HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/02/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
FEBRUARY 13, 2012
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
6:15 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSION INTERVIEWS – Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 27, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
3. 7:05 p.m. Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues
4. 7:50 p.m. Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange and Beltline Blvd. Traffic and Trail
Improvement Options
5. 8:35 p.m. Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
6. 9:20 p.m. Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work
Plan
7. 9:25 p.m. Human Rights Commission (HRC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
8. 9:30 p.m. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report
9. 9:35 p.m. 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report
10. 9:40 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:45 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
11. Redistricting Update
12. Community Energy Services (CES)/Green Remodeling Home Improvement Program
13. Concussion Awareness Program
14. December 2011 Monthly Financial Report
15. 2012-2013 Wellness Incentive Policy
16. 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: February 13, 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:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 27, 2012.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on February 27, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on February 27, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 27, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 27, 2012
Study Session, February 27, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Highway 7 / Louisiana Ave. Interchange Project Update – Parks & Recreation (30 minutes)
Staff will provide Council with an update on the status of the design work, public art and
funding for the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Project.
3. Citywide Sidewalk Trails CIP – Public Works (45 minutes)
Review the planned improvements and discuss related policy issues so a financing plan
(construction and maintenance) and public involvement process can be developed in order to
construct the desired improvements.
4. Recreational Burning Permits – Fire (30 minutes)
Staff will be present to discuss changing recreational fire permits from the current free annual
permits to permanent permits with a permit fee of $25.00 for a site inspection and
administrative processing time.
5. Electronic Agenda – Admin/IR (30 minutes)
Staff would like to discuss with the City Council the process of moving to an all-electronic
agenda and the technology needs and policies for that to be accomplished.
6. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
7. Planning Commission Annual Report
8. NLC Service Line Warranty Program
9. Business Park Zoning District
End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m.
Meeting Date: February 13, 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:
2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information
regarding the food/liquor percentage sales ordinance requirement and the non-compliant liquor
license renewal applications of Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill and Park Tavern Lounge &
Lanes scheduled for consideration at the February 21, 2012 City Council meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council agree with the conditions proposed by staff for renewal of the Toby Keith’s I Love
This Bar and Park Tavern liquor license?
Does Council wish to pursue amendments to the existing liquor license ordinance requirements?
BACKGROUND:
On February 6, 2012 Council approved 50 of the 52 liquor license renewal applications who met
all required criteria. This report is to provide council with additional information of the
following two establishments who did not meet the ordinance requirement of at least 50% of the
gross receipts attributable to the sale of food:
City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) states no on -sale intoxicating liquor license shall be issued
unless at least 50% of the gross receipts of the establishment during the preceding business year
are attributable to the sale of food, and allows the city to place the license of any on-sale
intoxicating liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year. During the probationary
period, the licensee shall prepare any plans and reports, participate in any required meetings and
take other action that the city may require to increase the sale of food.
City staff proposes to handle these non-compliant liquor license renewals similar to other past
liquor licensees who have not met the food/liquor sales ratio requirement. Under this approach
staff would continue working with the licensee to help assure they are in compliance for the next
year.
Staff is proposing the following conditions be included in the resolutions for council
consideration of the renewal of the liquor licenses for Toby Keith’s I love This Bar and Park
Tavern:
Licensee Name/Address License Type Reported yearly
Food Sales %
Reported yearly
Liquor Sales %
Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes,
3401 Louisiana Ave. S
On-sale Intoxicating
and Sunday 49.8% 50.2%
Toby Keith I Love This Bar &
Grill, 1623 Park Place
On-sale Intoxicating
and Sunday 41% 59%
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
1. The licensee will be put on a probationary status for 6 months.
2. The license shall provide a second report of food and liquor sales for the period of
January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012 by September 15, 2012.
3. The licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance
requirements.
4. Staff will report probationary results to Council in October 2012 and if in non-
compliance, council may take further action during this license period up to and
including revocation of the license.
Other Food/Liquor Requirement Information
From historical research conducted by staff, it was found that there was no language requiring
50% food sales until the year 2000 when the entire liquor ordinance was amended and became
effective December 2000. Past minutes did not show discussion on this particular requirement.
Attached is a liquor license survey indicating food/liquor ratio requirements of surrounding
cities.
Options for Moving Forward - Toby Keith’s and Park Tavern Liquor License Renewals
• Renew license and allow licensees to be on a probationary status for 6 months.
• Renew license and allow licensee to be on a probationary status for 12 months.
• Renew license without a probationary status.
• Impose a penalty fine of up to $2,000.
• Deny renewal of liquor licenses (to be preceded by a public hearing with statement of
Findings of Facts for denial).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Fees are set based on state statute and are only charged to the extent necessary to cover costs
incurred by the city for services provided by Administrative Services, Police, and Inspections
Departments and are budgeted each year to support the General Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Proposed Resolutions
October 10, 2011 Minutes Excerpts
January 9, 2012 Study Session Report
Survey of Food/Liquor Ratio Requirements of Surrounding Cities
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 12 - ____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL WITH CONDITIONS
FOR CRGE MINNEAPOLIS, LLC
DBA TOBY KEITH’S I LOVE THIS BAR,
1623 PARK PLACE BOULEVARD
FOR MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 1, 2013
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 3 provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and
WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met,
and
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) allows the city to place the license of any
on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of
food is reported, or found to be, less than 50 percent of gross receipts for any business year, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council
that the issuance of the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for CRGE Minneapolis,
LLC, dba Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar is hereby approved for March 1, 2012 to March 1, 201 3
with the following conditions:
1. The licensee will be put on a probationary status for 6 months.
2. The license shall provide a second report of food and liquor sales for the period of
January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013 by September 15, 2012.
3. The licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance
requirements.
4. Staff will report probationary results to Council in October 2012 and if in non-
compliance, council may take further action during this license period up to and
including revocation of the license.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 21, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 12 - _____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL WITH CONDITIONS
FOR PHILIPS INVESTMENT CO.
DBA PARK TAVERN LOUNGE & LANES,
3401 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH
FOR MARCH 1, 2012 THROUGH MARCH 1, 2013
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 3 pr ovide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and
WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met,
and
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) allows the city to place the license of any
on-sale intoxicating liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of
food is reported, or found to be, less than 50 percent of gross receipts for any business year, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council
that the issuance of the on-sale intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Philips investment Co.,
dba Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes is hereby approved for March 1, 2012 to March 1, 201 3 with
the following conditions:
5. The licensee will be put on a probationary status for 6 months.
6. The license shall provide a second report of food and liquor sales for the period of
January 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013 by September 15, 2012.
7. The licensee will continue working with city staff to meet liquor license compliance
requirements.
8. Staff will report probationary results to Council in October 2012 and if in non-
compliance, council may take further action during this license period up to and
including revocation of the license.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 21, 2012
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
(Excerpts from Oct. 10, 2011 Study Session Minutes)
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill Liquor License – Food/Liquor Sales Report
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated that the liquor license for Toby Keith’s I
Love This Bar & Grill was placed on probationary status for six months starting March 1, 2011
through August 31, 2011 because it had not met the requirement of at least 50% of its gross
receipts attributable to the sale of food. He presented the reported monthly sales percentages
provided by Toby Keith’s through August 2011 for food, liquor, and other retail sales, as well as
monthly sales percentages for food and liquor sales only.
Ms. Stroth explained that the City’s liquor ordinance was amended in 2000 to include the 50%
requirement and noted that the requirement is not part of the State statute. She then introduced
representatives from Toby Keith’s: Barry Birks, Toby Keith’s Corporate General Manager; Matt
Sutton, General Manager; and Jason Sisk, Store Manager.
Mr. Birks stated that Toby Keith’s is committed to complying with the City’s ordinance
requirements and indicated that they no longer sell t-shirts, hats, or other retail and the retail area
in all the stores is being converted into private dining rooms. He advised that they have been
aggressive with food sales, including marketing campaigns and lunch bunch cards.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that when Toby Keith’s appeared before Council in February,
he did not feel they were treating this issue seriously enough and requested further information
about what the restaurant has been doing to meet the 50% requirement.
Mr. Birks explained they have been actively marketing with the hotels in the area to draw hotel
guests in for lunch, dinner, and the after work crowd. H e stated they have also extended
invitations to local businesses. H e indicated that they also had a two-day School of Rock
promotion with the local schools that drew as many as 500 people. He stated that they want to
make sure their food sales are consistent and that people come back to the restaurant. He added
that they have gone to great lengths to emphasize that they are a restaurant and not just a bar with
live music.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City has intentionally indicated that it does not want a bar
district in St. Louis Park and the liquor ordinance is the tool to make that happen. She
questioned whether there is anything different in the West End that might give Council reason to
consider moving to a 60-40% requirement. She stated that if the City does not enforce the
current ordinance, it is meaningless. She indicated at this point, Toby Keith’s has made strong
efforts to comply with the City’s ordinance, but they are not yet in compliance. She noted that
the City wants this business to be successful and it appears there are some tools available to the
City, including imposing a civil fine up to $2,000. She proposed that the City impose a fine of
$1,000 and to suspend that fine until Toby Keith’s renews its liquor license in 2012; if Toby
Keith’s is in compliance when their liquor license is renewed, the civil fine would be forgiven
and if they are not in compliance, the fine would go into effect. She also proposed that Council
consider amending the 50% requirement contained in the ordinance.
Councilmember Ross stated that the 60-40% discussion should not be part of the discussion
related to Toby Keith’s.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
(Excerpts from Oct. 10, 2011 Study Session Minutes - continued)
Councilmember Sanger commended Toby Keith’s for their efforts but did not feel that a one or
two month improvement in food sales represented a trend. She stated she would like to continue
the probation period for Toby Keith’s through the time of renewal consideration in February
2012 so that Council can be certain of compliance with the ordinance on a consistent basis. She
agreed with Councilmember Mavity’s suggestion of imposing a civil fine.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he would like a written report detailing the activities
undertaken by Toby Keith’s to increase food sales. H e also agreed with Councilmember
Mavity’s suggestion of imposing a $1,000 civil fine.
Mr. Sutton agreed to provide the written report requested by Councilmember Finkelstein.
Councilmember Santa stated that she was pleased to see the food sales increase and commended
the efforts of Toby Keith’s to meet the City’s ordinance requirements. She expressed support for
extending the probation period and requested that Toby Keith’s remain mindful of the City’s
earlier disappointment with Toby Keith’s management.
Mayor Jacobs felt that management at Toby Keith’s has been putting forth a good faith effort to
increase food sales and expressed support for extending the probation period for Toby Keith’s.
He agreed that Council should have a further conversation about the 60-40% requirement at a
later date.
It was the consensus of the City Council to extend the probationary period through February
2012. It was also the consensus of the City Council to require that Toby Keith’s provide interim
reports of food/liquor sales in December and at the time of liquor license renewal in February
2012. It was also the consensus of the City Council to leave open the question of a civil fine
until February 2012.
Mr. Scott advised that an agreement will be prepared containing the reporting requirements and
extension of the probationary period. He added this agreement can be approved by Council as a
consent agenda item. Ms. Stroth reminded the City Attorney of the resolution approving the
previous probation conditions and Mr. Scott stated he would provide the best course of action.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
Study Session January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 12
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report
TITLE:
Toby Keith Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales interim Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. A three month interim report of food/liquor sales for the period of September
1, 2011 t hrough November 31, 2011 i s being provided for Council review as required by
Resolution No. 11-109 adopted November 7, 2011. In accordance with the Resolution, final
probationary results will be provided in February 2012 for council consideration of renewal of
the liquor license.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information on this item at this time?
BACKGROUND:
Each year liquor establishments must meet certain requirements in order to allow for Council
approval of the renewal of their liquor licenses. The renewal application received in January
2011 from Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar & Grill located at 1623 Park Place Boulevard did not
meet the requirement of at least 50% of the gross receipts attributable to the sale of food. On
February 22, 2011, Council approved the liquor license with conditions that the licensee would
be placed on a 6 month probationary status.
City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) allows the city to place the license of any on-sale intoxicating
liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of food is reported, or
found to be, less than 50 percent of gross receipts for any business year. During the probationary
period, the licensee shall prepare any plans and reports, participate in any required meetings and
take other action that the city may require to increase the sale of food.
At the October 10 Study Session, Council discussed the 6 month probationary status results of
Toby Keith’s. With the exception of one month, food sales reported from the licensee were
increasing each month, but did not meet the ordinance requirement of at least 50% of gross
receipts attributable to the sale of food. It was the consensus of the Council to extend the
probationary period, and on November 7, 2011 adopted Resolution No. 11-109 extending the
probationary status through March 1, 2012. Toby Keith’s was also required to provide interim
reports of food/liquor sales in December and again at the time of liquor license renewal in
February 2012.
This report is to inform Council of the food/liquor sales reported from Toby Keith’s during the
period of September 1 through November 31, 2011 as required by Resolution No. 11-109. In
addition, sales percentages were also reported for November 1 through December 20, 2011.
Months Food % Liquor %
Sept. 1 – Nov. 31, 2011 47% 53%
Nov. 1 – Dec. 20, 2011 48.8% 51.2%
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales
Study Session Written Report January 9, 2012 (continued)
2011 Reported Monthly Sales Percentages January – August
Month Food % Liquor %
January 2011 29.09% 70.91%
February 2011 28.35% 71.65%
March 2011 *
(probation begins)
31.32% 68.68%
April 2011 31.76% 68.24%
May 2011 38.46% 61.54%
June 2011 33.86% 66.14%
July 2011 43.88% 56.12%
August 2011 48.63% 51.37%
History of Licensee
• April 5, 2010 Council approved liquor license for term through March 1, 2011.
• June 4, 2010 Toby Keith began operation.
