co-location City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 12 5 “would” necessitate additional expansion of ROW outside of the HCRRA-owned parcels into adjacent parkland.” In the next sentence the SW DEIS states that “Section 4(f) uses could occur for the Cedar Lake Park, Cedar Lake Parkway and Lake of the Isles portions of the Minneapolis chain of Lakes Regional Park.” The Metropolitan Council as the lead agency for the SW FEIS must perform an independent, objective 4(f) review in accordance with the rules based upon facts and not conjecture. Furthermore, even assuming that co-location would involve an unavoidable use of 4(f) property which is not de minimis, there is no basis for assuming that re-routing freight trains to the MN&S route has met the statutory requirement that there be a “prudent and feasible” alternative. Without additional mitigation, agreement from the railroads on the design of this route, and complete evaluation of all the impacts associated with this route, that conclusion cannot be reached. The MN&S route does not meet typical railroad design standards, it presents severe operational challenges, has unique conditions such as tracks separating St. Louis Park High School from its athletic field, and tracks passing diagonally through intersections; these have not been adequately addressed in the SW DEIS and make the SW DEIS’s conclusions unsupportable. 2. Dismissing Alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is Premature Drawing a conclusion in the SW DEIS that the co-location alternative is not feasible is premature and contradicts the direction to the Met Council from the FTA to study and address all the concerns prior to entering into the final design phase of the SWLRT project. The Met Council has not begun preliminary design, so concluding that co-location is not feasible in the SW DEIS pre-emptively dismisses the co-location alternative. St. Louis Park believes this conclusion is inappropriate at this stage of the SW LRT design process. 3. Evaluation of Alternative Needs to Wait for PE The analysis of the freight rail impacts of the MN&S route is almost exclusively based on the EAW work completed on that corridor in 2010-11. Although that is the source of the SW DEIS’s analysis of the MN&S route, the comments submitted by St. Louis Park and the public regarding the EAW were not included in the SW DEIS documents or addressed as a part of the analysis. These comments are pertinent to the evaluation of the prudence and feasibility of the MN&S route for rerouted freight trains. The City of St. Louis Park dropped its legal challenge of the MN&S EAW with the understanding that a full analysis of the co-location option as well as the MN&S route would be done and that this work would include preliminary designs for both routes. The SW DEIS does not offer any new design or further analysis of either route from what was done during the MN&S study and the work by the City of St. Louis Park’s own consultants. There needs to be much more design and cost analysis before a co-location alternative is declared not viable. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 13 6 B. Mitigation in SW DEIS is inadequate The second condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4b: “b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;” The inherent characteristics of the MN&S route require robust mitigation to protect the neighboring residents, businesses, students, community facilities; and, to ensure trains operate safely. These apply largely to the MN&S route, and many of them also would be necessary under the 3A-1 (co- location) alternative. A comparison of characteristics of the freight rail route alternatives is provided later in these SW DEIS comments, in section E. City Resolution 10-070 recognized the need and importance of adequate mitigation along the MN&S, BNSF and Bass Lake Spur; and made that a condition of acceptance of the MN&S route for freight rail. The mitigation alluded to in the SW DEIS is not adequate and falls well short of what is needed if a reroute to the MN&S is to be successful. Below, the City states the mitigation that should be required to address negative impacts from freight trains in St. Louis Park. 1. Track improvements/upgrades (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co-location) The proposed improvements will upgrade the tracks to modern mainline standards that will include continuous welded rail and upgraded crossing signals with gates. This is part of the proposed project and is among the base improvements needed to make this route functional for the operation of trains. It is not really a mitigation action but will reduce vibration and noise. 2. Mandatory environmental requirements (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co- location) The DEIS indicates that all mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland permits, waste disposal, erosion control, storm water runoff, construction noise, etc. will be met. This is not mitigation and is a basic requirement of any improvements. 3. Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ) and noise mitigation (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co- location) A Whistle Quiet Zone along the MN&S and Bass Lake Spur is a base line mitigation requirement. However, it only addresses the noise from train horns, and is not the only train noise mitigation needed - especially with regards to the MN&S route. The noise of locomotives operating at City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 14 7 maximum power to pull train cars up the steep grades; the noise from train cars banging together and separating as they are pulled up and down the hilly MN&S route; the squeals of train wheels on tight curves and the noise of idling trains on the BNSF siding waiting to access the BNSF mainline all need to be mitigated. The WQZ topic is discussed fully later in Section F of these comments. 4. Fencing & signage (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1(co -location) The SW DEIS suggests fencing and signage to minimize pedestrian trespassing, but is not specific as to which areas would be included. Fencing is needed on both sides of all the tracks for safety. The tracks pass through single-family neighborhoods, neighborhood commercial areas and, past neighborhood parks and schools. The MN&S tracks expose these very walkable areas, with many children and many child-oriented facilities to safety risks. Fencing is needed to reduce these safety risks. 5. Improvements to reroute coal trains (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1(co-location) The coal trains that pass through St. Louis Park originate in Wyoming and Montana and bring coal to a sugar plant in Renville west of the Twin Cities. Currently trains come from Wyoming and Montana travel all the way into Minneapolis using the BNSF tracks before backtracking through the Kenilworth corridor and St. Louis Park west to the sugar plant. The empty coal trains return to Wyoming and Montana without passing through St. Louis Park or Minneapolis. They go directly west from the sugar plant to Appleton MN and interchange back to the BNSF line. The loaded coals trains do not use the Appleton interchange because of track conditions on the west end of the TC&W. A track rehabilitation project to replace cross ties on the western part of the TC&W would allow for the reroute of the loaded coal trains and eliminate the need for the coal trains to pass through Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. TC&W has estimated that this project would cost about two million dollars. This is an important improvement that not only reduces train traffic and attendant negative impacts for both St. Louis Park and Minneapolis, it makes freight rail movements more economical and reduces train traffic in the Target Field area. 6. Rail lubricators (Alternative 3A relocation) Rail lubricators installed in the track are a mitigation to reduce wheel noise and rail wear on the tight curves of the MN&S route. Lubricators should be included on the MN&S route. 7. Concrete ties or other vibration reduction methods (Alternative 3A relocation) Concrete ties rather than wood ties would allow for less vibration induced in to the ground, because of the larger mass of the ties. Concrete ties also work better in the tighter curves to hold gauge. Vibration and noise are significant issues along the MN&S route especially. The close proximity of sensitive land uses like, homes, the St. Louis Park High School and commercial buildings that already experience problems from vibrations need to be addressed and mitigated if increased train traffic is to be accepted on the MN&S. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 15 8 The Section 4.8.4 of the SW DEIS evaluation of ground vibration for the reroute uses the criteria “infrequent use” for locomotives and “occasional use” for rail cars. They determined that only one parcel is impacted from the expected vibration. The SW DEIS use of “infrequent” or “occasional” use by freight trains is not correct. Section 8.1.3 of the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment is the section that discusses vibration impact criteria for freight trains. The guidelines require the use of “frequent” use as the guideline. This reduces the maximum impact allowed from 80 VdB or 75 DvB to 72 DvB. Using the graph in the MN&S Freight Rail Study (Exhibit 3, page 65), in Appendix H, the impacts should have been measured for all residential and commercial structures on parcels within 150 feet of the track. This needs to be evaluated under the correct criteria. 8. Elimination of all CP tracks east of Wooddale Avenue (Alternative 3A (relocation) and all siding east of Wooddale (Alternative 3A ( relocation) The Bass Lake Spur tracks do not extend east of Wooddale Avenue for any of the alternatives proposed in the SW DEIS that re-route trains to the MN&S tracks. TC&W railroad has indicated that unless a direct connection between the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks southbound is provided, TC&W will need track with enough space to accommodate 50-75 rail cars east of the existing switching wye connecting the MN&S tracks to the Bass Lake Spur. Space for 50 to 75 rail cars would require 3,000 to 4,500 feet of track east of the wye, which means freight rail tracks stretching east from the switching wye across Wooddale Avenue, across Hwy 100 and almost to Beltline Blvd would be needed. This would have severe traffic and congestion impacts. A south connection from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is needed to implement the SW LRT 3A (relocation) alternative in order to eliminate the tracks east of Wooddale Avenue. The need for the removal of the switching wye and providing the southbound connection from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is described more fully later in the SW DEIS comments, in section D. This discussion focuses on the importance of eliminating freight tracks east of the Wooddale Avenue. If the freight track remains east of Wooddale Avenue, SW LRT Alternative 3A (relocation) will have the same station/freight rail conflict issues as those presented by Alternative 3A-1 (co- location). Freight trains will interfere with the operations of the LRT stations and be a detriment to development in the area. One of the rationales for re-routing freight trains to the MN&S is to eliminate any detrimental impacts on stations and station areas created by the presence of freight trains. If trains are rerouted to the MN&S, it would be absolutely unacceptable to St. Louis Park to also be saddled with the burden of freight trains re-routed to the MN&S without the benefit of completely eliminating freight trains from the Wooddale and Beltline Station areas. Trains maneuvering through the switching wye would block Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Avenues more severely than trains continuing to use Kenilworth. At least the co-location trains would be simply moving through the area, whereas maneuvering trains would be stopping and starting. It would be noisier, more time consuming and much more disruptive to continue the maneuvering than to have trains moving through. Traffic delays caused by the trains crossing and re-crossing Wooddale City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 16 9 Avenue and Beltline Boulevard and train cars potentially stored on these tracks would disrupt traffic, interrupt access to the SW LRT stations and create additional safety hazards. 9. Visual blight of an elevated structure to connect from Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S Connecting the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks will require a very large elevated structure. It will be very visible certainly from Louisiana Avenue and Hwy 7, in addition to surrounding properties. No comprehensive evaluation has been done to show what the structure will look like, what the visual impact will be on surrounding properties and neighborhoods, what the impact will be on development potential near the structure or the existing businesses. The structure will be roughly one mile long. The train roadbed will be nearly 45 feet above the street by the time it crosses Louisiana Avenue, and still rising to a higher point. It does not show the height of the train cars themselves. When a train is present the overall height of the structure and train will be well over 60 feet, the equivalent of a 6 story building. The trains will tower over all of the existing structures in the immediate area and effect visibility and views. While the presence of a SW LRT station at Louisiana is expected to enhance development opportunities, the presence of the massive rail structure and freight trains literally traveling in the air will have an impact that the SW DEIS has not even acknowledged exists, much less attempted to evaluate. This is a critical issue that must be analyzed carefully and if the MN&S route is chosen, it must be mitigated in some significant way. Without robust mitigation, the elevated freight trains and structure will deprive the SW LRT project of one of its most important potential benefits; major new private development and business investments. The Louisiana station serves one of the largest employers and the only hospital along the corridor. Park Nicollet’s Methodist Hospital is a major regional institution and a potential engine to drive new investment and job creation, if the station area can provide an environment that is conducive to investment and growth. Elevated freight trains are a significant challenge to creating that environment. Mitigation needs to be included to address the potential adverse impacts. 10. Removal of switching wye (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co-location) The switching wye allows the trains to transfer between the Bass Lake line and the MN&S. This has been a source of noise for the City for many years. Removal of the switching wye is a requirement of the City’s resolution 10-070 for the City no matter what freight rail route or SW LRT alternative is chosen. The switching wye is discussed more fully later in section D of these comments. 11. Connection to MN&S south (both Alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 co-location) The proposed alignment in the SW DEIS does not address an efficient move of trains to the south. A direct south connection track is one of the steps necessary for the removal of the switching wye (discussed in greater detail in section D of these comments) and allows for an efficient train movement from the west to the south. It eliminates the multiple switching moves that are now necessary to make that move. This eliminates the potential noise, safety and traffic impacts caused by switching trains from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S track south bound. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 17 10 12. Grade separated Hwy 7 north frontage road (Alternative 3A (relocation) The additional trains on the MN&S will put pressure on traffic at the four grade street crossings near the High School and the Central Community Center – which houses several community programs including the Park Spanish Immersion Elementary School, Central Clinic, Early Childhood Family Education programs, Early Childhood Special Education, and Community Education programs. Today school buses shuttle between the two schools both in the morning and afternoon of school days. The schools are within three blocks of one another but on opposite sides of the MN&S tracks. Today only two trains a day use the MN&S tracks. They are very short trains, typically 10 cars or less. They do not usually pose a problem today for school bus operations, because they don’t block all four local streets that provide access between the school sites at once. The trains travel at very slow speeds and cross the streets quickly. The trains proposed to be re-routed to the MN&S are more numerous and much longer. They have a much greater potential to block intersections and create delays and safety problems. Because the four street crossings in the vicinity of the schools are so close together, there is the potential for all four intersections to be blocked at once. Other social services such as STEP – St. Louis Park Emergency Program, are located in the area near Central Community Center; rerouted trains would also have impact on the low income and disadvantaged persons in getting between these services. According to Table 2.3-2 in the SW DEIS on page 2-27, as many as 8 trains would use the MN&S tracks on a given day if the MN&S route is chosen for freight rail. The table also says that the longest trains would be 120 cars or approximately 7,200 feet long (1.36 miles). Traveling at 10 mph, a 120 car train will take over 8 to 9 minutes to clear a single intersection. To clear all four intersections and for the crossing gates to re-open will take another 4 to 5 minutes, even a train as small as 26 cars would at one point be blocking all for intersections. The increased train traffic, from 2 very short trains a day to 6 to 8 trains a day, only two of which have any realistic chance of being less than 26 cars, means disruption of school transportation will be a problem routinely. To provide a reliable route for school buses between the two schools, a grade separated frontage road on the north side of Hwy 7 should be built. The MN&S tracks would be bridged over the frontage road so that even when freight trains are blocking the existing local streets between the two schools, school buses could use the frontage road to cross beneath the trains and move between the two schools. 13. Create 100-foot minimum width corridor in single family housing area. (Alternative 3A relocation) The area north and south of Minnetonka Boulevard on the MN&S has a railroad right of way width of 66 feet. This is an inadequate ROW for tracks that will be used more intensely then they are today. The mitigation of creating a 100-foot minimum width corridor is to expand the right-of-way to allow a larger safety zone around the tracks. A more complete discussion of this issue is provided later in these comments, in section E. 14. Pedestrian underpass to Dakota Park at 27th Street and 29th Street. (Alternative 3A relocation) City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 18 11 Alternative 3A (relocation) closes 29th Street. This leaves 28th Street as the only east-west access for the Birchwood and Bronx Park neighborhoods other than Minnetonka Blvd which is a high traffic volume street at the south end of the neighborhoods. Vehicles using Minnetonka Blvd simply to get from one side of the MN&S tracks to the other will be an added traffic problem for Minnetonka Blvd and will present traffic safety problems. The existing MN&S tracks are hilly and uneven. The increased train traffic and intended increased train speeds will increase the safety risks at any at grade crossings and especially in this area. On the west side of the MN&S, at the north end of the Bronx neighborhood is Dakota Neighborhood Park and dog park; and, Hobart Elementary school. Access to the Cedar Lake Regional trail is also at this location. These are attractions and logical destinations for bicyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers, and kids. There needs to be a safe convenient way for people to access these community attractions. An underpass construction in the 27th Street ROW would allow a safe direct access to Dakota Park, the regional trail access and Peter Hobart School that would at least partially mitigate negative impacts for pedestrians in the neighborhoods. A grade separated underpass at 29th Street could be used by vehicles and pedestrians and would mitigate the problems created by pushing local traffic from Birchwood and Bronx neighborhoods onto the congested Minnetonka Blvd. 15. Pedestrian overpass at Dakota Avenue (Alternative 3A relocation) There are a high level of pedestrian movements in the Dakota Avenue area caused by the location of the high school and its facilities. This overpass would allow for alternative route for pedestrians. The exact location is to be determined. 16. Mitigation for sound and vibration at SLP High School (Alternative 3A relocation) The High School has expressed issues with the current train operations and is concerned about impact of an increase in train traffic. Trains passing the High School create noise and vibrations that affect school equipment like self-focusing equipment. This mitigation item would be to help make improvements to the building to help mitigate the noise and vibration. 17. Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 at MN&S There are few accesses across Highway 7 and none between Wooddale Avenue and Louisiana Avenue. The MN&S rail bridge across Hwy 7 is a tempting way for people, especially kids, to cross Hwy 7 between Wooddale and Louisiana. The attractiveness to pedestrians of a bridge in this location should be acknowledged and in addition to construction of a new MN&S rail bridge, a bridge for pedestrians should be built in this location. It also could serve as a way to improve access to the Louisiana SWLRT station for people north of Hwy 7. 18. Underpass connecting Roxbury and Keystone Parks (Alternative 3A relocation) The Roxbury and Keystone Parks are on each side of the MN&S track. With the increased traffic on the MN&S there will be increased risks for park users and concerns for the safety of people City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 19 12 attempting to cross the tracks to reach the adjacent park. These are small neighborhood parks, and this means park users will be close to the tracks and the risks they represent. An underpass between the parks would allow for better, safer circulation between the two parks. It would serve as partial mitigation of the hazards created from increased rail traffic. 19. Beltline Boulevard Grade Separation (Alternative 3A-1 co-location) Today traffic on Beltline Boulevard is experiencing delays; with the addition of a station at this location, additional traffic projected would add to the delays and congestion for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at Beltline Boulevard, vehicle traffic on Beltline would experience serious delays. Grade separation of freight rail would be of primary importance, in order for the LRT station to operate properly and serve riders who would be boarding at this station. 