• January 2011 Renewal application received with report of food/liquor sales not meeting city
ordinance requirement of at least 50% of gross receipts attributable to the sale of food.
• February 14, 2011 C ouncil reviewed written report with conditions proposed by staff for
renewal of license.
• February 22, 2011 Council approved renewal of liquor license with conditions including 6
month probation (Resolution No. 11-30).
• June 27, 2011 C ouncil reviewed written interim probation report of food/liquor sales
percentages covering Jan-May 31, 2011.
• October 10, 2011 C ouncil discussed final 6 m onth probation report of food/liquor sales
percentages covering Jan-August 31, 2011.
• November 7, 2011 C ouncil approved extending probationary period for remainder of term
through March 1, 2012 with conditions including an interim report of food and liquor sales
by December 15, 2011. (Resolution No. 11-109)
NEXT STEPS:
City Clerk’s office will receive the final report of food liquor sales required during the renewal
process for council consideration of the liquor license in February 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
2011 Liquor License Survey – Food/Liquor Ratio Requirements
CITY
Total OFF
Sale Intox
Total
ON-Sale
Intox
Total
ON-Sale
Wine
Total Liquor
Licensed
Establishments
Population Catering
Sales
included in
total sales
Other limitations
Food %Liquor % None
Blaine 8 21 3 52 57,186 _ _None N/A Restaurants not required to report sales
Bloomington 20 63 16 124 85,238 40% 60%YES 60% liquor for past 10+ years with minimal issues
Brooklyn Center municipal 5 4 21 30,104 50% 50%NO
Brooklyn Park 14 13 4 50 72,724 _ _None N/A no more new on-sale south of Hwy 610, no
requirement for food/liquor ratio
Eagan 16 31 9 76 64,206 50% 50%not sure limit to 37 on sale intox (statutory city)
Eden Prairie municipal 28 16 58 60,797 50% 50%not sure
Edina municipal 18 11 40 47,425 60% 40%YES
Golden Valley 5 11 5 24 20,371 _ _None N/A no requirement for food/liquor ratio
Hopkins 8 7 5 25 17,500 50% 50%N/A
Maple Grove 9 35 3 51 61,567 51% 49%not sure
Minnetonka 12 21 8 46 51,499 50% 50%YES No limit but Council has discretion to deny for
purposes of area and type of service.
New Hope 6 5 1 12 20,824 50% 50%N/A Limit to 6 on-sale intox licenses, 7 off-sale
Plymouth 15 20 10 64 70,576 40% 60%YES
St. Louis Park 13 21 11 52 46,293 50% 50%YES catering sales included except for Bylerys
Woodbury 11 22 14 59 61,961 50% 50%not sure requires notarized compliance document 50/50 met
Food/Liquor Ratio Requirement
ON-Sale Intox
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: 2012 Liquor Licensees - Food vs. Liquor Sales Page 9
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3
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: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss the next steps for several concepts related to
improving the circulation system in the future Beltline LRT station area.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council want to further explore several concepts for improving circulation in the
future Beltline Station area?
BACKGROUND:
The area surrounding the future Beltline LRT station is an area with a severely constrained
circulation system that limits mobility and creates congestion that will be impacted by additional
activities in the area. There is only one north-south roadway crossing over the railroad tracks
and the regional trail between Highway 100 to the west and Lake Calhoun to the east. East-west
mobility is hampered by long dead end streets such as Park Glen Road. Amongst other issues,
the lack of circulation infrastructure will limit access to the Beltline LRT station and future
development around the station area.
The City hired SRF Consulting Group to explore options for improving connectivity in and
around the Beltline LRT Station area. The area looked at is bounded generally by Highway 100
on the west, Minnetonka Blvd. on the north, city limits (France Avenue) on the east, and the Rec
Center (36th and Monterey) on the south (see attached map).
SRF traffic engineers were asked to provide a wide variety of suggestions, and to offer several
opportunities and ideas for the city to consider. They looked at existing sidewalks, trails, transit
routes, roadway configuration, and considered a number of measures such as traffic counts and,
intersection performance. A number of ideas for new connections and improvements to existing
systems were explored and analyzed. Those options and ideas are explained in more detail
below. Certain components of the options are recommended to be further pursued; however,
because this is still high level planning, other options or new ideas could still be considered.
ISSUES:
Several issues were identified and potential ideas were explored with the consultants. The
primary of these considerations were:
• Exploring additional north/south connections (other than Beltline Blvd)
• Grade separation of trail and tracks at Beltline
• Improving County Highway (CSAH) 25 frontage road access by moving it or offering
other options
• Revising CSAH 25 to more of an urban boulevard, thereby reducing the overall width
and right-of-way
• Evaluate changing Beltline Blvd to a 3-lane design
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues
Secondary considerations included:
• Minnetonka Blvd east of Highway 100 – intersections, pedestrian access and possible
roadway changes
• Options/improvements for the configuration of the triangular intersection of Minnetonka
Blvd in Inglewood/France area
CONCEPTS:
Three overall options for changes to the roadway system were developed, described as follows
and shown on the attached maps:
Concept A – includes:
• Grade separating Beltline Blvd from the railroad tracks and regional trail;
• Connecting Park Glen to the east and north via Inglewood;
• Connecting Park Glen to the east and south via France Avenue;
• Creating a new north-south connection west of NordicWare to 36th Street;
• Closing the south CSAH 25 frontage road accesses to Beltline;
• Removing the north CSAH 25 frontage road;
• Creating a new design for CSAH 25;
• Changing Beltline Blvd to a 3-lane design; and
• Changing Minnetonka Blvd to a 3-lane design.
Concept B - contains many of the same concepts as Option A, with the addition of:
• Moving the Highway 25 south frontage road south to the railroad tracks/regional trail as
a “backage” road;
• Making a connection from Park Glen to France Avenue north and south; and
• Building a new connection across CSAH 25 at Raleigh.
Concept C – looks at completely realigning CSAH 25, consistent with the existing grid system of
streets in the city north of CSAH 25. The result would be an expanded system connecting to
Minneapolis. A new bridge would be needed to connect Beltline to 32nd Street over the railroad
tracks and trail extending into Minneapolis. Several new east-west and north-south connections
are also shown.
These concepts will be further reviewed at the meeting, with an eye to the specific components
of each scenario.
EVALUATION:
Both quantitative and qualitative criteria were applied to each of the three concepts, as well as a
“no build” alternative as shown on the attached Criteria Matrix table. The criteria include
several items such as intersection operations, estimated costs, and impact for access and
circulation; the criteria were reviewed at a very high level and are not weighted.
The “no build” alternative performs overall the poorest, while Concepts A & B perform the best.
Concept C is a very complicated change, which does not necessarily improve access and
circulation.
Components of the different concepts can work together to achieve an optimal solution, and it is
recommended below that several components be further evaluated prior to recommending and
determining an overall appropriate system to pursue.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues
NEXT STEPS:
Several additional pieces of information are needed in order to pursue the options shown in the
concepts. The components that are recommended for further exploration at this time are:
North/south connections
• West of Beltline from CR 25 frontage road to south
• East of Beltline
• Connecting across CR 25 at Raleigh
Beltline and railroad/trail crossing
• Grade separate Beltline under railroad tracks and trail
• Move frontage road south near tracks/trail
• Improve CR 25 to a 4-lane urban boulevard (similar to Excelsior Blvd) and reclaim
right-of-way
• Evaluate a 3-lane design section from Monterey to CSAH 25
Minnetonka Blvd east of Highway 100
• Explore options to improve pedestrian and bicycling experience
• Review intersections
• 3-lane section east of Ottawa
These ideas will be explored as a part of the Beltline Station Area Design Guideline process as
well.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Consulting services are funded by the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, including promoting
regional transportation issues including SW LRT and pursuing options for additional north/south
connections in the community.
Attachments: Area Map
Overall Maps, Options Maps and Evaluation Matrix
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Beltline LRT Station Area
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues Page 4
NorthLEGEND
- Represents an intersection under capacity
- Represents an intersection near capacity
- Represents an intersection over capacity
- Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume from
Mn/DOT 2009 flow map. ADTs in parentheses
are estimated from year 2010 peak hour turning
movements counts collected in the area.
X,XXX
17,700 13,000 27,500
25,000
20,300
14,100
11,300
(1,200)
12,300 9,400
10,400
(1,100)
(3,400)
4,000
(400)
(300)
(700)
(1,900)(1,800)4,850
(1,700)(1,000)
1,100
19,200
16,300
9,400
14,80014,800
(7,900)
(3,500)
(8,000)
(11,400)
(13,400)
(9,700)
(1,100)
(800)
0107175
July 2011
Existing Conditions
Beltline Station Roadway Circulation Study
City of St Louis Park
Figure 4H:\Projects\7175\TS\Figures\FINAL\Fig04_Existing Conditions.cdrStudy Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues Page 5
21,000 15,800 33,500
29,500
25,000
15,500
18,800 15,000
1,500
15,400 12,400
14,500
2,700
4,500
4,500
4,600
400
800
2,100 2,200 5,900
1,900
1,200
1,300
23,000
19,400
10,800
(17,600)
(9,700)
LEGEND
- Represents an intersection under capacity
- Represents an intersection near capacity
- Represents an intersection over capacity
- Average Daily Traffic (ADT) X,XXX
0107175
July 2011
Year 2030 Conditions
Beltline Station Roadway Circulation Study
City of St Louis Park
Figure 5H:\Projects\7175\TS\Figures\FINAL\Fig05_Year 2030 Conditions.cdrNorth(9,400)
(4,400)
(9,700)
(16,200)(1,300)
(1,000)
Key Notes
- Intersection operations shown represent the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours (worst-peak shown)
- Assumes existing traffic controls and intersection
geometrics
- All intersections expected to operate poorly can
be mitigated with turn lane and/or traffic control
improvements
- All daily volumes are within the planning capacities
of the roadways
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues Page 6
NORTHNorthNorthXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXFrance Avenue Connection
New North/South
Connection
Extended Bus
Service/Expand
Ottawa Avenue
Potential 3-Lane Segment
Realigned IntersectionXBeltline Boulevard
Underpass
CSAH
2
5
U
r
b
a
n
B
o
ul
e
v
a
r
d
LEGEND
- Proposed Beltline LRT Station
- Other Proposed LRT Stations
- LRT Alignment
- Proposed Roadway
- Existing Roadway (Access Change)
- Proposed Trail/Bike Path
- Existing Trails/Bike Paths
- Sidewalks
- Crosswalks
- Bus Stops
- Proposed Bus Service
- Existing Bus Service
- Municipal Boundary
Potential Roundabout
Potential
Roundabout
Note: All proposed roadways will include
sidewalks on both sides
0107175
January 2011
Beltline Station Roadway Circulation Study Figure 6H:\Projects\7175\TS\Figures\FINAL\Fig06_Year 2030 Concept A.cdrConcept A - Narrow CSAH 25 Alignment, Beltline Boulevard Grade Separation
City of St Louis Park
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues Page 7
NORTHNorthNorthXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPark Glen Road Extension
to Excelsior Boulevard
New North/South
Connection
Extended Bus
Service/Expand
Ottawa Avenue
Potential 3-Lane Segment
Realigned IntersectionXBeltline Boulevard
Underpass
CSAH
2
5
U
r
b
a
n
B
o
ul
e
v
a
r
d
Potential Roundabout
Potential
Roundabout
Redevelopment
Opportunities
(Backage Road)
0107175
January 2011
Beltline Station Roadway Circulation Study Figure 8H:\Projects\7175\TS\Figures\FINAL\Fig08_Year 2030 Concept B.cdrConcept B - Shift CSAH 25 to the North, Redevelopment Opportunities, Beltline Boulevard Separation
City of St Louis Park
New North/South
Connection
CSAH 25 Shift North
New North/South
Connections
LEGEND
- Proposed Beltline LRT Station
- Other Proposed LRT Stations
- LRT Alignment
- Proposed Roadway
- Existing Roadway (Access Change)
- Proposed Trail/Bike Path
- Existing Trails/Bike Paths
- Sidewalks
- Crosswalks
- Bus Stops
- Proposed Bus Service
- Existing Bus Service
- Municipal Boundary
Note: All proposed roadways will include
sidewalks on both sides
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues Page 8
NORTHNorthNorthXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCSAH 25 Realigned
to Excelsior Boulevard
New North/South
Connection
Extended Bus
Service/Expand
Ottawa Avenue
Potential 3-Lane Segment
Realigned Intersection
0107175
January 2011
Beltline Station Roadway Circulation Study Figure 10H:\Projects\7175\TS\Figures\FINAL\Fig10_Year 2030 Concept C.cdrConcept C - Grid System
City of St Louis Park
New North/South
Connection
New 31st Avenue
New North/South
Connections
France Avenue Connection
LEGEND
- Proposed Beltline LRT Station
- Other Proposed LRT Stations
- LRT Alignment
- Proposed Roadway
- Existing Roadway (Access Change)
- Proposed Trail/Bike Path
- Existing Trails/Bike Paths
- Sidewalks
- Crosswalks
- Bus Stops
- Proposed Bus Service
- Existing Bus Service
- Municipal Boundary
Note: All proposed roadways will include
sidewalks on both sides
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues Page 9
Table 2
Criteria Matrix
Criteria No Build Concept A Concept B Concept C
Quantitative
Provides Acceptable Intersection Operations (1) ● ○
Minnetonka Boulevard Three-Lane Section east
of Ottawa Avenue ● ● ● ○
Beltline Boulevard Three-Lane Section ● ● ● ●
CSAH 25 Urban Boulevard ●
Multi-Lane Roundabout at CSAH 25 and
France Avenue ○ ○ ○ ○
Roundabout at Minnetonka Boulevard and
Inglewood Avenue ● ● ● ●
Number of At-Grade Rail Crossings 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (3) 4
Implementation Cost (4) N/A $20 – 25 M $25 – 35 M $30 – 40 M
Qualitative
Improves Access from SE and SW CSAH
25/Beltline Boulevard Quadrants ○ ○ ●
Improves Park Glen Road Connections to
Beltline Boulevard ○ ● ● ●
Provides LRT and Regional Trail Grade
Separation at Beltline Boulevard (5) ○ ● ● ○
Provides LRT and Regional Trail Grade
Separation at Wooddale Avenue (6) ○ ○ ○ ○
Improves Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and
Circulation ○ ● ○
Improves Transit Access and Circulation ○ ● ●
Improves Truck Access and Circulation ○ ○ ● ●
Provides Integrated Street Network ○ ● ● ○
Minimizes Impacts on Existing Businesses and
Residential Neighbors ● ● ○
Complexity ○ ● ●
Highway 100 Compatibility ● ● ● ●
(1 )Intersection operation results do not account for LRT or freight rail crossing impacts.