20. Grade separation at Wooddale Avenue (Alternative 3A-1 co-location) Today the confluence of trail traffic, vehicles and freight rail makes Wooddale Avenue a busy, complicated crossing; with the addition of a SW LRT station and the SW LRT line there will be additional traffic. With co-location of freight rail, light rail and a trail at Wooddale Avenue, the potential exists for access to the station to be interrupted by the presence of a freight train. Grade separation for pedestrians over or under the freight rail tracks would mitigate the potential blocking of pedestrian access to the station by freight trains. This mitigation is needed in order for the LRT station to operate properly and serve riders who would be boarding at this station. Grade separation of Wooddale from the freight rail tracks would be another option to consider to mitigate this problem, however putting the freight tracks over Wooddale would result in a grade too steep for trains; putting the freight tracks below Wooddale is not possible because of other restraints like the need for the tracks to remain at an elevation that makes it possible to cross over Hwy 100. C. Siding must be removed (to eliminate switching, sorting, blocking ) The third condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4c: “c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;” In addition to the switching wye in Skunk Hollow, there is a rail siding used to store and switch rail cars on the Bass Lake line. This track runs in the Bass Lake Spur right of way and is parallel to the Bass Lake Spur primary track. The use of the siding creates noise and safety issues for the City today; and, its continued use once the SW LRT line is in place, will also interfere with the functioning of the LRT stations in St. Louis Park; and, the attractiveness of the areas immediately around the stations for transit-oriented development. All three of the City’s stations, Louisiana, Wooddale and Beltline are potentially affected by the siding. The freight rail tracks are shown as City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 20 13 removed to the west of Wooddale Avenue on the SW LRT concept drawings in the DEIS. It is important that not only those tracks are removed but all the sidings on the Bass Lake Spur near residential areas and station areas are removed. Storing and switching train cars in the Bass Lake Spur would have more severe negative impacts even than moving trains. Storing and switching entails more noise, takes more time, has more potential for blocking roads and pathways; and the potential for additional safety issues depending on what is stored or moved in rail cars in the area. The mitigation for the problems presented by the siding tracks is to replace these storage tracks in a more compatible land use area outside of the City. D. Switching Wye must be removed The fourth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4d: “d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South CP-MNS tracks;” Elimination of the “skunk hollow” switching wye, Bass Lake siding and providing a connection to MN&S South are not included in the SW DEIS but should be. Elimination of the siding and switching wye south of the Bass Lake Spur in the Oxford Street industrial area needs to be included in the SWLRT project. Without creation of a direct connection between the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S southbound and removal of the switching wye, a rail siding stretching from the MN&S tracks to Minneapolis will be needed to accommodate 50 to 75 rail cars. This siding means freight rail cars will interfere with both the Wooddale and Beltline LRT stations and the noise from switching will affect the nearby Louisiana Station area as well. This will be the case no matter which freight rail route (MN&S or Kenilworth) is chosen. The negative impacts will be more significant on the station areas and surrounding area from the siding track than from the through train track. The reason is use of the siding track will involve storage of cars for long periods of time, idling of stationary locomotives and the noisy, time consuming process of maneuvering train cars from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S or vice versa, as the wye can only accommodate moving 10-15 cars at a time. While a freight train passing through a station area may interrupt transit activity for a few minutes at a time while a train passes by, a switching procedure could take hours and stored cars may be in place for days to weeks. The noise associated with switching is significantly greater and more disruptive to the surrounding area than moving trains. It will be detrimental to the development potential of station areas also. Switching involves repeated train starts and stops; and the accompanying crashing of cars coupling and uncoupling, and the noise of locomotives accelerating. This will limit the development potential of the station areas nearby and decrease the potential ridership on the SW LRT. Eliminating the switching wye and the siding on the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the Louisiana Station also has the benefit of making the reroute connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 21 14 northbound easier and less impactful. The proposed connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S shown in the SW DEIS rises on a bridge structure up and over the Bass Lake Spur siding track and the proposed SW LRT tracks. This results in the connection being higher and steeper than would be necessary if the siding was not present. The clearance over freight rail tracks is greater than what is required for LRT tracks. Eliminating the siding means the structure for the freight rail connection to the MN&S tracks could be lowered reducing the steepness of the grade which in turn would reduce the noise associated with locomotives straining to pull trains up this steep grade. Elimination of the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the Louisiana station would benefit the station as well. With the siding in place, access to the LRT station platform is potentially more complicated. The presence of rail cars stored or being maneuvered on the siding limit visibility of the station and make the pedestrian connections for LRT passengers more difficult, much less inviting, and raises safety perceptions for riders using the LRT. The SW DEIS shows only the potential connection of the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks northbound. No direct connection southbound is included. Technically, the northbound connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks could be used as a means to access the MN&S southbound as well. Trains going north to stop, change the locomotive to the southern end of the train, and then head south is another way to replace the need for the switching wye. This solution, while technically possible is completely unworkable. For starters, using the northbound connection to the MN&S to go south would require trains to travel north until they reached a location with a siding where the locomotive could be moved from the north end of the train to the south end of the train. There is no suitable siding, or r-o-w width in St. Louis Park on the MN&S. The trains would need to travel from the Bass Lake Spur north through St. Louis Park only to switch the position of the locomotive and then retrace the route back through the City. The railroads would never find this extra travel time and effort acceptable from an operational point of view; nor would the city find it acceptable from the perspective of negative impacts on the community by adding two needless trips north on the MN&S and increasing the amount of time trains are idling. Essentially the area north of the Bass Lake tracks would be exposed to all the negative impacts and risks associated with trains traveling on the MN&S twice for a train trip that was not intending to travel north in the first place. For all the reasons highlighted above, a southbound connection between the Bass Lake Spur and the MN&S tracks is needed as part of the SW LRT project and should be addressed in the SW DEIS. E. Significant ROW must be provided The fifth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4e: “e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;” City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 22 15 The MN&S corridor is narrow (66 feet) with a single track much of it elevated, that winds through a neighborhood commercial area, past St. Louis Park High School, small neighborhood parks, and 70 modest single family homes within 50 feet of the centerline, mostly on 50 ft. lots. The average estimated market value for homes along the MN&S right of way is $179,000 in 2012. This is in stark contrast to the Kenilworth corridor which even today is generally wider than the MN&S corridor, with widths up to 160 ft. and as noted in the DEIS itself, is characterized by “high income” housing often on relatively large lots. The average home along the MN&S tracks is roughly half the value of the lowest valued homes along the Kenilworth corridor in Minneapolis. The MN&S passes by St. Louis Park High School; Keystone, Roxbury and Dakota city parks, the local food shelf, publicly owned low-income housing, elementary schools, and the high school athletic field. The MN&S corridor includes several scattered site public housing units for low- income residents, the Kenilworth corridor includes “high income housing” and in some cases high rise housing. The modest income residents of the MN&S corridor are being asked to shoulder the responsibility to accommodate freight traffic without any significant mitigation while the high income Kenilworth residents are not only relieved of the burden of negative impacts associated with freight rail, they are given the benefit of having light rail service. The bulk of the homes along the MN&S route will be more than ½ mile from the nearest LRT station. The Kenilworth residents will see the negative impacts of freight rail replaced by the positive benefits of convenient light rail service. The MN&S corridor is not well suited to handle significant levels of freight rail traffic and if the level of train traffic is going to increase the corridor needs to be widened to increase safety and to provide more buffer to minimize the negative impacts of freight traffic. If the MN&S corridor is to take the Kenilworth train traffic, the MN&S corridor should be widened to a minimum 100 feet in width. This is a critical mitigation that is not included in the SW DEIS and should be. Further comparison of the MN&S corridor and the Kenilworth corridors are provided in a separate attached document. F. Whistle Quiet Zone The sixth condition for accepting re-routing traffic to the MN&S is Resolution 10-070 item 4f: “f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.” A Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ) is provided in the SW DEIS for the MN&S route as a mitigation measure intended to eliminate the most severe noise impacts from freight traffic. This is appropriate and important mitigation; however it does not resolve all the noise and potential vibration adverse impacts associated with train traffic increases on the MN&S. Nor is receiving WQZ designation for the MN&S tracks a forgone conclusion. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 23 16 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has a prescribed process and rules to evaluate noise and vibration issues (Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment). If noise or vibration exceeds certain standards for various types of land use, projects are required to mitigate those impacts. The SW DEIS noise and impact analysis (Sections 4.7 and 4.8) was done using the impact of light rail trains, not freight trains. The SW DEIS proposes that a railroad WQZ is the only mitigation measure that is needed to bring the freight rail reroute alternative into noise level compliance. Other noise mitigation measures may be necessary to mitigate impacts of trains going up an incline and going through several curves. Quiet Zones are local initiatives meant to minimize train noise from whistles, but the program is administrated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). If a community meets its risk index standards, Quiet Zones can be approved, however they are not a foregone conclusion. Quiet Zones must be applied for by the local road authority but in areas with multiple jurisdictions, one road authority can be the lead agency. Bells located on the signals will continue to operate. The minimum safety devices at a crossing are railroad signals with gates. A risk assessment is done for each crossing and certain types of crossings may need additional safety improvements such as center medians or four quadrant gates. A field study is required; the diagnostic team from the FRA, MNDOT, the railroad companies and the road authority will evaluate each crossing any potential improvements. The evaluation of the vehicles, roadways and train traffic is straight forward. There are several areas that can make quiet zones difficult to implement including: i. The risk analysis is a mathematically based program that has a difficult time accurately reflecting large changes in either train or road activity. The formulas are influenced by previous crash histories that are not reflected if conditions change quickly. ii. The rules are not clear on how pedestrians should be considered. The FRA relies heavily on the engineering judgment of the diagnostic team. The team needs to evaluate how extensive the pedestrian movements are, the type of pedestrian groups (young children, older people, mobility challenged, students, etc.) , potential for trespassing on railroad property, attractive nuisances (shortcuts, bridges, other side of the track, etc.), sight distance of an approaching train, sight distance of a pedestrians and use time. Treatment of Quiet Zones for pedestrians has ranged from doing nothing, to installing a few signs, to very extensive fencing and control measures. iii. The rules do not address private crossings and what safety improvements should be done at them. iv. The FRA has the authority to rescind a quiet zone if there is a rise in crashes or incidents. The train engineer also has wide latitude on when to use the horn in a quiet zone area. The engineer can sound the horn when: City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 24 17 i. If there is track maintenance or other construction in the area; ii. If a potential dangerous situation is seen, such as a vehicle stopped on the track or pedestrian trespassers iii. If crossing signals are malfunctioning. The crossings in St Louis Park are unique and the risk numbers for vehicles are relatively low but treatments for protecting the safety of pedestrians will be a challenge. A formal diagnostic team review should be done early in the Preliminary Engineering process to evaluate if a WQZ can be approved. The results of the diagnostic team’s review should be considered when evaluating which alternative route for freight trains is the preferred and selected alternative. The City should not have to run the risk that the decision is made to relocate Kenilworth traffic to the MN&S tracks based in part on the understanding that a WQZ will be created, only to find out later that creating a WQZ is not approved. The WQZ evaluation must be done before a freight rail route decision is made. It is important to note that a WQZ will only address the noise associated with train whistles, bells and horns. It does not address the noise from locomotives pulling trains up steep grades, squeals from trains moving through tight curves or noise from switching operations. These topics are all raised elsewhere in these comments (sections B-3, 6, 7). Noise from these sources is not adequately addressed in the SW DEIS and must be mitigated by some means if freight trains are to be re-routed to the MN&S tracks. General Comments on the DEIS and LRT Concerns G. LRT Concerns 1. Mitigation and Impact needs: Mitigation specifically for the LRT itself is needed, including: a. Grade separation of the regional trail. In either freight rail location alternative, grade separation of the regional trail needs to be considered at the Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue crossings. This is a heavily used trail (over 500,000 users annually) and will have a significant amount of vehicle traffic around the station areas. The Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail is shown to move from the north side of the rail to the south side of the rail at Wooddale Avenue. Walkers and bikers would have to turn south or north, and cross the tracks in order to stay on the regional trail. This movement is very awkward and needs to be remedied to become a straight, through route. Grade separation may be able to solve the crossing issue, if it is used to switch the trail to the other side of the trains. Grade separation of the trail would improve the crossing and could solve the crossing issue where the trail is shown to switch sides at Wooddale. b. Maintain access to Lilac Park from the regional trail. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 25 18 The regional trail is shown on the south side of the light rail tracks east of Highway 100. The new Lilac Park is on the north side immediately east of Highway 100. Access from the trail to the park for users would need to remain under all alternatives. c. Trail/sidewalks should be provided along both sides of the LRT line for access to Lilac Park and other destinations along the trail. The SW LRT will share its corridor with the Regional Trail through St. Louis Park. It will be on one side of the LRT tracks and in at least some locations freight rail tracks too. Supplemental trails or sidewalk should be provided on the side of the SW LRT corridor that does not have the Regional trail as a way to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist access to the stations and from the stations to surrounding land uses. In essence supplemental sidewalk/trails along with the Regional Trail would be the equivalent of having sidewalks on both sides of a street, providing safe accessibility for pedestrians no matter on which side of the SW LRT corridor they happen to be. d. Noise from LRT crossing signals and train horns must be addressed. SLP has many residents who live close to the LRT stations and will be hear LRT bells and whistles. Mitigation should be implemented to minimize the sounds of the relatively constant bells and whistles 2. Potential Improvements to the SWLRT Project: a. The Cedar Lake Regional Trail switches sides at Wooddale Avenue The SW DEIS plans show the Regional Trail users would have to make two 90-degree turns and cross the rail tracks at Wooddale to stay on the trail. This is not practical for trail users and must be redesigned to provide a continuous connection on the trail. b. An alternative alignment for the SWLRT line and location for the Louisiana Avenue Station using the switching wye should be evaluated. Moving the SW LRT line south of its current planned location in the HCRRA right-of-way, possibly using the to be vacated switching wye right of way, would move the SW LRT much closer to Methodist Hospital, and into the center of the Skunk Hollow industrial area. The hospital has several thousand employees that are just outside the half mile ideal walking distance of the proposed Louisiana station location. Moving the SW LRT line and station slightly to the south this could serve them better, boost SWLRT ridership, and reduce the need for on-site parking. It also could spur new development investments in the Skunk Hollow area. This idea needs to be evaluated in Preliminary Engineering. c. An alternate alignment in the Beltline Station Area should be considered and evaluated. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 26 19 The proposed Beltline Station location is just outside the desirable walking distance for several nearby major potential transit users. Moving the SW LRT line and station slightly south in this area could make the station more convenient to Excelsior Boulevard, the City’s Rec Center, Park Nicollet Clinic, high density housing and the commercial uses along Park Center Blvd and other retail and recreational destinations. This idea needs to be evaluated in PE. H. DEIS General concerns The SW DEIS does not evenly evaluate and compare the alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co- location). Both alternatives are consistent with the designation of the Kenilworth route as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) route for the SW light rail trains. The designation of the LPA in the Metropolitan Council’s regional Transportation Policy Plan was for the light rail train route. The designation does not specify the location for freight train traffic, and, it was approved prior to the FTA’s requirement to include freight rail routing in the SWLRT project and environmental analysis. Both alternatives 3A-1 (co-location) and 3A (relocation) re-route should be considered - and labeled as - LPA alternatives. The SW DEIS does not evenly evaluate the alternatives as it does not specify the criteria or factors used to reach its summary conclusions, or provide data in the DEIS supportive of its conclusions. Because of the use of segments, data relating to 3A-1 (co-location) includes Segment A data, and Segment A extends all the way to downtown. This means the data is not accurately capturing the comparison between the freight rail alternatives. There is a lack of supporting detailed information for conclusions reached on such items as wetlands, floodplains, park land, and community cohesion, acquisition of properties, capital costs, and economic impacts among others. For example, the total amount of wetland impacted in alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is two acres, or one third of that for alternative 3A (relocation) according to table ES.1. Yet, Table ES.2 concludes that alternative 3A-1 (co-location) “does not meet the goal” of protecting the environment and alternative 3A (relocation) is show as “some meets the goal.” This evaluation does not follow the data presented; its conclusions are erroneous. In addition, the potential impacts of increased freight rail traffic along the MN&S are minimized, such as the evaluation of impacts on community cohesion, or the evaluation of potential adverse environmental impacts associated with each alternative. In the evaluation of the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the 3A-1 (co-location) alternative in Chapter 11 of the SW DEIS, it is stated on page 11-12 that acquiring “primarily high quality, high income multi-family housing by the West Lake Street station,” is inconsistent with state, regional and local policies. What are the policies that guide acquisitions for clearly public purposes (public transit in this case) away from high income family housing are not provided. There is no explanation of why high income matters, and if it does, in the case of acquisitions for public purposes. It seems to imply there is a higher value to “high income” housing, than to what housing is impacted by freight rail relocation. It was clear during the LPA route selection process, freight rail rerouting was not a part of the City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 27 20 analysis and was not discussed in any substantive way, and therefore was not a consideration in the LPA decision. The LPA was chosen using the assumption that freight rail that would have to be relocated to achieve the LRT route. Beyond the failure of the SW DEIS to meet the requirements of the City of St. Louis Park’s Resolution 10-070, the City of St. Louis Park has many other concerns with regards to the SW DEIS. The specific concerns are described below. 1. New goal and the State Rail Plan Rationale inappropriate for SW LRT DEIS The SW DEIS introduces in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, a new goal - Goal 6 – “To support an economically competitive freight rail system,” which relates to freight rail and the State Rail Plan. This is inappropriate because: a. This goal was not adopted through any public process. b. The rationale and description for constructing connections to the MN&S tracks and re-locating freight rail to the MN&S has been broadened to be consistent with the new Goal 6. It essentially states that one of the reasons for choosing alternative 3A (relocation) is that it helps implement the State Rail Plan, provides opportunities for TC&W trains and possibly other railroads to reach places other than where TC&W trains are going today; yet the SW DEIS does not anticipate any increase in train traffic on the MN&S or evaluate the impact of trains going north of the BNSF tracks in St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and beyond. The potential impact from possible additional train traffic is reason for more robust mitigation along the MN&S route. c. All of the alternatives in the SW DEIS would need additional evaluation with this new goal; previously action was only taken on the LRT routes, not freight rail routes. d. This DEIS is supposed to be about the SW LRT project not the State Rail Plan; introducing this element is inappropriate for this plan and the SW DEIS. e. The new goal introduces many questions and complications about the impacts of the State Rail Plan; including the references to intercity rail on the MN&S tracks. f. Several other communities are impacted by the introduction of the State Rail Plan and suggestion that TC&W trains will use the CP Humboldt Yard; those cities that the MNS travels through include: Golden Valley, Crystal, Edina, and Bloomington, and they were not included in the SW DEIS process. g. Passenger rail along the MNS is discussed in the State Rail Plan and therefore would need to be addressed in relation to rerouting freight trains on the MN&S. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 28 21 2. Comparison of Freight Routing Alternatives is Incomplete a. Freight rail routing impacts are not adequately addressed or accurately evaluated in the reroute alternative 3A (relocation) b. Cost Comparison The total cost in 2012 dollars for alternative 3A-1 (co-location of freight rail) is shown to be $22,866,000 more than alternative 3A (re-routing freight rail to the MN&S) in corrected Table 8.1-1. However insufficient detail and supporting information is provided to evaluate these numbers. The cost of 3A (relocation) does not include mitigation costs on the MN&S, or any compensation to railroads for additional operations and maintenance costs. c. The evaluation of construction impacts appears arbitrary and impacts are not explained. The evaluation table in Chapter 11 shows construction impacts as “medium” in the relocation alternative (3A) versus being shown as “high” for the co-location alternative (3A-1), even though relocation of freight would have far more construction complexity and cost than co-location; with the construction of a major bridge structure near Louisiana Avenue, a new track structure in the Iron Triangle connecting to the BNSF r-o-w, and a new 1-mile long siding on the BNSF r-o- w in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. Some reconstruction of freight tracks in the Kenilworth corridor for co-location would be relatively minor in relation to the construction required to make relocation work. d. Community Cohesion inaccurately portrayed “Community Cohesion,” the evaluation of how freight rail and LRT lines will split neighborhoods is shown in table 11.1-1 page 11-5 as having “no impact” for the relocation alternative (3A) versus “slight adverse impact” in the co-location alternative (3A-1) - even though both the MN&S and the Kenilworth corridors experience freight rail traffic today, and, the Kenilworth traffic today is the train traffic that would be rerouted to the MN&S tracks. The same train traffic corridor has been judged as having a negative impact in the Kenilworth and as having no impact in the MN&S corridor. This is despite the fact that rerouting to the MN&S corridor will involve the actions and impacts listed below. i. The changes needed to accommodate the increased and rerouted trains includes closing of at least one local street, 29th Street thereby reducing the accessibility across the MN&S tracks for vehicles, bicycle and pedestrians. The neighborhoods affected by closing 29th Street are otherwise served by a traditional grid of neighborhood streets. (This is further described in section B.14 of these comments above). ii. The closed 29th Street north of Minnetonka Blvd means reduced accessibility for an approximately 30 block neighborhood east of the MN&S tracks to Hobart School, City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 29 22 Dakota Park and access to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail immediately on the west side of the MN&S tracks. iii. The MN&S tracks wind their way through the Walker Street/Library Lane/Lake Street commercial area. In one case they literally pass through an intersection on a diagonal, resulting in the potential for trains to block both streets at once, creating inconvenience for pedestrians and drivers and adversely impacting local businesses. This same area is home to the High School, the Spanish Immersion Elementary School, STEP (the local food shelf and service organization) the High School’s athletic fields and stadium, in addition to a block of businesses along Lake Street. While trains travel through and disrupt this area today, the volume is extremely low: two trains of approximately 10 cars each per day. The trains that would be relocated to the MN&S are 4 to 6 trains a day and 30 to 120 cars in length. This is a significant increase in potential disruption to community cohesion. iv. By comparison, virtually none of these conditions are present in the Kenilworth corridor or in the section of Bass Lake Spur east of the MN&S tracks. No streets are proposed to be closed in these areas if freight traffic remains in Kenilworth, no schools are located adjacent to the rail ROW, and the tracks do not bisect any commercial areas. e. Conclusion regarding continuous flow of freight rail is inaccurate. The DEIS concludes in Chapter 11 table 11.1-1, page 11-7 that the relocation alternative achieves “continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area” and that the co-location alternative does not. This is not true. Both routes for freight trains are continuous to TC&W’s current destinations. Neither alternative 3A (relocation) nor 3A-1(co-location) allows “continuous flow” to the destinations that TC&W railroad hopes to reach in the future. Neither alternative provides a direct connection southbound on the MN&S which is the route TC&W wants for future access to the grain terminals to the south. The SW DEIS presumes that TC&W would benefit from being able to access the MN&S and use it to reach places to the north that it does not seek to go. Chapter 1, pages 1-11 and 1-12 state that alternative 3A (relocation) would improve access to the Humboldt yards for TC&W via the MN&S and that access to Humboldt yards would be a better destination for TC&W trains than its current destination, St. Paul. This is stated despite the fact the MN&S tracks would result in a circuitous and time consuming route to reach TC&W’s desired location, St. Paul. Use of the MN&S to reach either St. Paul or the Humboldt yards would have negative impacts on St. Louis Park; the at grade crossing of Cedar Lake Rd in St. Louis Park would be affected and was not studied for impacts, for instance. Impacts on other communities along the route beyond St. Louis Park were also not shown in the SW DEIS. The SW DEIS presents no evidence that the TC&W has any interest in reaching the Humboldt yard or using the MN&S as a means to reach St. Paul. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 30 23 The DEIS also states in Chapter 1, page 1-12 that the new connection to the MN&S proposed in alternative 3A (relocation) would improve access for TC&W to Savage on the Minnesota River. This is not true. The connection to the MN&S proposed in the SW DEIS is only a connection to MN&S northbound. This is not an improvement for trains seeking to go south on the MN&S; and if it were used for that purpose it would increase the negative impacts of freight traffic on the MN&S as explained earlier in these comments in section D. Only adding a direct connection to MN&S southbound from the Bass Lake Spur and elimination of the Skunk Hollow wye would be an improvement in the continuous flow of freight rail traffic, and that is not part of any of the build alternatives considered in the SW DEIS. f. Improve mobility goal evaluation inaccurate The SW DEIS shows in Chapter 11, Table 11.2-1, page 11-9 that Alternative 3A, relocating freight trains, “supports” the goal of improved mobility while alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is shown as only “somewhat supports” this goal. Both alternatives support mobility. There is no difference in ridership, user benefits, travel times or cost per passenger mile between the alternatives 3A (relocation) and 3A-1 (co-location). Both should be judged as supporting mobility. g. Protect the environment goal conclusion incorrect This goal is shown for alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1, page 11-9 as “somewhat supports goal” vs. being shown as “does not support goal” for alternative 3A-1 (co- location) even though the data shows more wetland and floodplain impacts, among other items, for the relocation alternative. How this conclusion is reached is not documented. For Wetlands and Floodplain (4.2.2.1), Alternative 3A-1 (co-location) clearly has less impact on wetlands and floodplains. Construction of the Iron Triangle connection from the MN&S tracks to BNSF in Alternative 3A (relocation) is in both a wetland and a floodplain area and is shown to affect two acres more wetland and two acres more floodplain than alternative 3A-1 (co-location); it is difficult to understand why the environmental goal conclusion does not account for this data. The taking of .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park is shown in Table 11.1-1 under the Protect the Environment goal; however the SW DEIS does not show where this land is and does not give support for why it must be taken. The SW DEIS also does not show that the Cedar Lake bike trail could be rerouted, which could allow the park land to be avoided, rather than “taken.” Regarding Groundwater (4.1.3.4), the SW DEIS has identified potential groundwater issues near Minnehaha Creek. The reroute alignment has proposes a major railroad bridge in this area that will require substantial footings and piers. The SW DEIS table (ES-1) does not identify this as an area of potential major impacts to the ground water. These major structures would not be required in the co-location alternative. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 31 24 h. Preserve and protect the quality of life goal inaccurately judged This goal is shown for Alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1 as “support goal” vs. being shown as “does not support goal” for Alternative 3A-1 (co-location). It is stated that co-location would “divide neighborhoods” in Kenilworth neighborhood. This seems to be a completely arbitrary conclusion. Equal train traffic will have similar impacts on adjoining neighborhoods no matter which neighborhood it passes through. See the Community Cohesion discussion above. Increased freight rail traffic on the MN&S tracks will have at least as disruptive an impact on “community cohesion” on neighborhoods and Lake Street area businesses as maintaining freight rail in the Kenilworth corridor. The other specific evaluation measures listed in Table 11.1-1 on page 11-5 for this goal are property acquisitions and environmental justice. It is difficult to understand how acquisition of property relates to the quality of life goal. The question should be: what are the quality of life impacts on the residents, businesses and the community once the SW LRT project including freight rail improvements is built, not whether property is acquired to implement the project. Nonetheless, the property acquisition totals included in Table 11.1-1 overemphasize the acquisition impacts for the 3A-1 alternative and under represent them for the 3A (relocation) alternative. The 3A-1 (co-location) alternative assumes a full taking of the 57 unit townhome development along the proposed co-location freight rail tracks in the Kenilworth corridor. Acquisition of all these townhomes adds nearly 200 feet of right of way in this section of the Kenilworth corridor. While the exact location of the freight rail tracks in a co-location alternative is not yet known, it is clear that the full width of the townhome property would not be needed to accommodate the 3A-1 and create a minimum 100 foot wide corridor. Conversely, in the SW DEIS alternative 3A (relocation) and all the alternatives that include relocation of freight rail to the MN&S tracks do not include acquisition of 42 homes that are within 50 feet (in some cases much closer) of the center-line of the MN&S tracks. These acquisitions should be included in the mitigation for the 3A alternative and in the count of acquisitions included in Table 11.1-1. Neither alternatives 3A (relocation) nor 3A-1 (co-location) meet the standard for finding a disproportionate impact on minority, low income or transit dependent populations. However, there is no question that the socio-economic characteristics of the MN&S and the Kenilworth corridor are very different. Kenilworth homes are clearly higher valued than homes along the MN&S tracks, but regardless of income levels or home values the presence of freight trains have the potential to be detrimental to quality of life and the SW LRT project should include efforts to mitigate those potential negative impacts. This is especially true for the properties along the MN&S tracks. They are being asked to endure the negative impacts of increased freight rail traffic so that others can benefit of LRT within easy walking distance of their homes. Kenilworth properties would be asked to continue to endure the freight rail traffic they have today, but gain the presence and access to LRT. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 32 25 i. Support for economic development goal analysis is incomplete This goal is shown for Alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1 as “supports goal” vs. being shown as “somewhat supports goal” for alternative 3A-1 (co-location). The evaluation of the performance of the SW LRT alternatives overestimates the impact of freight rail on alternative 3A-1 (co-location), and underestimates the impact of freight rail on alternative 3A (relocation). Five LRT stations would be affected by the presence of freight trains if the co-location alternative (3A-1) were implemented. Freight train traffic has the potential for negative impacts on the development opportunities near these stations. However two of the five stations have limited development opportunity already. The Penn station already is difficult to access and must contend with the presence of BNSF freight rail traffic no matter which alternative SW LRT route is chosen. These conditions make development opportunities more challenges whether or not freight trains travel on the Kenilworth corridor. The 21st Street station also has limited development potential. It is in a fully developed single family neighborhood with limited opportunities for new development. It has a ridership shed that is almost completely to the east of the LRT tracks. Access to the station at 21st Street from the east would not be hindered by the presence of freight trains on the west side of the LRT tracks. The other three stations also have with one dominant side to the station areas. West Lake, Beltline and Wooddale all have the greatest opportunities for new development on the south and east side of the LRT station. This reduces the negative impacts of freight train in these station areas. Two LRT stations in Hopkins are co-located, yet the SW DEIS does not indicate any negative impacts to those station areas in development potential. With regards to Alternative 3A (relocation), the evaluation of this goal did not consider what impacts increased train traffic on the MN&S would have on development opportunities, nor did it consider what the negative impacts of the structure needed to connect the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks would have. Between Hwy 7 and Brunswick Avenue in St. Louis Park, the MN&S tracks wind its way past several commercial properties and businesses. Virtually all of the adjoining properties in this area are less than 50 feet away from the center line of the tracks. Many are less than 25 feet away. They experience noise and vibrations today that are detrimental to their economic strength. Increasing the train traffic significantly has the potential to be detrimental to these properties and businesses. The new structure needed to connect the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks not only requires the permanent acquisition of nearly 3 acres of commercial/industrial land and the relocation of at least one business from St. Louis Park, the structure itself will make station area development in the Louisiana Station area more difficult. Property would be taken off of the tax rolls for a reroute, reducing the economic development and redevelopment opportunities in the immediate City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 33 26 area. The proposed structure connecting the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is a very large elevated structure that will have negative visual impacts on the surrounding area in general and the development potential of the Louisiana station area specifically. These impacts were not taken into consideration in the evaluation of alternative 3A’s (relocation) of the support for economic development goal. j. Support economically competitive freight rail system goal evaluation inaccurate This goal is shown for Alternative 3A (relocation) in Chapter 11, Table 1.2-1 as “support goal” vs. being shown as “does not support goal” for Alternative 3A-1 (co-location). This was not a goal identified, discussed or endorsed in the SW LRT technical advisory or policy advisory committees of the SWLRT project during the Alternatives Analysis or the SW DEIS process. Even so, it is difficult to understand the rationale for why Alternative 3A (relocation) is shown as “supports goal”, while Alternative 3A-1 (co-location) is shown as “does not support goal”. Both alternatives are shown as providing “safe, efficient and effective movement of freight throughout the region, state and nation” according to Table 11.1-1. However, Alternative 3A (relocation) is shown to provide “continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area” and Alternative 3A- 1 (co-location) is not in Table 11.1-1. This is an error. Both routes for freight rail provide continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area. Both routes provide a means for the TC&W trains to get to their current destination. The goal of improving access via the MN&S tracks to places north of the BNSF tracks is outside of the SW DEIS study area and is out of place in the SW DEIS. Furthermore no impacts from trains traveling north of the BNSF tracks have been addressed. The TC&W has indicated that they do not have any interest in going north of the BNSF tracks to access the Humboldt Yard to interchange their normal trains. The TC&W trains are headed to St. Paul and the Humboldt yards are not a desirable alternative destination. k. Operational functionality for the RRs The SW DEIS uses the engineering designs for freight rail routes that were previously prepared outside the SW DEIS and SW LRT design process. The MN&S freight rail route is the route used in the vacated Hennepin County’s EAW on the freight railroad reroute. The Kenilworth co- location route is the route prepared by SEH for the City of St. Louis Park as part of the City’s previous investigation on the potential for freight rail co- location. The SW DEIS did not advance the engineering or analysis on either option in order to resolve issues or identify impacts to provide a fair comparison. Further analysis and design is left for the Preliminary Engineering contractor. Both options will be studied during the PE phase and any evaluation of the alternative routes in the SW DEIS at this point in the process is less than complete. Many questions regarding the MN&S for re-routing Kenilworth freight trains have been identified previously and are not addressed in the SW DEIS but should be. Among them are the following. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 34 27 i. How to deal with delays in getting on to BNSF track from the MN&S? Do railroads have to be paid for this access? There is no train operational analysis to show that the reroute is a workable alternative. A train operation model would show if the longer trains can navigate the curves and grades or will require additional locomotives, possibly using distributive power (DPU). (TC&W’s locomotives are not setup to operate as DPU). ii. There are tight curves and steep grades not usually associated with mainline operations. There are grades well in excess of 1 percent. There are no track profiles included in the SW DEIS to understand the impacts and what the grades would be. iii. The Canadian Pacific Railroad (CP) and the Twin Cities & Western Railroad (TC&W) both submitted comments during the EAW process that show major issues with the reroute design. The SW DEIS does not address any of those concerns. Are there any agreements with the railroad companies regarding the reroute already in place? iv. The CP and TC&W have indicated that they would not accept ownership of the new structures; it is unclear what entity would own and maintain the track and structures, and no indication of what it would cost. v. The EAW and SW DEIS anticipates that the MN&S track would be out of service for up to 1 month during construction, which is unacceptable to the CP and its customers. vi. The EAW showed the bridge for moving freight rail over the LRT and connecting to the MN&S would have a vertical clearance of just 20’ 6” over the track; Minnesota statutory requirement for clearance is 22’. This means the bridge for freight rail would have to be even higher than currently shown. vii. The SW DEIS did not provide any additional noise and vibration field data that would help calibrate the noise and vibration models. During the EAW process, the models were based on limited data on current MN&S trains and did not use long, heavy train data or provide accurate information on impacts. It also did not include inclines and curves in its analysis; or review the potential noise and vibrations from trains idling on the proposed new BNSF siding. viii. A derailment study should be done to determine the risk of the trains transferring to the MN&S. ix. The LRT drawings in the SW DEIS show that freight tracks will terminate at Wooddale Avenue. The TC&W has indicated that they will need track east of the Skunk Hollow wye to switch about 60 car trains from the south. The DEIS must include elimination of the skunk hollow switching wye and provision of a south connection to the MN&S for this to happen. It is not shown. x. The reroute for the TC&W trains works only for north or east bound trains. The movement to the south towards Savage is still inefficient and very difficult to accomplish. Unless a new southern connection is made to the MN&S, the railroads would be required to maintain the Skunk Hollow wye or use the new siding along the BNSF to run around the train to access the MN&S south. The railroad operators would not agree to this movement, and it would have an impact on the BNSF tracks. The going north to go City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 35 28 south movement would require the southbound trains to pass through the MN&S track twice and the approval of the BNSF. Neither of these issues is discussed in the SW DEIS. If the Skunk Hollow wye is eliminated, there is a customer west of Louisiana that would have its rail access severed and would have to be relocated. xi. If the reroute alternative is chosen, there should be several modifications to the grades, curves and right of way needed to improve safety and operations. 1. The minimum right of way should be 100 feet wide. 2. The curves and grades need smoothing to minimize the roller coaster affect. 3. The area near Louisiana Avenue should be rethought. Assuming that there are no freight tracks east of the existing MN&S bridge the LRT and reroute grades could be adjusted to lower the overall height. The depth of structure should also be reviewed to lower the height. l. Circulation in Minnetonka Boulevard area There should be a circulation study in the area north of Minnetonka Boulevard to evaluation how to minimize the impacts of the proposed closing of 29th Street. One option should include new bridges, pedestrian trails and noise buffers. m. Impacts of areas adjacent to Iron Triangle and new siding on BNSF The reroute has a major impact to wetland and flood plain in the iron triangle area (section g above). Presumably, this is why the tables show an increase of two acres in impact to the wetlands and two acres to the floodplain over the co-location alternative. The north edge or the iron triangle also forms the boundary of the known peat deposit. This peat deposit could easily extend into the wetland and could require extensive geotechnical treatment that may impact additional wetland or flood plain areas. Important to note is that the track profile is 1.5 % in this area. This violates normal mainline railroad design guidelines. To resolve the profile issue, the track may need to rise, resulting in a much greater impact. Table 4.2.2 suggests that a bridge over the wetland as a potential mitigation measure but the plans or capital cost estimate do not include the cost of this structure. The iron triangle area is also a difficult area to access for construction. There is no analysis of impacts to the environment for construction access to this area. The only non-wetland public access is via the Cedar Lake Trail. n. Segment data Because of the use of segments for specific areas in the SW DEIS, data relating to 3A-1 (co- location) includes Segment A data, and Segment A extends all the way to downtown City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 36 29 Minneapolis. This means the data is adding too much information to the freight rail comparison and not accurately capturing the comparison between the freight rail alternatives. o. Train and rail-car counts need documentation Table 2.3-2 states existing number of trains on the MN&S tracks are one round trip train of 10 to 30 cars daily. There is no back up documentation to support this statement. The MN&S Freight Rail Report is given as the source for the information in the table, however there is no source or documentation for these numbers footnoted in the MN&S Freight Rail report either. The DEIS should establish by actual train and rail car counts the current level of freight rail traffic on the MN&S tracks. This is important base information needed in order to understand the impact of rerouting trains from Kenilworth to the MN&S. Experience in recent years suggests that the typical trains on the MN&S tracks are much shorter than 30 rail cars in length. Ten to 15 rail-car trains and sometimes even shorter trains are typical on the MN&S five days a week today. The number of trains and number of rail-cars stated in Table 2.3-2 is also noted as from the MN&S Freight Rail Report and should be updated with better and more fully documented information. Bob Suko, with TC&W indicated that a more accurate description of the TC&W rail operations today (12/14/12) would be the following. 