(2)Assumes Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard at-grade rail crossing.
(3)An additional rail crossing at Beltline Boulevard if freight rail remains in place.
(4)High level cost estimate includes new roadways, property and utility impacts, bridges and retaining walls. Right-of-way impacts are not included.
(5)If freight rail remains in place, heavy vehicle queues, congestion and delay are expected along Beltline Boulevard, which will impact vehicular,
pedestrian/bicycle, transit, truck access and circulation within the station area.
(6) Current concepts do not assume grade-separated LRT or regional trail at Wooddale Avenue. The grade separation of these two facilities would
improve pedestrian/bicycle access and circulation in the station area. If freight rail remains in place, heavy vehicle queues, congestion and delay
are expected along Wooddale Avenue, which will impact vehicular, pedestrian/bicycle, transit, truck access and circulation within the station area.
Grade-separation of freight rail at Wooddale Avenue is not feasible.
● Good Fair ○ Poor
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Issues Page 10
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4
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:
Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange and Beltline Blvd. Traffic and Trail Improvement Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. This staff report has been prepared to assist with the study
session discussion on this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to continue moving forward with the implementation measures as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
History
At the December 12, 2011 Study Session, Council was presented with a variety of treatment
options and strategies for improving safety at the Regional Trail crossings at both Wooddale
Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. Also included were strategies for addressing visibility and
sightline concerns in the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange area. An analysis providing a variety
of treatment strategies, options, and recommendations was presented for the Council’s
consideration. The staff report from the December 12 meeting is attached to provide further
background information.
After the discussion on December 12, C ouncil directed staff to investigate the following
treatment options for further consideration:
WOODDALE AVENUE
1. Extend the Wooddale Ave. center median at the south frontage road pedestrian
crossing to provide a refuge area for pedestrians crossing Wooddale Ave.
2. Restripe Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes to help
organize traffic flow as motorists travel through this area and to reduce pedestrian
exposure to vehicle traffic by reducing the number of traffic lanes.
3. Improve the sight lines at the Wooddale Avenue/TH 7 westbound off-ramp
intersection by shifting the current crosswalk on this approach slightly further to the west.
4. Investigate the feasibility of installing dynamic in-pavement lighting (lighting is
embedded into the pavement).
BELTLINE BOULEVARD
1. Install a marked pedestrian crosswalk along with other treatment measures needed to
augment a marked crosswalk, including “raising” the crosswalk for increased visibility.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options
Summary and Recommendations:
As a result of the direction provided by Council at the December 12, 2011 discussion, SRF has
prepared a draft memorandum providing for implementation of the measures mentioned above
(see attached). Key measures in the consultant’s memorandum can be summarized as follows:
Wooddale Avenue
1. Extend the Wooddale center median. This could be performed with additional paint
(paving markings) included with the re-striping of Wooddale Avenue itself. A second
option would be extending the existing curb further north up to the crosswalk, estimated
cost of up t o $10,000. Because of the relatively frequent use of heavy vehicles
conducting turns across the crosswalk and median area, it is recommended that any
median extension be constructed with a surmountable type concrete curb.
2. Re-stripe Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes. This
strategy would reduce the exposure of trail users to vehicle traffic while potentially
reducing speeds on Wooddale Avenue. Mn/Dot is currently evaluating this plan and will
be providing further comments. The cost to remove the existing pavement markings and
install new markings is expected to cost up to $10,000. This estimate also includes re-
marking of the crosswalks at the ramps, described further in the next treatment option.
3. Re-align the crosswalk at the TH 7/Wooddale Interchange westbound off ramp.
Relocation of the crosswalk would be slightly further west in order to provide better
sightlines for vehicles approaching Wooddale Avenue from the ramps. S ome field
adjustment of the sidewalk pedestrian ramps may also be needed to match the shifted
crosswalks which would result in an additional cost.
4. Install in-pavement lighting. The estimated cost to install in-pavement lighting would
be $8000 - $13,000 and would provide added visibility without the added confusion of an
additional light competing or conflicting with railroad crossing semaphores.
As previously mentioned, the Wooddale interchange area is under the jurisdiction of Mn/Dot.
Proposed strategies, including the re-striping plan are currently under their review at this time
and are subject to further revision or change.
Beltline Boulevard
Council expressed an interest in re-establishing crosswalk markings at this location. T his
improvement was not recommended as part of the previous analysis due to research showing that
the potential of pedestrian incidents at marked crosswalks on multi-lane roadways with higher
volumes is higher compared to unmarked crossings. If this strategy is pursued, additional safety
measures should be implemented to increase the visibility of the crossing and clarify right of
way. Additional safety measures recommended at this location would include advance stop bars
and in-pavement lighting. A pedestrian activated signal such as a H AWK system is not
recommended due to potential confusion and conflict with the railroad signals and other factors
as discussed in the consultant’s memorandum. Such a system would also require review and
approval by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. In pavement lighting has therefore been
suggested by the consultant.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options
The cost to re-establish the crosswalk itself and install stop bars is minimal and could be covered
under existing operating budgets. T he installation of in-pavement lighting would be an
additional $8,000 - $13,000 plus any additional maintenance costs.
Council also expressed interest in constructing a raised crosswalk at this location. Because of the
trail crossing’s close proximity to the railroad tracks and design considerations for
accommodating the traffic design speed on a State-Aid collector street, this strategy is not
feasible.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The more minor treatment strategies such as re-striping of the roadway or extending median
curbing can be covered through existing operating budgets. H owever, more advanced
treatments such as in-pavement lighting will need determination of other possible funding
sources such as Municipal State Aid, bonding, EDA funds, or possible partnerships with other
agency stakeholders.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues
Attachments: Study Session Report: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail
Improvement Options (December 12, 2011)
SRF Memorandum (Exhibit A): Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard
Regional Trail Crossing Implementation Plan (January 31, 2012)
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options
Meeting Date: December 12, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
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:
Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. This staff report has been prepared to assist with the study
session discussion on this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to pursue any or all of the recommended treatment strategies?
BACKGROUND:
History
On September 26, 2011, the City Council was provided two reports that provided background
information and histories for: 1) The regional trail crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline
Boulevard and 2) The design and public process with regards to construction of the Highway
7/Wooddale interchange and bridge. Those reports are attached to this report for further
reference and background information. At that time the City Council made it clear it wished to
discuss these topic areas at a future study session.
Please note that representatives from MnDOT, Three Rivers Park District and SLP PD will be in
attendance for this study session discussion.
Analysis
Safety concerns and operational issues have been expressed with regard to the trail crossings at
both Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Blvd, as well as the operation of the newly constructed
bridge and interchange area. As stated in previous reports, the extent to which improvements
can be constructed at both trail crossings is limited due to pending light rail and station
improvements. Because the regional trail is located within the Hennepin County Regional
Railroad Authority (HCRRA) right of way and LRT design specifics (including specific rail
locations) are unknown, longer term solutions such as separated grade crossings have not been
possible. However, the concerns over current safety and the time lag until specific LRT design
specifics are known has raised the need to consider further options.
Over the past couple of months, staff has reviewed these concerns further with the assistance of a
traffic consultant (SRF) and other stakeholders, including Mn/DOT, Three Rivers Park District,
and the Public Safety/Police Departments of both the City and Three Rivers Park District.
Comments and input received from both motorists and trail users throughout the process have
been considered as well.
The attached memorandum from SRF dated December 2, 2011 pr ovides an analysis of the
crossings and provides a wide variety of treatment strategies for consideration. D ifferent
strategy options were compared for effectiveness against specific objectives such as vehicle
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options
speed reductions, overall pedestrian and bicycle safety, visibility enhancement, and other
considerations. These assessments were all compiled onto a multi-colored matrix developed for
both Beltline and Wooddale and utilized as a base-map and tool for extensive interactive
discussion amongst the stakeholders. Although the color coded assessments denoting qualitative
effectiveness are essentially subjective in nature, they do pr ovide a good general base for
analysis and discussion purposes. The consultant also included observations and suggestions
with regards to complaints regarding the bridge and interchange sightlines, both in terms of inter-
relation with the trail crossing and by itself.
After reviewing and discussing the various strategies with the stakeholders, the following are
recommended:
WOODDALE AVENUE
• Strategy W2: Extension of the center refuge median is recommended to improve trail
safety by providing a better refuge area for trail users (approximate cost - $15,000). This
option could be performed by a combination of paint and curb extension.
• Strategy W3: Restriping Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn
lanes would help to organize traffic flow as motorists travel through this area. Based on
the current ADT and a detailed operations analysis completed for this corridor, restriping
the roadway would have minimal impact to roadway capacity operations. This strategy
would benefit trail users by reducing their exposure to vehicle traffic by reducing the
number of traffic lanes, as well as reducing traffic speeds on Wooddale Avenue. In
addition, the re-striping would provide additional space for the creation of a wider center
median (approximate cost - $10,000).
• Strategy W11: Construction of a trail chicane (sharp bends) to add curvature prior to
the crossing would significantly reduce the speed of trail users as they approach
Wooddale Avenue. This strategy is suggested as a means of addressing cyclists in
particular who do not stop or even slow down for the stop signs. However, there is
limited right of way in which to perform this option. R emoving the current trail
curvature on the east side and extending the trail to intersect perpendicular to Wooddale
Avenue would force users to slow down significantly. The curvature of the trail on the
west side could be sharpened as it approaches the crossing to slow users. As trail users
approach the roadway, soft or hard landscaping features could be used to guide trail users
north on Wooddale Avenue, parallel to the roadway, to the current crossing location. This
realignment would provide a safety benefit to trail users by reducing their speed as they
approach Wooddale Avenue (SRF Memo - Figure 7). The trail realignment and any
associated landscape features would require construction within the HCRRA right of way
and would require their permission (approximate cost - $50,000).
Strategy W6 could be considered as an additional improvement to the Wooddale Avenue trail
crossing to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, if and when the City feels additional
improvements might be necessary.
• Strategy W6: Due to the tight intersection spacing along Wooddale Avenue and the
close proximity to the railroad crossing, the use of dynamic in-pavement lighting
(lighting is embedded into the pavement) could provide a safety benefit to trail users by
increasing the visibility of the crossing and heightening the driver’s awareness of a
pedestrian or bicyclist in the crossing, helping to clarify the right of way at this
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options
crosswalk. This device would provide a similar benefit to a rapid flash warning beacon,
without the added confusion to motorists approaching the railroad crossing (approximate
cost - $20,000).
Finally, Strategy W13 could be considered as an additional measure that would address the
bridge and interchange sightline concerns, along with providing a possible added benefit for trail
users.
• Strategy W13: Currently, the TH 7 ramp intersections with Wooddale Avenue are
closely spaced unsignalized intersections with limited sight lines (SRF Memo - Figure 3).
The installation of traffic signals at the ramp intersections would improve traffic
operations for the adjacent intersections and would benefit trail users by providing
additional gaps in Wooddale Avenue vehicle traffic. The approximate cost to install
traffic signals (for both ramp intersections) is estimated to be $300,000 - $400,000.
The sight lines at the TH 7/Wooddale Avenue interchange ramps are not related to the
safety of the trail crossing solely, and Mn/DOT did provide feedback for an improvement
option to consider. To improve the limited sight lines at the Wooddale Avenue/TH 7
westbound off-ramp intersection, Mn/DOT has suggested extending the current sidewalk
on the east side of the bridge slightly to the west. In addition, the current crosswalk on
this approach could be shifted further west. With this modification, the sight lines for this
approach would improve. However, the feasibility of this option would need to be
evaluated further to determine the cost and design modifications that may be required for
the roadway and the bridge itself. A less costly measure for further consideration and
review would be to slightly shift the existing curb ramps and crosswalk markings further
from the ramps. Although such a shift would be very minimal, improvements to the
sightlines would see some improvement. T he cost would depend on the extent of
treatment. S hifting the crosswalk a couple of feet would be minimal. H owever,
reconstructing the sidewalk and/or curbs would require a more extensive re-evaluation, as
those elements may be integral to the bridge itself.
BELTLINE BOULEVARD
To address safety concerns within the limited constraints of the rail corridor, improvement
strategy B4 is recommended for further consideration as follows:
• Strategy B4: The current alignment of the Beltline Boulevard trail crossing provides an
opportunity for bicyclists to approach the crossing at high rates of speed. The
construction of a trail chicane to add curvature as the trail approaches Beltline
Boulevard would provide a safety benefit to trail users by reducing the speed of trail
users as they approach and cross the roadway (approximate cost - $50,000).
A potential approach would be to realign the trail on the west side of Beltline Boulevard to the
south and on the east side of Beltline Boulevard to the north (SRF Memo - Figure 8). As trail
users approach the roadway, soft or hard landscaping features would be used to guide them.
These features would be low-lying to avoid blocking sight lines. This realignment would provide
significant safety benefits for trail users. One benefit is a decrease in the speed of trail users
approaching Beltline Boulevard. In addition, the alignment of trail users facing motorists as they
travel north along Beltline Boulevard towards the crossing would improve the visibility and non-
verbal communication between motorists and trail users. The trail realignment and associated
landscape features would require construction within the HCRRA right of way and would
require their permission.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options
Summary
The consultant’s analysis provides a detailed assessment of the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard, and also addresses sightline issues
associated with the interchange tight diamond configuration. T he assessment for the trail
crossings was completed by applying criteria that is proven to improve pedestrian and bicycle
safety at trail crossing locations to a w ide variety of strategies. Based on this evaluation,
conversations with stakeholders, and taking into consideration the current roadway design and
surrounding environment, the solutions that are considered to provide the greatest benefit and are
most applicable at each location are recommended. H owever, further additional detailed
analysis, design, and review would be necessary for each of these recommended strategies prior
to implementing.
Determining more specific costs and possible funding sources will generally require further
evaluation, depending on options chosen. The more minor treatment strategies such as additional
extending the existing median may be covered covered through existing operating budgets.
However, more advanced treatments such as traffic signals and in-pavement lighting would need
investigation of other possible funding sources such as Municipal State Aid, bonding, EDA
funds, or possible partnerships with other agency stakeholders,
Wooddale Avenue
• Extension of a painted center refuge median (approximate cost - $15,000)
• Restriping Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes (approximate
cost - $10,000)
• Construction of a trail chicane (approximate cost - $50,000)
It should be noted that any or all of the above strategies could be implemented either together or
in stages if desired. If additional improvements are felt necessary, the following could also be
considered:
• Dynamic in-pavement lighting at the crossing (approximate cost - $20,000)
• Installation of traffic signals at the TH 7 ramp intersections (approximate cost - $300,000
- $400,000)
The consideration of traffic signals would also need to consider future traffic levels, especially
with regards to a nearby LRT station.
Beltline Boulevard
• Construction of a trail chicane (approximate cost - $50,000)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Determining more specific costs and possible funding sources will require further evaluation,
depending on options chosen. The more minor treatment strategies such as an extension of the
existing median on W ooddale can likely be covered through existing operating budgets.
However, more advanced treatments such as traffic signals and in-pavement lighting would need
investigation of other possible funding sources such as Municipal State Aid, bonding, EDA
funds, or possible partnerships with other agency stakeholders.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues
Attachments: - Study Session Report: Southwest Regional Trail Crossings: (Beltline and
Wooddale): Background and History (September 26, 2011).
- Study Session Report: Wooddale Avenue Bridge Design: Background
Information (September 26, 2011).
- SRF Memorandum: Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings
(December 2, 2011).
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
SRF No. 0117627
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Craig Vaughn, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate
Carla Stueve, PE, PTOE, Associate
DATE: February 7, 2012
SUBJECT: WOODDALE AVENUE AND BELTLINE BOULEVARD
REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
A comprehensive engineering assessment of the Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard
regional trail crossings, in the City of St. Louis Park, was completed by SRF and documented
in the Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings: Wooddale Avenue and Beltline
Boulevard memorandum, dated December 12, 2011. SRF also completed a study for these
two crossings in November 2006. However, since the conclusion of that study, conditions
have changed at the crossing locations. Major changes have been made near the Wooddale
Avenue crossing, including the construction of a diamond interchange at TH 7/Wooddale
Avenue and relocation of the TH 7 South Frontage Road. As part of this reconstruction
project the trail crossing was relocated from its mid-block location to the TH 7 S outh
Frontage Road/Wooddale Avenue intersection, and the trail itself was realigned to
accommodate this shift.
The Beltline Boulevard crossing and future planning efforts have also changed significantly.
Previously, a grade-separated crossing was recommended and had received partial funding.
However, it was later determined that constructing a grade-separation was not feasible due to
the close proximity of railroad tracks to the south. Although it should be noted, this may
serve as a long-term solution if the railroad line were converted to a Light Rail Transit (LRT)
line in the future.
The current study evaluated the benefits of potential safety strategies to improve the operation
and safety for both roadway and trail users at these crossings based on current conditions.
The results of the study were presented to the City Council during a work-session on
December 12, 2011. At this meeting the City Council provided direction for how they would
like to see improvements implemented at these two crossing locations. The purpose of this
document is to outline, as an implementation plan, the City Council recommended actions and
subsequent understood impacts and ancillary needs that may result. It was developed based
on a combination of the current study results and the City Council direction.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options Page 9
2
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Wooddale Avenue
Numerous improvement strategies were evaluated for the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail at
Wooddale Avenue as part of the Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings:
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard project. This study resulted in three core
improvement recommendations; W2: extension of the center median, W3: restriping of
Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes, and W11: construction of a trail
chicane/realignment. Two additional improvements were identified for the City to consider;
W6: dynamic in-pavement lighting and W13: installation of traffic signals at the TH 7 ramp
intersections. These recommendations were presented to the City Council for their review
and approval. Based on the outcome of the City Council meeting, the following strategies are
offered for further consideration/implementation. The discussion included with each strategy
is provided to give an overview of the evaluation of this strategy and its pros/cons.
• Strategy W2: Extend the center median. This improvement would decrease the
exposure for trail users crossing Wooddale Avenue, provide a better refuge area, and
allow trail users to cross one direction of traffic at a time. The extension of this center
median could be completed in conjunction with the “W3: restriping of Wooddale Avenue
to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes” strategy. Note that this would either
be roadway striping outlining the “median” area or it could be an extension of the concrete
median from the south, but surmountable or flush concrete pavement so that vehicles
making a westbound to southbound left turn from the TH 7 F rontage Road could
track over it as necessary to make this movement (alternatives shown in attached
Appendix A). The cost associated with the striping only alternative is presented in the
attached cost estimate (Appendix A) and sums to approximately $9,561; the cost
associated with the striping alternative, plus the concrete pavement median refuge is
estimated to be $21,500.
• Strategy W3: Restripe Wooddale Avenue to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes.
This roadway type can be considered a three-lane section. This strategy will reduce the
exposure of trail users to vehicle traffic, while potentially reducing traffic speeds on
Wooddale Avenue (less than 5 mph reduction). Based on the current average daily traffic
(ADT) volume of 11,300 vehicles per day (vpd) and detailed traffic operations, a two-lane
roadway with turn lanes would have minimal impact to overall operations and better
organize traffic flow along the corridor. A preliminary restriping plan has been developed
as part of this implementation plan (attached as Appendix A).
It is worth noting the typical roadway capacity thresholds for various roadway types. An
urban two-lane roadway can accommodate approximately 8,000 – 10,000 vpd. T his is
highly dependent on the amount of left and right turns off of this roadway. A three-lane
roadway (one lane in each direction with dedicated left-turn lanes or a continuous left-turn
lane throughout) can accommodate approximately 14,000 – 17,000 vpd. T his type of
facility is implemented where left turns from the subject roadway are significant, and
access is prevalent. A four-lane undivided roadway can be expected to accommodate
approximately 18,000 – 22,000 vpd (no turn lanes).
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options Page 10
3
• Strategy W6: Install in-pavement lighting. This improvement would increase the
visibility and potentially heighten the driver’s awareness of a pedestrian or bicyclist in the
crossing, which will help to clarify the right-of-way at the crossing. The tight intersection
spacing along Wooddale Avenue and close proximity to the railroad crossing are corridor
context issues that raise the potential application of this alternative. Based on various
system designs, the LED lighting can be seen by drivers from a distance of 500-1,000 feet
away (depending on installation, etc.). The effect from potential damage due to winter
maintenance is always a concern. The LED in-pavement lights typically sit approximately
1/2” above the finished pavement surface. Research has shown that these systems
typically make it through winter climates, with snow and snow maintenance, with no
appreciable damage to the LED in-pavement lights. Procurement and installation costs
can range from $8,000 – $13,000.
• Strategy W13 (Revised): Realign the crosswalk at TH 7/Wooddale Interchange. Due
to the limited sight lines at the Wooddale Avenue/TH 7 W estbound Off-Ramp
intersection, the City is considering relocating the current crosswalk location for the
eastbound and westbound off ramps. Relocation of these crosswalks would be slightly
further east and west in order to allow the vehicles approaching these intersections to have
better sight lines to the north and south. If necessary, the tactile ADA component of the
sidewalk ramps would be relocated to match the new crosswalk marking location.
Additional analysis was completed to estimate the cost and design modifications
associated with this improvement (see attached Appendix A).
Beltline Boulevard
Numerous improvement strategies were evaluated for the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail at
Beltline Boulevard as part of the Traffic Engineering Study of Regional Trail Crossings:
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard project. O ne key strategy was recommended as a
result of this earlier analysis, B4: construction of a trail chicane. After presentation to and
review by the City Council, construction of a trail chicane was not supported. Discussion of
the following additional strategies is provided to determine the feasibility of implementation
within the current roadway context.
• Strategy B1: Installation of a speed table or raised crosswalk. This segment of
Beltline Boulevard serves as a major collector in the St. Louis Park system of roadways.
Its purpose is to move traffic north-south to other larger roadways, i.e. County Road 25. It
is also on the Municipal State Aid system for the City of St. Louis Park, which means it is
eligible for funding through MnDOT’s State Aid funding policy. In order to be on this
system it must adhere to design guidelines set forth by MnDOT. Municipal State Aid
streets that serve as collectors or locals with an ADT ≥ 10,000 vpd shall have a design
speed of 30-40 miles per hour (mph).
Installation of a r aised speed table or raised crosswalk will reduce vehicle speeds by
changing the elevation at the crossing (approximately 3.5 inches of raised pavement over
a 10 foot span, with 6 foot flanges on either side). Typically the travel speed over this
type of traffic calming device is approximately 20 mph or less. This resultant speed is
below the minimum allowed for a road on the Municipal State Aid System. In addition,
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options Page 11
4
the close proximity to the adjacent railroad tracks causes additional concern with vehicles
slowing and stopping in this location. A lthough the speed table would improve the
visibility of the trail crossing and heighten driver’s awareness, which in turn would help to
clarify the right-of-way.
• Strategy B3: Widen the center median. Currently, Beltline Boulevard includes a 4-foot
center median and four 11-foot driving lanes. The minimum lane width for a Municipal
State Aid street is 11 feet. T he ADT volume is 14,100 vpd. Four dedicated travel lanes
are needed along this segment due to the lack of turning movements near this location and
the high directionality of the volumes during the peak hour conditions. A three lane
roadway section is not appropriate in this location.
Although widening the median would provide a better refuge for trail users, this
improvement would significantly impact the areas north and south of the crossing itself.
Due to the physical constraints of the roadway and the railroad crossing located
approximately 75 feet to the south, widening of the roadway would require modification
of the roadway across the tracks, including relocating the gate arms, cross bucks, and
overhead signing posts. This improvement should be considered as a long-term option
when the railroad is converted to LRT use.
• Strategy B5: Install a marked crosswalk. This improvement was not recommended as
part of the previous analysis due to research showing the potential to increase pedestrian
crashes at marked crosswalks on multilane roadways with higher volumes, compared to
unmarked crossings. If this strategy is implemented at this location, additional safety
measures should be implemented to increase the visibility of the crossing and clarify right-
of-way, such as Strategies B6 (Advance Stop Bars) and B7 (In-pavement Lighting).
• Strategy B6: Install advance crosswalk stop bars. Motorists on multilane roadways
that stop for trail users can create a multiple-threat collision, which occurs when a vehicle
stops for someone in the crossing and blocks the view of the trail user from a motorist in
an adjacent lane. Directing motorists to stop 20-50 feet back from the crossing can greatly
reduce the likelihood of a multiple-threat crash. Careful consideration of the placement
of these stop bars would be needed at this location due to the close proximity to the
railroad and the intersection with TH 7.
• Strategy B7: Install in-pavement lighting. This improvement increases the visibility of
the crossing and heightens driver awareness of a trail user in the crossing, which would
help to clarify the right-of-way. If this strategy is implemented the trail crossing would
need to be designated as a marked crosswalk. Based on various system designs, the LED
lighting can be seen by drivers from a distance of 500-1,000 feet away (depending on
installation, etc.). The effect from potential damage due to winter maintenance is always a
concern. The LED in-pavement lights typically sit approximately 1/2” above the finished
pavement surface. R esearch has shown that these systems typically make it through
winter climates, with snow and snow maintenance, with no appreciable damage to the
LED in-pavement lights. Procurement and installation costs can range from $8,000 –
$13,000.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options Page 12
5
• Strategy B8: Install a pedestrian-activated signal such as a HAWK system. This
improvement would increase the safety for trail users at the crossing by requiring all
motorists to stop, improving visibility and clarifying the right-of-way. However, due to
the close proximity of this trail crossing to the railroad immediately to the south, which
has cross bucks with flashing lights on each side of the roadway, in addition to overhead
flashing lights for the railroad, it was determined that additional flashing lights would
create confusion with the railroad crossing. In addition, since the speed of bicyclists is
greater than pedestrians, they may not push the button to activate the HAWK signal, and
once activated, they may not wait until the proper red indication. This may decrease
motorists’ respect for the HAWK system and reduce overall compliance. Other options
such as the in-pavement lighting would be recommended prior to this item to increase the
visibility of the crossing.
H:\Projects\7627\Reports\120126_Wooddale-Beltline Trail Xing Proj Imp Plan.doc
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options Page 13
APPENDIX A
Wooddale Striping Plan Layout
and
Cost Estimate
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options Page 14
AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA
=
1
5
S
Q
’REM = 48 S
Q
’
PERIMETER = 30 ’AREA = 15 SQ’REM
=
48 SQ ’PERIME
T
E
R
=
3
0
’
AREA
=
1
5
S
Q
’
REM =
48
SQ
’
PERIM
E
T
E
R
=
30
’
AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA
=
1
5
SQ
’REM =
4
8
S
Q
’PERIME
T
ER
=
3
0
’
SHEET
OF
DRAWN BY
213
Date License #
Print Name:
DESIGNED BY
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
CHECKED BY
NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION
10:39:48 AM2/8/2012h:\projects\6048\HI-MU\Base\7627\6048_stp02.dgn...\HI-MU\Base\7627\6048_stp02.dgn
S. PRUSAK
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
COMM. NO. 6048
J. POND
S. VANG
WOODDALE AVENUE TRAIL CROSSING
CITY PROJECT NO.
S.P.
STATE PROJECT NO.
B
BRIDGE NO. 27B65
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
3
5TH
ST
WALABAMA AVE SZARTHAN AVE SBRIDGE NO. 27B65
TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILRO
A
D
HENNEPIN COUNTY
REGIONAL TRAIL
3
6TH
ST
W
S FRONTAGE RD
BRUNSWICK AVE
E.B. T.H. 7
W.B. T.H. 7 WOODDALE AVEAREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’PERIMETER = 30 ’AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’PERIMETER = 30 ’
AREA = 15 SQ’REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
PERIMETER 30 FTREM 35 SFAREA 15 SF
1000
scale in feet
50
A
B
C
STRIPING NOTES:
SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS AND DETAILS
D
1
1
GENERAL NOTE:CONFILCTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS TO BE REMOVED AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD.
E
E
F
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) - EPOXY
4" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXY
4" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY
24" SOLID LINE YELLOW - EPOXY
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (THRU ARROW) - EPOXY
CROSSWALK MARKING - POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN)
12" SOLID LINE WHITE - EPOXYG
F
F
G
G
LEGEND
INPLACE PAVEMENT MARKING
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKING
NOTE:CROSSWALK MARKINGS TO BE REPLACED TO BE
RELOCATED 2’ CLOSER TO INTERSECTION.
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SEE BELOW INSET FOR ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE STRIPING/CONSTRUCTION
F
AREA = 15 SQ’
REM = 48 SQ ’
PERIMETER = 30 ’
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement Options Page 15
H:\PROJECTS\7627\7627 Cost Estimate.xlsSRF NO. 0117627By:Checked:ENGINEER'S ESTIMATEWOODDALE AVENUEBy: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, Inc.Page 1 OF 1PRINTED: 2/8/2012SUBTOTALESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED QUANTITIES UNIT COSTCOST2021.501 MOBILIZATIONLUMP SUM 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.002102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SQ FT 330 $2.00 $660.002102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL LIN FT 160 $0.50 $80.002582.501 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) EPOXY EACH 3 $120.00 $360.002582.501 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (THRU ARROW) EPOXY EACH 1 $120.00 $120.002582.502 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT 220 $0.60 $132.002582.502 12" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT 70 $5.50 $385.002582.502 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY LIN FT 440 $0.60 $264.002582.502 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY LIN FT 220 $6.00 $1,320.002582.503 CROSSWALK MARKING-POLY PREFORM (GROUND IN) SQ FT 216 $15.00 $3,240.00ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST:$9,561.00* Cost estimate based on median extension at South Frontage Road with pavement striping only.** Alternative layout with median extension accomplished using concrete pavement and striping would result in a cost estimate of approximately $21,500.ITEM DESCRIPTIONITEM NO.UNITWOODDALE AVE STRIPING IMPROVEMENTSENGINEER'S ESTIMATE *Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Traffic and Trail Improvement OptionsPage 16
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 5
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:
Solid Waste Collection Program and Services.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with current program information, to obtain
Council input on program and contract concerns or issues, and to discuss a basic process and
timeframe to follow in order to consider future solid waste program and collection services. This
discussion is a continuation of the discussion that occurred at the Council’s recent workshop. At
Monday night’s study session staff hopes to set a framework for future review and discussion on
this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
As the City Council undertakes discussions on this matter over the coming months, the following
policy questions will need to be addressed.
1. What does being No. 1 or being a leader in the industry mean or look like?
2. What changes to the current solid waste program should be considered?
3. Are the current “Purpose, Goals and Objectives for the solid waste program” still valid?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City initially entered into a 5-year contract for the collection of garbage, recycling, and yard
waste with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) with services beginning October 1, 1997. A second
5-year contract with WMI for the same services was entered into beginning October 1, 2003. On
October 1, 2008, 5-year contracts for the collection of recycling with Eureka Recycling and for
the collection of garbage and yard waste with WMI started - both expire on September 30, 2013.
Attached is a timeline of the history of the organized solid waste collection program in St. Louis
Park (see Attachment “A”).
In 2001, staff and Council developed purpose, goals and objectives for the residential solid waste
program (see Attachment “B”). And, in 2007, Council reviewed and reaffirmed these. The
program goals below are referred to routinely when working with resident concerns, program
issues, and our contractors to ensure program and service quality and consistency:
1. High Quality Service
2. Environmental Stewardship
3. Cost Effective Services
4. Effective Communication
5. Continual Evaluation of Program and Industry
Also in 2007, Council closely scrutinized the existing residential solid waste collection program
and considered making changes to the following:
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
• Garbage - modify Pay-As-You-Thrown (PAYT) to add a smaller service level, change
PAYT rates to promote waste reduction, provide waste collection at bus stops/shelters
where needed, and increase public education efforts aimed at proper use of current carts /
bins
• Recycling – increase allowable size of cardboard collected, increase the award given for
proper recycling, offering organics collection, work with multi-family property managers
to provide expanded recycling education, offer city recycling collection services for
multi-family properties, educate businesses regarding the benefits of organics recycling,
encourage businesses to donate perishable food and other items to local charities,
encourage businesses to do organics recycling
Current Program
In St. Louis Park we have organized garbage, recycling, and yard waste collection for single
family and multiple dwellings of four units or less. A brief overview of the residential collection
program is attached (see Attachment “C”).
Resident surveys assessing city and contractor performance as well as program satisfaction were
performed in 2009 and in 2011. In 2010 a customer service survey was done to assess city and
contractor performance. In each of the 3 surveys the results indicated significant resident
satisfaction with contractor / staff performance and with the overall program.
The recent 2011 program survey report conclusions were:
1. overall a large majority of respondents are very satisfied with the recycling, garbage, and
yard waste programs, rating them from good to excellent
2. the most commonly cited recycling improvement suggestion was to add more plastics
recycling
3. residents indicated they were not willing to pay more to participate in an organics
collection program
And, the 2011 program survey report recommendations were:
1. increase resident education
2. continue to use the current educational tags
3. more education is needed on plastics recycling, textile recycling, milk and juice carton
recycling, why compact fluorescent light bulbs can’t be thrown in the garbage, and the
benefits to organics being separated from the garbage
While Public Works staff continually works with residents, our contractor, and other city staff to
provide the best program and services possible, there are several minor operational issues which
currently exist:
Garbage
• Refuse bags outside of the carts without extra refuse stickers
• Carts left in the right-of-way (on sidewalks and in streets) during collection
• Bulk items left out without collection arrangements having been made
Recycling:
• Placement of non-recyclable materials in the recycling (generally plastics)
• Placement of recycling in plastic bags (plastic bags are not currently collected)
• Not separating paper from containers
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
Possible Future Program Considerations or Needs
The following is a “non-exclusive” list of items that staff has heard the city should consider
doing.
• Consider improved public education
• Consider revising PAYT rates to encourage increased recycling
• Consider 1-sort recycling collection
• Consider curbside bulk collection
• Consider curbside metal collection (2’ or less)
• Consider curbside hazardous waste collection
• Consider accepting hazardous materials at clean-up day events
• Consider a city owned / operated drop-off facility or facilities:
o Recyclables
o Demolition debris
o Bulk items
o Hazardous waste
o Leaves
o Trees and brush
• Consider banning polypropylene, plastic bags, and other “desired” materials
• Consider increasing multi-family recycling by:
o improve code requirements, public education, monitoring, and enforcement
o city organized collection of multi-family recycling
• Consider organics collection
• Consider organized collection beyond the current residential services (trash,
recycling, and yard waste / organics)
o Multi-family
o Business
o Commercial / industrial
• Consider increasing commercial recycling through increased regulation (city code),
education, and enforcement
• Consider a refuse service smaller than 30 gallons
Are there items Council feels should be removed or added to this list?
Proposed Process for Solid Waste Collection Contracts / Timeline
The current residential refuse/yard waste and recycling collection contracts expire September 30,
2013. New contracts should be awarded before the end of March 2013 to allow contractors time
to adequately prepare for the work. If this deadline cannot be met, extensions of the current
contracts will need to be negotiated.
Listed below is a draft schedule showing major steps felt necessary to develop and award new
collection contracts.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
Item Completion Date
Staff / Council review of current & proposed collection program & services Feb - May 2012
Solicitation of public input (if desired by Council) Mar – May 2012
Staff / Council determine future collection program and services Jun - Jul 2012
Staff / Council determine contract and proposal requirements July – Sep 2012
Draft contract and RFP completed Sep 2012
Ordinance changes, if any needed, are identified Sep 2012
Ordinance revisions made (if needed) Sep 2012 – Jun 2013
Council authorizes solicitation of proposals Sep – Oct 2012
Proposals received by Staff Nov 2013
Proposals and staff recommendations reviewed with Council Jan 2013
Staff negotiates collection contracts with vendors Jan – Feb 2013
Council approves new collection contracts Mar 2013
Staff conducts public education outreach with residents Apr – Aug 2013
New collection contracts begin Oct 1, 2013
Note: A separate schedule or schedules for considering and implementing collection services beyond the
current residential program will be developed if Council wants to consider getting into any of those
services. Any efforts, if undertaken, may have an impact on the schedule listed above.
Next Steps
Based on the Council input provided in these broad policy areas, next steps will be discussed at
the end of the study session discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic
Direction adopted by the City Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: Attachment “A” – Timeline of the History of the Solid Waste Program
Attachment “B” – Solid Waste Program Purpose, Goals, and Objectives
Attachment “C” – Existing Solid Waste Program
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
ATTACHMENT “A”
HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN ST. LOUIS PARK
(Revised 1/25/12)
1958 First documentation of Garbage Collection available.
1978 Newspaper recycling containers regulated.
Jan. 21, 1986 City contracts with Beermann Services to provide interim services until
May 3, 1986.
Feb. 3, 1986 City terminates recycling contract with US Recyco.
Mar. 1, 1987 City enters into recycling collection agreement with Super Cycle.
Oct. 5, 1987 City authorizes agreement for a recycling & composting program in 1986.
Sep. 21, 1987 City establishes goals for a city sponsored recycling program. Citywide
recycling goal of 50% participation from all single-family homes,
multiple-family dwellings, and businesses by 1990.
Oct. 5, 1987 In a study session, recycling of plastic materials discussed as well as
stickers for recyclables.
Dec. 7, 1987 The City passes Resolution #87-202 Intent for Implementing City Wide
Recycling Programs. SLP adopts the policies below and directs staff to
develop plans to implement those policies. (1-4=single family through 4-
plex. 5-7 is commercial).
1. Staff develops fee structure for garbage collection with economic incentive to recycle.
2. Council adopt ordinance which prohibits disposing of grass & leaves in refuse.
3. Staff research, present findings & recommendations for weekly recycling collection.
4. Staff develops and implements an intensive and comprehensive promotion program-
include recycling.
5. Staff invites waste haulers, contract recyclers and all business operators to meeting
for open forum for recycling solicitation.
6. Staff develop ordinance requiring all businesses to recycle.
7. Staff investigates a development policy to require new commercial development to
include recycling facilities.
Aug. 15, 1988 City passes Resolution #88-99 Supporting Recycling Collection by
Garbage Haulers at Multiple Family Residential Dwellings. City also
hears task force recommendation to have county do more commercial
recycling so that cities could concentrate on residential recycling.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
July 10, 1989 City amends Ordinance #1794-89, relating to garbage collection by adding
new sections 9-310 through 9-320 relating to environmental preservation.
June 4, 1990 City amends Ordinance #1830-09, Section 9-320 relating to garbage
collection by changing effective date of Section 9-312. Prohibitions, from
July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991.
Feb. 18, 1997 City passes Resolution #97-15 Intent to continue organized garbage,
refuse, recycling and yard waste collection services. City invites the
participation of interested people in planning and establishing the
continued system.
Sep. 15, 1997 City amends Ordinance No. 2101.97, the garbage and refuse collection
ordinance to incorporate modifications to the organized residential
collection service. Amending Section Chapter 9, Part 3 and Chapter 13,
Part 10 of the City Code Concerning the Collection of Garbage from
Residential Dwellings. Requires participation of all single through 4-plex
dwellings including collection, processing and/or disposal of residential
refuse, garbage, recycling and yard waste. Revises service charge &
eliminates recycling credit and bar codes. Biodegradable bag option
beginning spring 1998. Residents billed directly for bulk/white goods
items.
Aug. 18, 1997 City authorizes a 5-year agreement with Waste Management, Inc.
beginning October 1, 1997.
Feb. 2000 City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the
solid waste program.
Oct. 7, 2002 City authorizes 1-year extension of contract with Waste Management to
allow staff time to complete program changes process.
Oct. 2002 Decision Resources conducts program survey to measure resident’s
satisfaction with the solid waste program.
Dec. 2, 2002 Solid Waste Program changes approved by Council.
Apr. 17, 2003 Staff solicits Request for Proposal from Waste Management and BFI.
July 7, 2003 Council approves new 5-year contract with Waste Management, effective
October 1, 2003.
Aug. 18, 2003 Council awarded bid for purchase of 13,000 refuse carts to Rehrig Pacific
(RP).
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
Sept. 2, 2003 Ch. 22 Solid Waste Ordinance Code revisions incorporating
changes to the solid waste program become effective.
1. Require use of city carts for refuse/garbage collection.
2. Require use of city bins for recycling collection.
3. Require all wrapped & sealed refuse/garbage be stored within a city cart or in a bag
marked with an “extra refuse” sticker.
4. Require that all cart lids must be completely closed, not overfilled and standing open.
5. Require that all carts and yard waste bags/containers must be stored (during non-
collection) in a location where the containers are not visible from the street or alley.
6. Require that all recycling bins must be stored inside during non-collection periods.
7. Require that garbage, refuse, recycling or yard waste shall not be stored in in-ground
containers or collected from any point below or above ground level.
8. Require that all containers be kept clean & sanitary.
9. Require that yard waste containers & bags be no greater than forty (40) pounds in
weight.
10. Require containers be placed for collection by 7:00 a.m. on collection day and be
retrieved by 7:00 p.m. and not be allowed to remain at the collection location for
more than 24 hours.
11. Eliminate restriction of current 30-gallon garbage container size.
12. Restrict container placement on the day of collection from the street, sidewalk or
alley.
13. Revise provision for extended absences.
14. Require multi-family buildings to post recycling education.
15. Add compost requirements.
Oct. 1, 2003 New contract with Waste Management becomes effective.
Nov. 21, 2003 Delivery of new refuse carts to residents completed.
Jan. 1, 2004 New rates for pay-as-you - throw program become effective.
Sept. 2005 Decision Resources conducts customer service survey to measure
resident’s satisfaction with the solid waste customer service.
Oct. 17, 2005 City adopts resolution to enter into a 2005-2007 SCORE (recycling)
agreement with Hennepin County.
Nov. 7, 2005 City received $14,000 grant from Hennepin County to create a recycling
project in city parks.
Apr. 2006 City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the
solid waste program.
July 17, 2006 City receives a $3,000 Keep America Beautiful grant from Waste
Management to create a Green Business Program.
Nov. 2007 City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the
proposed solid waste program changes.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
Dec. 17, 2007 Council authorizes staff to solicit proposals recycling, garbage, and yard
waste collection services for the period of Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2013.
Mar. 30, 2008 Council approved a 5-year garbage and yard waste collection agreement
with Waste Management for the period from Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30,
2013.
Mar. 30, 2008 Council approved a 5-year recycling collection agreement with Eureka
Recycling for the period from Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2013.
Sept. 15, 2008 City adopts resolution to enter into a 2008-2010 SCORE (recycling)
agreement with Hennepin County.
Oct. 1, 2008 5-year contracts (2008-2013) for garbage and yard waste collection with
Waste Management and recycling collection with Eureka Recycling begin.
Oct. 1, 2008 City adds pop & beer boxes, antiseptic juice & milk cartons, and textiles
to the list of recycling items collected.
Oct. 2009 City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the
solid waste program.
Dec. 12, 2009 City approves Amendment No. 1 to contract with Eureka Recycling to
modify the financial terms relating to revenue sharing and bond
requirements.
Jan. 1, 2010 State law requires residents who bag their yard waste to use compostable
bags (either paper bags or compostable plastic bags).
Apr. 5, 2010 City amends backyard composting ordinance to allow food scrapes and the
container size and material.
Nov. 2010 City conducts customer service survey to measure resident’s satisfaction
with the solid waste customer service.
Nov. 2010 City adds pumpkins to the list of yard waste items collected.
June 2011 City provides recycling bin wheel kits to assist residents in transporting
their bins to the collection location.
Sept. 2011 City adds pizza boxes to the list of recycling items collected.
Oct. 2011 City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the
solid waste program.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 9
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
ATTACHMENT “B”
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM PURPOSE, GOALS, OBJECTIVES
Purpose: To provide solid waste services responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a vital
community.
Goal 1: High Quality Service
Objectives:
• Collaborate with other departments and groups to maintain a clean city.
• Provide consistent & reliable service.
• Merit high regard from citizens for the Solid Waste Program.
• Provide convenient, user-friendly solid waste services.
Goal 2: Environmental Stewardship
Objectives:
• Promote public health and safety.
• Encourage citizens to take responsibility for the management of their solid waste.
• Achieve the most appropriate level of reduction, reuse and recycling.
Goal 3: Cost Effective Services
Objectives:
• Pursue changes that may reduce cost while continuing to meet the other goals of the
Program.
• Minimize city administrative effort and costs without compromising the other Program
goals.
Goal 4: Effective Communication
Objectives:
• Inform residents about the city’s program and services.
• Solicit public opinion.
• Provide public education on reducing, reusing and recycling solid waste.
Goal 5: Continual Evaluation of Program and Industry
Objectives:
• Continually monitor program performance with surrounding communities.
• Track industry standards.
• Measure our own performance.
• Comply with regulations on solid waste.
• Be proactive in providing new and better ways to provide service.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 10
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
ATTACHMENT “C
2008 – 2013
EXISTING SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
St. Louis Park has organized garbage, recycling, and yard waste collection for single family and
multiple dwellings of four units or less. In an organized collection system, the city provides
collection services through a contract. The City entered into five-year contracts with Waste
Management (garbage and yard waste) and Eureka Recycling (recycling) on October 1, 2008.
Staff in the Public Works Department manage the contracts and oversee day-to-day operations.
GARBAGE
• Pay-As-You Throw (PAYT) Program for single family to 4- plex residential properties
• 12 Levels of Service (30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 360, 450 and 540 gallon)
• Garbage must fit in cart with lid completely closed
• Residents may purchase “extra refuse stickers” for bags of household garbage that don’t
fit into their carts from the city
• Weekly collection (5 days / week, 3 routes / day) from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• City owned carts (30, 60, and 90 gallon)
• Hauler provides cart storage and distribution
• Collection on city approved routes (routes determined by contractor and mapped by city)
• Disposal at the HERC or alternatively at a Hennepin County approved facility
• 2 Citywide clean day events by city and contractor
• Optional walk-up service (at additional cost)
• Special collection upon request (additional pick-up of household garbage at additional cost)
• Bulk collection upon request (pick-up of non-household garbage at additional cost)
• Appliance and electronics collection upon request (pick-up at additional cost)
• Emergency or disaster services agreement in place
• Allow collection from small businesses that have the same collection parameters as
residential customers (cart collection, level of service)
• Provision for adding organics collection
RECYCLING
• 2 sort collection (paper and containers)
• Materials collected include: newspaper, magazines, mail, phonebooks, hard cover books,
box board (i.e. crackers, cereal, pasta, toothpaste, pop & beer boxes), corrugated
cardboard (3’x3’), steel and aluminum cans, glass bottles & jars, plastic bottles with a
neck, milk cartons, juice boxes, clothes and linen, and tennis shoes
• Unlimited weekly material collection
• Weekly collection (5 days / week, 3 routes / day) from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• City owned bins (14 & 18 gallon)
• Free wheel kits available for bins
• Special collection upon request (additional pick-up at additional cost)
• Collection on city approved routes (routes determined by contractor and mapped by city)
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 11
Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services
• Optional walk-up service (at additional cost)
• Monthly “Get Caught Recycling” award program where residents are randomly selected
for proper recycling
• Contractor provides “revenue sharing” with city
• Annual material composition analysis by contractor
• Contractor provide end market information (upon city request)
• Emergency or disaster services agreement in place
YARD WASTE
• Collection of grass clippings, leaves, weeds, brush, and tree limbs
• Weekly collection (5 days / week, 2 routes / day) from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Collection from April to November
• Material for collection must be in a container or compostable bag, or tied and bundled
Containers owned by resident and require a “yard waste only” sticker
• Containers must be 40 pounds or less
• Brush must be bundles in lengths 4’ or less
• Tree limbs must be 4’ or less and have a diameter of 4” or less
• Special collection upon request (additional pick-up at additional cost)
• Holiday tree collection in first 2 weeks of January
• Pumpkin collection starts November 1
CUSTOMER SERVICE
• Contractor staffed call center from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (Monday – Friday), 8:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m. (Saturdays when collecting during holiday weeks)
• Calls or emails responded to with 30 minutes or by 9:00 a.m. if received after
• Calls documented by contractor and city staff in city database
PENALTIES
• Penalties assessed to contractor for not meeting city requirements ($2,500 per
occurrence)
EDUCATION
• Educational tags issued to residents by contractor when collection material isn’t properly
prepared
• Education letters to residents by city if education tag issues are not corrected
• Resident education prepared by city (web, park perspective, sun sailor, social media,
mailings, brochures)
• Community outreach at city and neighborhood events
• Bi-monthly industry related information or educational material provided by contractor
• Annual recycling guide by recycling contractor
• Annually the contractor participates in at least 2 community events
• Host open house at MRF (material recycling facility) one time during 5-year contract by
recycling contractor
OTHER
• Coordinate Hennepin County household hazardous waste drop-off in SLP
• Coordinate Hennepin County medication drop-off in SLP
Meeting Date: February 13th, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6
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:
Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2011 Annual Report and 2012
Work Plan prepared by the Police Advisory Commission (PAC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the PAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
Does the City Council wish to meet with representative of the PAC to discuss the annual report
and work plan?
BACKGROUND:
Per Council policy the 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan are being submitted for Council
review at the February 13th study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: PAC 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Police Advisory Commission
2011 Annual Report
The Police Advisory Commission mission: There are several main purposes of the PAC. They
include the following:
1) Enhance the awareness of the police department’s capabilities and services.
2) Provide an opportunity for citizen involvement in police services.
3) Promote exchange between the police department and the community.
In partnership with the Human Rights Commissioners, several PAC Commissioners staffed a
booth at the Children First Ice Cream Social and the Community Open House. Commissioners
made available informative pamphlets to the public about Traffic Safety (cut-through traffic,
speeding…) and Current Road Construction Projects; also available were child and bike safety
guides and information regarding the police department. Furthermore, this function allowed PAC
and HRC commissioners an opportunity to get to know one other and the activities of each
Commission.
In an effort to work more closely with the Human Rights Commission on police related issues,
Commissioner Rashmi Seneviratine attended the Human Rights Commission meetings.
Commissioner Seneviratine participated in Human Rights Commission activities and is
encouraging their Commissioners to participate in Police Advisory Commission activities. In
partnership these two Commissions worked with the Police Department and the Community
Education Department to present several classes for the students of the English as a Second
Language classes. The classes were designed to educate immigrants on police services and what
to expect during an interaction with the police.
Several Commissioners were involved with the Department’s National Night Out.
Commissioners rode with officers to block parties and also helped organize or host block parties
in their neighborhood.
Commissioner Widmer has been attending the city staff Traffic Advisory Meetings. The Traffic
Advisory group is comprised of members of the Public Works, Community Development, and
Police Departments. The group meets monthly to discuss traffic related issues within the
community. Commissioner Widmer actively provides citizen input on traffic related issues and
street projects.
PAC members have assisted in content development of several Public Service Announcement
videos to be aired on the Inside the Park Community Television and at other times throughout
the day on local cable access channel. These videos are designed to bring heightened awareness
to community members of police related matters. Unfortunately time constraints on the Civic TV
Coordinator have not allowed for the filming, editing, and production of these PSA’s.
Commissioners Cushman and Hoffman have worked closely with Cornerstone in creating a
Domestic Violence Education and Information program. With the assistance of city staff the
Commission produced domestic violence awareness posters which have been distributed to
public entities within the city. These posters were also shared with the HRC for review and
input. We believe this will enhance the relationship between the city and Cornerstone and
provide information on valuable resources available to the community.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Police Advisory Commission (PAC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
The Fifth Annual St. Louis Park Crime Prevention Fund Golf Tournament was held on
September 9th, 2011. It was another successful year, earning $3,924.96 dollars for the Crime
Prevention Fund. The goal of the tournament is to bring the business community together with
the police department for a day of fun and recreation, and to raise funds for the Crime Prevention
Fund. We would not be able to do this without the support of our local businesses. PAC will
continue with this effort in 2012 and plan to publicize the event in early 2012. Your participation
and promotion is welcomed.
2012 Work Plan
The 2012 Work Plan for the PAC is as follows:
• Continue to support and attend the Children First Ice Cream Social, and National Night
Out with the goal of providing information to the public about the police department and
the commission.
• Work with the HRC on producing an anti-bullying program.
• Produce quarterly public safety information programs for the Inside the Park Community
TV or other media streams.
• Continue the Annual St. Louis Park Police Department Crime Prevention Crime Fund
Golf Tournament, with the goal of increasing participation.
• Complete the distribution of the Domestic Violence Awareness poster project.
• Explore additional opportunities to build trust with the community.
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7
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:
Human Rights Commission (HRC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with the 2012 Work Plan and the 2011
Annual Report prepared by the Human Rights Commission (HRC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Are the actions of the HRC in alignment with the expectations of City Council?
Does the City Council wish to meet with representatives of the HRC to discuss the annual report
and work plan?
BACKGROUND:
Per policy the 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan are being submitted for Council review
at the February 13th study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Human Rights Commission 2011 Annual Report
Human Rights Commission 2012 Work Plan
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission (HRC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Human Rights Commission 2011 Annual Report
The Human Rights Commission Mission: The purpose of the Human Rights Commission shall
be to advise the city council in its efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights
and full and equal opportunity for participation in the affairs of this community. The
commission assists individuals and groups in cultivating a community that embraces principles
of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
Community Involvement: In partnership with the Police Advisory Commission (PAC), the
HRC staffed a booth at the Children First Ice Cream Social and the Community Open House.
Commissioners distributed HRC brochures, the Diversity Lens magnet and brochure, and other
human rights related materials. These materials were also available at the West End One World
Many Cultures event.
Police Advisory Commission: PAC Commission Rashmi Seneviratne attended the HRC
meetings as a liaison between the two commissions. Rashmi shared the domestic violence
awareness posters created by PAC. The HRC members reviewed the posters and gave feedback
to be shared with the PAC. HRC commissioners also helped PAC and the Police Department
with planning for police outreach classes with the ELL program.
Bias/Hate Crimes: The HRC reviews all Bias/Hate Crimes and responds to the victims with a
letter and HRC brochure when appropriate. The HRC was notified of the following Bias/Hate
Crimes in 2011.
Offense Date Police Case # Summary
1/3/11 11000049 Assault – Victim was involved in a hit and run accident and
was assaulted by impaired suspect who also used racial slurs.
2/12/11 11000815 Road Rage/Disorderly Conduct – racial slurs yelled at victim.
4/11/11 11001916 Vandalism/Possible Harassment
5/11
11003588 Damage to Property – Graffiti in Elliot Community Center
included a swastika resulted in the arrest of juveniles.
8/3/11 11004416 Bias Motivated Harassment
9/5/11 11005014 Assault Motivated by Bias – assault took place in a business
between two customers.
9/22/11 11005369 Damage to Property – a swastika was painted on the asphalt in
the back lot of property.
10/3/11 11005581 Unwanted Person/Harassment – juveniles in stairway
harassing tenant.
Bullying: The HRC began discussions on how to address the issue of bullying in St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Lordia Fok is a current MBA student and she worked with her MBA team to
create a campaign to reach out to the different constituencies who may play a role in helping to
promote anti-bullying. The creation of the campaign served as the final project for the MBA
team comprised of 5 additional MBA students from around the country.
Commissioner Fok presented her findings to the HRC in January, 2012. During 2011, the HRC
attended a Youth Development Committee (YDC) meeting to discuss bullying with youth grades
6-12 to seek their input. The HRC also began partnering with the District Parent Advisory
Council (DPAC) and will continue to partner with DPAC and PAC on bullying in 2012.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission (HRC) 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan
Human Rights Commission
2012 Work Plan
Mission: The purpose of the human rights commission shall be to advise the city council in its
efforts to ensure all citizens protection of their human rights and full and equal opportunity for
participation in the affairs of this community. The commission assists individuals and groups in
cultivating a community that embraces principles of equity and respect for all of its citizens.
Bullying - The HRC plans to focus attention on education and addressing the issue of bullying in
our community.
• Partner with other groups such as the District Parent Advisory Council (DPAC), Police
Advisory Commission (PAC), Community Education Advisory Commission (CEAC),
Youth Development Committee (YDC), etc.
• Anti-Bullying film community showing (The Bully Project or similar movie)
• Develop anti-bullying resources for community use
HRC Participation in Community Events:
• In 2012, the HRC plans to partner with and participate in many existing community
events including:
o Children First Ice Cream Social
o National Night Out
o Other events as appropriate
• Identify human rights and diversity events that are available to the residents of St. Louis
Park in the metro area. Rather than duplicating efforts that already exist, find ways to
notify our residents of these events such as through the use of an HRC webpage.
Vision St. Louis Park – The Diversity Lens
• Use the Diversity Lens as a tool at community events to talk to residents about the
Human Rights Commission and Diversity.
Connecting with our community and surrounding communities
• Partner with other boards and commissions as appropriate.
• Connect with local (metro & state) Human Rights Commissions
Ongoing Commission Work
• Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department
• Select annual Human Rights Award winner(s) for St. Louis Park
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8
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:
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The BOZA 2011 Annual Report summarizes the work completed by the BOZA in 2011, and no
action is required.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to meet with representatives of BOZA?
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with Council policy, the 2011 Annual Report is attached for City Council review.
The report:
• States the powers and duties of the BOZA.
• Identifies when a variance is considered by the BOZA or the Planning Commission.
• Highlights the number and type of applications processed in 2011.
• Summarizes each variance request, and the action taken by the BOZA.
The BOZA and planning staff can respond to any questions the City Council may have at a
future City Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2011 BOZA Annual Report
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning &Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report
Board of Zoning Appeals
2011 Annual Report
Board of Zoning Appeals Commission Members
Henry Solmer, Chair
Ryan Burt, Vice-Chair
Paul Roberts, Board Member
James Gainsley, Board Member
Susan Bloyer, Board Member
Gary Morrison, Staff Liaison
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) established:
Section 2-301 – 305 of the City Code establishes the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Membership:
The Board consists of five regular members appointed by the City Council for three-year terms.
The members of the board are to be qualified voters and residents of the city.
A staff liaison to the Board is appointed by the City Manager. The staff liaison is the Assistant
Zoning Administrator, Gary Morrison.
Meetings:
The Board meets once a month, at 6 pm on the fourth Thursday of the month.
Powers and duties.
The responsibilities of the BOZA include:
(1) Hear and decide on appeals from any order, requirement, permit decision or refusal or
determination made by the zoning administrator under the zoning chapter and from
any interpretation of the text of the zoning chapter, or any location of the boundary of
a zoning district as shown on the official zoning map made by the zoning
administrator, in accordance with all requirements of local and state laws.
(2) Hear and decide on requests for variances from the terms of the zoning chapter in the
manner and subject to the standards and requirements set forth in the zoning chapter
and applicable state laws.
(3) Communicate with the City Council its recommendations, records of proceedings and
any other method of reporting as may be deemed appropriate by the city council.
(4) Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and hear and make recommendations
to the City Council on all matters referred to the board or upon which it is required to
act under the zoning chapter.
Decision subject to appeal to the City Council.
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the BOZA may appeal the decision to the City C ouncil.
The appeal must be filed with the planning department within ten days of issuance of the BOZA
decision.
Variances heard by the BOZA or the Planning Commission.
A variance application will be heard by either the BOZA or the Planning Commission depending
on the nature of the application. Occasionally a variance application is submitted to the City as
part of a larger development that also requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Planned Unit
development (PUD) or subdivision. When this happens, then the variance application is sent to
the Planning Commission for consideration along with the CUP, PUD or subdivision
applications. This allows the Planning Commission to review and consider all applications
together, as one proposal.
If the variance application is not part of a larger development, meaning, it is the only application
submitted, then the variance is considered by the BOZA. This is typically the case for single
family home owners that need a variance for an addition or garage. Occasionally, the BOZA
will consider an application from a commercial property that needs a variance to complete a
small improvement, but only if another application such as a CUP, PUD or subdivision is not
also required.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report
The BOZA approved three variances, and denied none. No decisions were appealed to the City
Council.
The following is a summary of the variances applied for since 2006.
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
RESIDENTIAL
Setbacks Attached Garages:
Interior side setback: 2 0 1 2 1 2
rear setback: 2 0 3 0 1
side yard abutting the street setback: 1 0 3 0 0
Living Space:
front setback: 1 0 0 0 0
Interior side setback: 2 1 1 0 0
side yard abutting the street setback: 1 0 0
Covered Porch:
front setback: 1 0 0 0 0
Eave (side setback): 2 3 0 0 0
Deck:
Interior side setback: 0 1 0 0 0
Miscellaneous: 0 0 2 0 0
Open Lot Area (1) Living Space: 1 0 0 0 0
Attached Garage: 1 0 0 0 0
No Build Area Attached Garage 3 0 0 0 0
Gravel Driveway 1 0 0 0 0
Total Residential Variances: 17 5 11 2 2 2
COMMERCIAL
rear setback: 1 0 0 0 0
front setback: 0 1 0 0 0 1
side yard abutting the street: 1 0 1 0 0
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 1 0 0 0 0
Parking spaces: 1 0 0 0 0
Restaurant to Residential setback: 2 0 0 0 0
Bufferyard: 1 0 0 0 0
Expand a non-conformity 0 0 1 0 0
Increase total sign area 0 0 0 0 1
Total Commercial Variances: 7 1 2 0 1 1
Total Variances: 24 6 13 2 3 3
(1) A 20 foot by 20 foot or 20 foot by 30 foot open area in the back yard. This requirement was removed in 2006.
APPEAL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
RESIDENTIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0
COMMERCIAL 0 1 0 0 1 0
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report
Edwin B. Hollen – 8112 Virginia Circle North
BOZA Date: July 28, 2011
Request: A four-foot variance to the
required six-foot side yard for a proposed
attached garage.
BOZA Action:
The BOZA denied the requested variance,
but approved a three foot variance to the
required six foot side yard setback. When
considering a side yard variance, the BOZA
will typically reduce the setback to no less
than three feet from the side property line.
Three feet is considered to be the minimum
distance required to preserve access around the structure, and to maintain the structure. The
applicant argued that he currently has a one car garage, and needs the variance to gain a second
stall. He stated that he could not build a detached garage in the back yard due to a dramatic
grade change, and that some living space behind the existing garage would have to be removed
to provide access. The BOZA determined that the grade change was significant enough to
warrant a variance, that the variance will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, and
that it is reasonable in size. The variance was approved with the condition that it is for the
garage only, and that a second story cannot be constructed within the six foot setback area.
Before Photograph:
After Photograph:
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 6
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report
Jon and Anne Gotte – 3976 Princeton Avenue South
BOZA Date: August 25, 2011
Request: A three foot, four inch variance
to the required five foot, six inch side
yard for the construction of a two-car
garage with living space above.
BOZA Action: Denied the requested
three-foot, four-inch variance to the side
yard setback for an attached garage with
living space above. The BOZA approved
a two-foot, six-inch variance to the side
yard setback to allow an attached garage
to be constructed with a three-foot side
yard setback with the conditions that the
garage not be longer than 40 feet, and that
the second story living space meet the
five foot side yard setback.
The BOZA determined that the variance is warranted due to the narrow lot, and the need to
preserve open space in the back yard. They also agreed that the request is reasonable in size, and
meets the City’s “Move Up in the Park” initiative.
Before Photograph:
The Home Owners decided not to construct the requested addition.
They have placed the house on the market for sale.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 7
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2011 Annual Report
Namakan Properties, LLC – 8225 State Highway 7
BOZA Date: November 1, 2011
Request: A five-foot variance to the
required five-foot front yard setback for
a parking lot.
BOZA Action: The BOZA approved
the requested five-foot variance to the
required five-foot front yard setback for
the construction of a new parking lot.
The BOZA concluded that the boulevard
along Highway 7 was very large, so the
variance would not result in a lack of
sufficient green space or trees. They
also agreed that the property has insufficient parking available, and that the requested parking
spaces will benefit the property without harming traffic or adjacent properties. The property is
on a cul-de-sac, and the property tried every effort available, including purchasing excess
MnDOT property to increase parking.
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 9
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:
2011 Housing Authority Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To provide the Council with the Housing Authority’s (HA) 2011 Annual Report. No action necessary.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the work of the Housing Authority continue to meet the expectations of the City Council?
Does the City Council desire to meet with representatives of the HA Board?
BACKGROUND:
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was created in 1970. In 1988 the Council
created the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to exercise economic and redevelopment
powers and reorganized the HRA to an HA allowing it to exercise powers related to low and
moderate income housing programs and projects. The HA is a separate legal entity governed by
the HA Board of Commissioners exercising all the powers granted under Minnesota Statutes
469.001 to 469.047 and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the
purposes of managing, planning and implementing the City’s low and moderate income housing
programs. The five Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City
Council. The Commissioners are responsible for overseeing the administration of the low
income housing programs managed by the HA including setting policy, approving budgets,
entering into contracts and ratifying expenses. The HA has a separate financial audit from the
City and the HA currently contracts with the City for the provision of financial services.
The HA’s primary mission is to administer programs that ensure the availability of safe and
desirable affordable housing options in the St. Louis Park community. These programs include:
• Public Housing (PH),
• Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (Voucher),
• Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance Program (S+C),
• Training and Resources to Attain Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS) Family Self-
Sufficiency (FSS) Program, and
• Hamilton House Elderly and Disabled Service Coordinator grant.
Funding for these programs is received from HUD. The Authority currently serves
approximately 525 eligible, low-income households through the rental assistance housing
programs.
The HA also oversees the administration of a number of City housing programs including the
Discount Loan Program, Move-up in the Park programs, Green Remodeling Program and
Louisiana Court Max 200 Program. The City Council delegated the administration of these
programs to the HA by resolution. The HA also provides input to the Council on the use of
CDBG funds.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report
HA Board members include:
• Catherine Courtney, Chairperson
• Justine Kaufman, Vice-chair
• Renee DuFour, Secretary
• Trinicia Hill
• Susan Metzger
Community Development Department staff serve as the staff for the HA. Staff members include:
• Kevin Locke, Executive Director
• Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
• Teresa Schlegel, Housing Manager
• Cindy Stromberg, Section 8 Manager
• Tanya Warren, Public Housing Specialist
• Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator (coordinates administration of City housing
programs)
• Abe Shariff, Maintenance Coordinator
• Joe Wellentin, Maintenance Technician
HA Housing/Service Programs
Public Housing
PH is a rental assistance program in which the HA owns and manages the property. Rent is
income based with each household paying approximately 30% of their income for rent. The HA
owns and manages 147 PH units; a low-rise apartment building (108 one-bedroom units and 2
two-bedroom caretaker units) built in 1975, and 37 scattered site single-family units (3 to 5
bedrooms). Although the low-rise building is designated for general occupancy, priority is given
to elderly and disabled applicants. The single-family scattered units house larger families with
children. The HA also holds the HUD Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and maintains the
waiting list for 12 two-bedroom PH apartment units located at Louisiana Court. These units are
owned and managed by Project for Pride in Living. Eligibility is limited to households at or
below 80% of the area median income.
PH units and occupancy rates are noted in the table.
Public Housing Total
Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR
Occupancy
December 31,
2011
Hamilton House 108 108 99%
Scattered Site Single Family 37 0 0 17 17 3 99%
Louisiana Court, Metropolitan
Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 100%
Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3
Total 157
HUD provides annual operating subsidy and capital funding for the PH program. These funds
are combined with rent revenues to finance the operational expenses of the program and
maintenance and rehab of the properties. T he annual budget for the PH is approximately
$1,020,000.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Voucher rental assistance program provides income based rental assistance to participants in
privately owned market rate rental units. Participants pay approximately 30% of their income
for rent and the HA pays a rent subsidy directly to the owner of the rental property. HUD has
allocated the HA the authority to administer up to 268 Vouchers. The HA administers both
tenant-based and project-based Vouchers. Forty Vouchers of the HA’s allocation are designated
for “project based” use in three privately owned developments; Excelsior & Grand, Vail Place
and Wayside. In addition, the HA administers 50 to 80 Vouchers at any one time from other
jurisdictions for participants that have moved to St. Louis Park. Eligibility for the program is
limited to households at or below 50% of median area income adjusted for family size.
HUD provides Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) funding to support rent assistance payments
and Administrative Funds to finance administrative costs. The program has an annual budget of
approximately $2,200,000.
Shelter Plus Care
The Shelter Plus Care (S + C) Program is designed to link rental assistance with supportive
services for hard-to-reach homeless persons with disabilities. T he program serves primarily
those who are seriously mentally ill or have chronic problems with alcohol, drugs or both and
their families. Grants are provided by HUD to be used for permanent housing which must be
matched with supportive services that are appropriate to the needs of population to be served. St.
Louis Park is the grant recipient for the program and we partner with three sponsor organizations
that administer supportive housing programs; Perspectives, Community Involvement Program
(CIP) and Pillsbury United Communities. Perspectives and CIP have also formed a partnership
with Wayside that enables Wayside to utilize a portion of their unexpended S + C funding to
support five units of S + C in Wayside’s supportive housing development. The HA is currently
collaborating with Wayside on a S + C application submission for an allocation five units of S +
C rental assistance in the next funding cycle. The HA is currently administering 43 units of S +
C. Eligibility is limited to households at or below 50% of median area income. The annual
budget for the S + C program is approximately $330,000.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and Shelter
Plus Care Units Utilization YTD
December 31, 2011
Tenant-Based (68 are Port-Outs) 219 100%
Tenant-Based Port - Ins 68 Avg./month
Project-Based: (40)
Wayside House 15 100%
Excelsior & Grand 18 83%
Vail Place 7 100%
Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance:
Perspectives Inc. 11 97%
Community Involvement Program (CIP) Scatts 11 94%
CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 100%
Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 100%
Wayside 5
Total 370
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report
Training and Resources to Attain Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS) Family Self-
Sufficiency Program (FSS)
HUD designed the FSS Program in conjunction with the Voucher and PH programs to enable
families to improve their educational and employment status to achieve greater economic
independence and self-sufficiency. Each family that commits to participate in TRAILS explores
their individual job or educational goals with the help of the Program Coordinator Case
Manager. As the family’s rent increases due to increased earned income, the HA establishes an
escrow account on the participants behalf and credits it with a portion of the monies from their
increased rent payment. Upon successful completion of the TRAILS program, the participant
receives the escrow account balance.
The program is voluntary and open to all current Section 8 participants and PH residents. The
program has an annual budget of approximately $38,600 for the service coordinator position.
Participant escrow contributions averaging $35,000 annually are funded with HAP and PH rent
revenue.
Hamilton House Service Coordinator
The HA received a three year HUD ROSS PH Elderly and Persons with Disabilities grant to fund
a service coordinator position to coordinate services and other activities designed to help the
residents at Hamilton House remain living independently. Services include assessment and
referral, on-going case management, wellness education programs and education regarding
personal safety and housekeeping. The service coordinator position is provided through a
contract with Vail Place. The program has an annual budget of $79,000.
Program Waiting Lists
The number of people that qualify for HUD PH rental assistance and Voucher programs far
exceed the number of PH and Vouchers available. Selection criteria and procedures are
established in accordance with HUD regulations to distribute rental assistance to the most
deserving applicants in as fair a process as possible. W aiting lists are kept for the HA’s PH and
Voucher rental assistance programs. The number of people on the lists is significant and the HA
receives requests for rental assistance every day. Due to the excessive length of the lists, the lists
are only opened to accept new applications when the number of applications on a specific list
nears depletion. When lists are opened, we typically limit the opening to 2 to 3 days and then
close the list again. We have even implemented a lottery system to limit the number of
applications taken since it is unmanageable for staff to administer waiting lists containing
thousands of applications and the wait for applicants, even if they were to be placed on the list, is
unrealistic.
During a typical two day opening, the HA receives thousands of requests for applications. The
Voucher waiting list was last opened in 2005 at which time the HA received over 3000 requests
for applications. Of the original 3000 requests, over 450 applicants have kept their application
status current and are still waiting for housing seven years later. In 2011, the HA opened the
waiting list for Hamilton House for 2 days and received over 1000 applications.
Waiting lists for the project based voucher programs are managed separately. Wayside and Vail
Place coordinate list management for their programs with the HA since their residents must meet
specific criteria to be eligible for their supportive housing. The HA manages the waiting list for
Excelsior and Grand.
In 2011, the Public Housing Program experienced 37 turnovers, 27 at Hamilton House and 10 in
the Scattered Site units. Typically, the annual turnover for PH is closer to 15 to 20 units but in
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Subject: 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report
2011, Hamilton House experienced an unusually high number of turnovers due to lease
violations, deaths and nursing home placements.
In the Voucher Program, 14 participants left the program in 2011. Typically, the number of new
tenant based vouchers issued by the HA is limited to the number of program participants that
leave the program. In 2011, the HA received an unexpected one-time funding award mid-year
enabling the issuance of additional vouchers. Due to this additional funding, the HA was able to
issue 36 vouchers in 2011.
Housing Waiting Lists - December 31, 2011
1-BR 1-BR
Handicap 2-BR 3-BR 3-BR
Handicap 4-BR 5-BR Total
Public Housing 1,025 78 343 320 17 97 64 1943
Section 8 466
Excelsior & Grand 78 78
Annual Funding Sources
The assisted housing programs are federally funded through HUD. HUD provides an annual
funding allocation for the PH Program and the Section 8 Voucher program which is formula
based and prorated based on annual congressional budget appropriations. Funds for the Family
Self-sufficiency and Shelter Plus Care programs are provided by grants that require annual
application submissions.
Program 2011 Funding
(approx.)
Public Housing
• Operating Contribution $300,000
• Capital Fund Program $177,000
• Rent Revenue $545,000
Section 8 Voucher Program
• Housing Assistance Programs (HAP) $2,020,000
• Administrative Funding $169,000
Shelter Plus Care
• Rental Assistance $330,000
Family Self-Sufficiency Program $38,600
Hamilton House Service Coordinator $79,000
Total Annual Federal Funding $3,658,000
Final 2012 Funding Levels Still Pending
Like all federal programs, HUD has implemented funding decreases over the last couple of years
making it more of a challenge for the HA to meet administrative and housing related expenses.
In the PH program, the HA’s 2012 operating subsidy is estimated to be 13% less than what the
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 6
Subject: 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report
HA’s received in 2011. 2011’s Capital Fund Program funding for PH capital improvements was
17% less than that received in 2010 and HUD is projecting an additional 8% cut for 2012.
Although HAP funding for the Voucher program has remained relatively flat, significant
decreases are projected for administrative funding in 2012. HUD is estimating to prorate
Voucher administrative funding as low as 75% of the HA’s eligibility. This is the lowest
funding proration level ever proposed by HUD.
At this time, HUD’s final 2012 prorations have not been determined. There is the possibility that
HUD will supplement the projected funding levels with internal department resources resulting
in an increase to some of the estimated prorations, in particular the voucher admin funding. Staff
will continue to monitor funding levels closely and adjust spending levels accordingly.
2012 HA Highlights
• Provided rental assistance to over 500 low-income households under the PH Program, Voucher
Program and S + C Program.
• Completed approximately $370,000 in capital improvements on the PH units including significant
renovations at Hamilton House; the HA received a $218,000 grant from the state in 2010 to use
for PH capital improvements.
• Continued to administer 40 units of Project Based Vouchers at Wayside’s and Vail Place’s
supportive housing developments and at Excelsior and Grand. Facilitated partnership
between Wayside, Perspectives and CIP to utilize unexpended S+C funds to support 5 units
with rental assistance at Waysides supportive housing development.
• Exceeded 99% annual occupancy in the PH Program and 100% annual utilization in the
Voucher Program.
• 37 families participated in the FSS program in 2011 with nine participants graduating from the
program. Successfully submitted two HUD grant applications to fund the Family Self-Sufficiency
(FSS) program coordinator services for participants of the Voucher and PH programs.
• Utilized an off-site call center for the first time when opening waiting list for Hamilton House.
Center efficiently handled the 2000+ calls eliminating both staffing and technology capacity issues
experienced with previous waiting list openings.
• The end of 2011 marked completion of a 21 month Fiscal Year as the HA transitioned to a Fiscal
Year that corresponds to the calendar year. Previously, the HA’s FY ran from April thru March.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The HA is funded through annual contractual contributions from HUD, state and federal grants
and rent revenues. The HA pays for all direct program costs and costs related to administering
the programs including staffing, office space and computer support.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities of the Housing Authority have a direct relationship to the Strategic Direction that
Council adopted related to “St. Louis Park is committed to a well maintained and diverse
housing stock”.
Attachment: Assisted Housing Income Limit Table
Prepared By: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 7
Subject: 2011 Housing Authority Annual Report
ASSISTED HOUSING INCOME LIMITS
Effective December 1, 2011
FAMILY EXTREMELY LOW VERY LOW LOW
SIZE 30% OF MEDIAN 50% OF MEDIAN 80% OF MEDIAN
1 $ 17,650 $ 29,400 $ 45,500
2 $ 20,150 $ 33,600 $ 52,000
3 $ 22,650 $ 37,800 $ 58,500
4 $ 25,150 $ 41,950 $ 65,000
5 $ 27,200 $ 45,350 $ 70,200
6 $ 29,200 $ 48,700 $ 75,400
7 $ 31,200 $ 52,050 $ 80,600
8 $ 33,200 $ 55,400 $ 85,800
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 10
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:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 11
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:
Redistricting Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the upcoming Redistricting
Process and the impact to the City of St. Louis Park and future local elections.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does Council have additional input regarding the decision making process as we move
forward with ward redistricting and reestablishment of precinct boundaries?
• Does the Council have suggestions for areas that could logically be moved from one ward
to another to help balance population?
BACKGROUND:
Redistricting occurs after each 10 year census and is the process used to adjust the various
elective district boundaries to account for population shifts. It deals strictly with population and
ensures that the people of each district are equally represented. Federal and State redistricting
affects local government redistricting of ward boundaries and reestablishment of precinct
boundaries.
City governments must redistrict or reestablish all precincts after state redistricting. A city may
not redistrict its wards before the state legislature redistricting plan has been adopted on February
21. Since the Primary Election has been moved up one month to be held in August, staff will be
working within a tight timeframe on establishing new ward and precinct boundaries by April 3,
2012 which will be used for the 2012 elections. In addition, notification is required to voters if
their polling locations change due to redistricting. If a City Council fails to take action on
redistricting in the time required, the Mayor and Council shall not be paid. (M.S. 205.84, subd. 2).
Who does the Redistricting in Minnesota?
Legislature: Congressional and Legislative Districts
City Council: Wards and Precincts (requirement of City Charter and M.S. 205.84 subd 2)
County Board: Commissioner Districts
School Board: School Board Election Districts
Special Districts: Soil & Water, Met Council, etc.
What is the Redistricting Authority of the City Council?
City Charter Section 2.03 requires City Council to redetermine ward boundaries after each
decennial census of the United States; and that the four ward boundaries shall be adopted by
ordinance based on findings of the Council that the wards so established are of as near equal size
in both population and area as practicable.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: Redistricting Update
Minnesota Redistricting Timelines
February 21 - State Congressional and Legislative Plans completed and approved by Court
April 3 - City Ward & Precinct boundary redistricting completed (19 weeks before Primary)
May 1 - County and School redistricting completed (15 weeks before Primary)
May 22 - Early Candidate Filing opens (84 days before Primary)
June 19 - Notice of new boundaries posted in clerk’s office (56 days before Primary)
June 29 - Absentee Voting Begins
August 14 - State PRIMARY Election (new precincts and districts take effect)
November 6, 2012 - State GENERAL Election
City Redistricting 2012 Calendar
February 13 - Study Session Redistricting Update (Written Report)
February 21 - Court approves & City receives state redistricting plan
March 1 - Publish Notice of Public Hearing
March 12 - Study Session Discussion on Redistricting Options prior to 1st Reading
March 19 - City Council Meeting - Public Hearing and 1st Reading
March 26 - (if needed) Continue Public Hearing (Special Council Meeting)
April 2 - City Council Meeting Final Adoption
ü Second Reading of Ordinance establishing Ward boundaries (effective August 14, 2012)
ü Resolution establishing precincts
April 3 – City submits adopted Redistricting Plan to County and Secretary of State
April 13 - Address range changes due to County for updating in State Voter Registration System
May 3 - City publishes new boundaries
June 19 - Notice of new boundaries posted in clerk’s office (56 days before Primary)
July 20 - County mails notice of voting precincts to all registered voters (25 days before primary)
Because the work of reassigning the ward population and reestablishment of precinct boundaries
needs to begin as soon as possible after receipt of the state redistricting plan on February 21, it
would be most helpful if all council decisions regarding ward boundaries could be made prior to
formal approvals and no later than March 26.
Staff Preparations Prior to Receiving State Plan
• Reviewing City Charter, City