1. 6-7 days per week regular train service with 65-75 cars both ways 2. 110 car unit grain trains at about 3.0 per week assuming 1.5 loaded and 1.5 empty per week 3. Ethanol is 80 car units between 6-8 per month 1/2 empty and 1/2 loaded 4. About 12-15 unit coal trains annually, no empty return 5. About 12-15 loaded DDG unit trains annually The significance of these numbers and importance of accurate numbers, is that the greater the number of trains and rail cars the more noise, vibration and disruption in the communities where the trains travel. There is no guarantee that future conditions will be the same as current conditions, but they are at least one indication of the train traffic that the communities will experience. Today the MN&S tracks are handling something on the order of 150 rail cars a week. If the TC&W trains currently operating in Kenilworth are rerouted to the MN&S that would mean the MN&S would experience an additional 1,300-1,500 rail cars per week, a 1000% increase. 3. Traffic Impact Comments a. Transit Effects The transit ridership was prepared using standard, accepted methods available at the time the draft was prepared. Station boardings are provided for each station in Appendix H, but no conclusions can be drawn specific to the reasonableness of those estimates. It is our understanding that the transit City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 37 30 ridership will be updated as part of the design phase using newly available information for the FEIS, such as the 2010 Transit On Board Survey. b. Effects on Roadways The initial comment regarding a single growth factor was not addressed in the revised DEIS. The year 2030 traffic forecasts were developed by applying a growth factor to the existing (year 2010) traffic volumes. The regional model was used to determine growth, but a single 1.12 factor continues to be applied along the entire corridor. Generally, it can be expected that this approach would understate developing area growth and overstate fully developed area growth, but specific roadways may be differently affected. A “risk assessment” approach could be used at intersections with failing or near-failing levels of service to determine the extent to which a higher growth assumption would affect the conclusions of the analysis. An existing and future intersection operations analysis was completed using the Synchro/SimTraffic software. It is stated that Synchro/SimTraffic does not have the direct capacity to model LRT. The Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update in Appendix H also states that each station and the impacts on operations and circulation will be addressed in a detailed analysis as part of the FEIS. It is our understanding that VISSIM will be used to better assess LRT operations in the design phase of the SW LRT. The operations analysis completed for year 2017 and 2030 build conditions identified intersections that are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service. Further analysis of the potential mitigation measures will be addressed in the FEIS. The Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update in Appendix H includes assumptions related to future LRT and freight trains operating in the Kenilworth corridor. The operations analysis assumes a freight train with 30 cars at 60 feet each, traveling at 10 mph. This results in 150 seconds for a freight train to cross an intersection. According to field observations conducted for the City in 2011, a freight train traveling across Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard required 10 minutes of vehicular delay during the morning peak hour. The significant difference between the observed delay and assumed delay for a freight train crossing could have a measurable impact on the operations analysis results for 2018 and 2030. In addition, the Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update results state that “these queues are not anticipated to impact the signal operations at the high volume intersection of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard”. Further analysis of this issue should be addressed as part of the FEIS. The At-Grade Queue Analysis in Appendix H includes the details of the queuing impacts related to various freight train lengths. This technical memorandum dated May 31, 2012 was completed after the Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update (March 21, 2012). This analysis further evaluated the 30-car train at 10 mph, in addition to a 120-car train at 10 mph. The results of the 2010 and 2030 analysis identified significant queues impacting adjacent intersections along the Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard corridors for the 30-car and 120-car scenarios. The general note City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 38 31 summarizing the analysis states that “a scenario in which a train arrives during this relatively short timeframe is possible, but would likely be a relatively rare occurrence”. As previously stated, further analysis of this issue should be addressed as part of the FEIS. The Operational Impacts at Intersections section describes the analysis conducted to identify LRT impacts on intersection operations to determine “how well intersections function to move traffic and pedestrians”. However, this section is limited to vehicular and freight rail traffic. The Southwest Transitway DEIS – Traffic Analysis Update in Appendix H states that pedestrians were not modeled due to low pedestrian counts. The impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through the intersections and roadways near the LRT stations should be considered in the FEIS. This should also include impacts on the regional trail at-grade crossing in close proximity to the future LRT alignment. 4. Vacated EAW The re-routing of trains from Kenilworth to the MN&S tracks is not a new idea. It is a concept that was the focus of an EAW that was prepared in submitted in 2011 and later that year vacated. While that process is not acknowledged in the SW DEIS, it appears that the design for the re-route proposed in the SW DEIS and the evaluation of that design is identical to the work done for the vacated 2011 EAW, with no new analyses. In 2011 the City carefully reviewed the EAW and found it to be inadequate. The City hired its own independent consultant (SEH) to help review the EAW, identify potential alternative routes for freight rail and analyze the potential of freight rail in both the MN&S and the Kenilworth routes. One of those alternative Kenilworth routes formed the basis for the SW DEIS co-location alternative (Alternative 3A-1). Since the SW DEIS essentially incorporates the 2011 EAW and SEH concept plan, the City is submitting as part of its comments on the SW DEIS, its comments on the 2011 EAW and the four technical memos prepared by SEH regarding freight rail and the freight rail alternative routes. All of the materials St. Louis Park previously submitted are attached. 5. Freight Rail Easement description in error In the Implementation of Freight Rail Relocation section of Chapter 2, page 2-27, the DEIS says that “A perpetual easement across the remediated property for the proposed freight rail connection was granted by Hennepin County to the City of St. Louis Park….”. This is incorrect. The City was required as a condition of an Environmental Remediation Fund (ERF) grant to secure an easement for the area anticipated to be needed for connecting Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S. The City holds the easement which was granted by the redeveloper of the former National Lead site. Real Estate Recycling received contamination cleanup grants from Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the State of Minnesota, as well as tax-increment financing from the City of St. Louis Park so as to facilitate the construction of the Highway 7 Corporate Center on the north portion of the property. As a result of that redevelopment project, the City of St. Louis Park holds the easement for rail purposes across the southern portion of the site. If the easement is not needed for a rail re-route City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 39 32 connection, it is anticipated that the easement would be released making it possible to construct another building in the southern portion of the site. The easement was secured by the City of St. Louis Park in 2006. The area included in the easement was based on the plan included in the 1999 St. Louis Park Railroad Study. It is important to note that the 1999 St. Louis Park Freight Rail Study contemplated that the complete connection between the Bass Lake Spur and the MN&S could be accomplished in existing right of way and an easement across the former National Lead site. The improvement was expected to involve new track starting at Louisiana Avenue and continuing east toward the MN&S tracks, eventually curving to the north and connecting with the MN&S tracks just before (to the south of) the railroad bridge over Hwy 7. The project as proposed in the DEIS is dramatically bigger than what was anticipated in 1999. It starts roughly 2000 feet west of Louisiana Avenue instead of at Louisiana Avenue. It requires the taking of temporary and permanent easements; and, acquisition of property and relocation of businesses on the south side of the Bass Lake Spur right of way that was never anticipated in 1999. It requires the construction of a new bridge over Hwy 7, and construction of new MN&S track south of Hwy 7 for roughly 1000 feet, neither of which was anticipated in 1999. These actions are in addition to using the easement secured and held by the City of St. Louis Park. The history of how TC&W trains came to be in Kenilworth in the late ‘90’s and what role the MN&S alternative route played in that decision may be hard to sort out. Many people have different opinions of what the history of that decision is, but it is absolutely clear that the scope and character of the project to connect the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S tracks is dramatically different from what was envisioned in the late ‘90’s. That is a key reason why a complete and accurate evaluation of the actual specific current proposal should be the basis for a decision on the appropriate SWLRT alternative. The project envisioned over 10 years ago is not the project proposed today. 6. Comments on the 12/12/12 DEIS update regarding questions from the Surface Transportation Board. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is an economic regulatory agency that Congress charged with resolving railroad rate and service disputes and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. The STB is an independent decision-making board, although it is administratively affiliated with the Department of Transportation. The STB serves as both an adjudicatory and a regulatory body. The agency has jurisdiction over railroad rate and service issues and rail restructuring transactions (mergers, line sales, line construction, and line abandonments) plus other transportation issues. The STB accepted an invitation by the FTA to be cooperative agency for the SW LRT project. The freight railroad issues on the SW LRT project may or may not be under the jurisdiction of the STB. HCRRA on December 10, 2012 answered a series of questions from the STB on the SW LRT DEIS. These questions and responses were posted on the project website on December 12, 2012. The City comments for submittal on December 31 on the entire SW LRT DEIS cover many of the issues City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 40 33 raised by the STB but they are spread throughout the DEIS comments. The City is preparing comments on the STB questions and the HCRRA responses specifically for submittal with our comments on the DEIS. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 41 EIS PROCESS • December 31, 2012 – deadline for written comments on DEIS • Review of DEIS comments by Metropolitan Council as lead agency for development of the final EIS • Preparation of final EIS by Metropolitan Council • Preliminary engineering continues during preparation of final EIS. (Final Design activities, property acquisition and contracting cannot occur until the completion of the EIS process) • Final EIS shall respond to DEIS comments. Responses may include the following: 1. Modify alternatives including the proposed action. 2. Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency. 3. Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. 4. Make factual corrections. 5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response. • FTA approval and publication of final EIS • Minimum 30 day final EIS comment period • FTA completes and signs a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after publication of the final EIS. The ROD will present the basis for the decision, summarize any required mitigation measures and document any 4(f) approval relating to park land impacts. • Six month time period to initiate any court action challenging EIS City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8d) Subject: Approval of City Comments on the Southwest Transitway (DEIS)Page 42 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8e Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: 2013 Employee Compensation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution confirming a 2% general increase for non-union employees effective 1/1/13; approving the City Manager’s salary for 2013, continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing performance program pay by 2% for Paid- On-Call Firefighters for 2013. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to confirm the recommended 2013 employee compensation? BACKGROUND: This report summarizes employee compensation for 2013. A. Non-Union Employee Compensation – 2% General Increase Effective 1/1/13 Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997, allows the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment based on information such as market value data, the CPI, and the general financial condition of the City. A review of our positions was conducted by consultant Saado Abboud of Keystone Compensation Group. Mr. Abboud reviewed the salaries of St. Louis Park in comparison with metro area cities (suburbs) with populations over 25,000 but less than 90,000 as required in our compensation plan. After review of the market, our consultant determined that pay maximums for St. Louis Park would remain competitive if increased by 2%. The increase for non-union employees will be applied in accordance with our compensation plan. In our plan, after successful completion of probation (typically six months), a position receives up to double the standard increase to progress through the pay range until they reach the payline (maximum). Positions at the maximum will receive the standard adjustment of 2%. As a general note, all five bargaining groups are settled at a 2% increase for 2013. B. Salary Cap and City Manager Salary The contract for the City Manager states that base salary and benefits must be set when salaries are established for other non-union employees. Compensation must comply with the salary cap. • 2012 salary range for the City Manager was set at $148,750 - $175,000. • Salary cap in 2012 was $157,181. • 2012 annual salary for City Manager is $157,181 and additional PTO of 31.73 hours (x $75.568/hr. = $2,398) for a total of $159,579, not including car allowance. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 2 Subject: 2013 Employee Compensation Salary Cap: The salary cap is adjusted annually for inflation. The Minnesota Management and Budget Office (MMB) has issued a statement that the salary cap for 2013 will increase from $157,181 to $160,639. 2013 City Manager Compensation: Our consultant reviewed the salary for the City Manager in two different peer groups. In the General International City Manager Association (ICMA) group, the target salary rate is $162,412. When comparing to other Midwest cities (same group as has been used in past years to determine market rate for City Manager), the target salary rate is $198,791. The consultant has recommended a 2% increase to the range to stay competitive in both groups, and to remain consistent with other non-union staff. Also, because the City Manager’s compensation is not at the max of the 2013 range, the City Manager is eligible for double the standard increase (4%) in accordance with the compensation plan. A 4% increase would be total compensation of $165,962, and administered as follows with the salary cap: • 2013 salary range set for the City Manager recommended at $151,725 - $178,500 (2% increase consistent with other non-union staff). • Salary cap for 2013 is set by state statute at $160,639. • It is recommended that effective January 1, 2013 Council approves an annual salary of $160,639 annually ($77.23 hourly) for the City Manager, not including car allowance, in accordance with the salary cap. Car allowance of $600 per month will be subject to the PTO program. In addition, Council approves 68.92 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2013 (68.92 x $77.23 = $5,323). Paid Time Off (PTO Program) The PTO program is approved by Council and part of the City’s Personnel Manual. Section 9.13 Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states: Effective 01/01/02, exempt employees, including the City Manager, who reach the salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17, Subd. 9, shall receive equivalent hours above the limit in paid leave (PTO). Amount of paid leave (PTO) is determined by the City Council. Paid leave (PTO) is typically accrued on a per pay period basis, although the Council may issue paid leave (PTO) as a lump sum amount of time. Paid leave (PTO) may be used as earned, maintained in a paid leave (PTO) bank or cashed out upon separation of employment. Paid leave (PTO) is separate and not part of the flex leave program (Resolution 02-127). Each July 31, all hours in the PTO balance must transfer to a Health Care Savings Plan account established for the employee in accordance with plan requirements (Resolution 05-104). C. Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program Our paid-on-call firefighters receive a life insurance benefit through the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council approval for conditions of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance. This program is very affordable and covers one career firefighter eligible (due to a continuation clause) and our paid-on-call firefighters. It covers life insurance up to $20,000 and also provides some disability coverage. This program is a typical benefit offered to other paid-on-call firefighters in municipalities in the metro area. Since paid- on-call firefighters are not eligible for the benefits of other employees, it is important that we provide some type of life insurance coverage for this group. We recommend Council approves continued participation in this program consistent with Resolution 05-150. City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 3 Subject: 2013 Employee Compensation D. Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program – 2% Increase Our Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program system was established in 1996. The Performance Program system was designed for our paid-on-call firefighters to be competitive with our volunteer neighbors, and alleviate the need of a Fire Department Relief Association. The Performance Program is reviewed annually. The Fire Chief has recommended a 2% increase to this program, effective January 1, 2013. (Payment is typically made at year end based on performance as approved by the Fire Chief.) General comment: Copies of the Compensation Plan are available from the City Clerk. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The increases for groups listed above are included in the 2013 budget along with other (step) increases for other contract employees. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not directly applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 4 Subject: 2013 Employee Compensation RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION CONFIRMING COMPENSATION FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES; SETTING THE CITY MANAGER’S SALARY; CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER BENEFIT PROGRAM; AND CONTINUING PERFORMANCE PROGRAM PAY FOR PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTERS WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section VIII-C of such Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment to the Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt policies for City employees and has conferred upon the City Manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative policies and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the City; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: A. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 2%, effective January 1, 2013 for non-union employees in accordance with the Position Classification and Compensation Plan. B. Confirms a salary of $160,639 for the City Manager, not including car allowance. Salary application must comply with the salary limitations set by statute, therefore PTO applies to the City Manager’s car allowance of $600 per month. Council also approves an additional 68.92 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2013. C. Approves continuation of participation in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of MN Benefit Program for 2013, consistent with Resolution 05-150. D. Approves continuation of the Paid-on-Call Firefighters 2013 Performance Program with a 2% increase, effective January 1, 2013. Performance Program: Paid-on-Call Firefighters For 0 – 23 months of service, paid-on-call firefighters are eligible to receive a monthly amount. After 23 months, they are eligible to receive an annual amount. This amount may be pro-rated for actual number of months worked. All amounts after the 23 month timeframe show annual amounts as follows: City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8e) Page 5 Subject: 2013 Employee Compensation Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Years of Service 2013 Annual Up to 23 Months of Service $150 Per Month 2 $1,959 3 $2,104 4 $2,264 5 $2,408 6 $2,553 7 $2,699 8 $2,858 9 $3,005 10 $3,149 11 $3,310 12 $3,468 13 $3,613 14 $3,773 15 $3,917 16 $4,064 17 $4,209 18 $4,368 19 $4,512 20 $4,659 Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8f Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Resolution Approving Annual City Manager Evaluation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution for formal acceptance of the final City Manager annual evaluation. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to formally accept the annual City Manager evaluation? BACKGROUND: On Monday, December 10, 2012, the Council met in a Closed Executive Session to discuss the annual City Manager evaluation. J. Forrest, Consultant, reviewed the results and facilitated the discussion with the Council. The Mayor will provide a summary of the evaluation results during the Council meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not directly applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City Council Meeting of December 17, 2012 (Item No. 8f) Page 2 Subject: Resolution Approving Annual City Manager Evaluation RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ANNUAL CITY MANAGER EVALUATION WHEREAS, the City Council provides an opportunity to hold an annual evaluation of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2012, an Executive Session of the Council was held to discuss the evaluation; and WHEREAS, J. Forrest, Consultant, facilitated the conversation with the Council to finalize the evaluation; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park hereby accepts the annual evaluation of the City Manager. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 17, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk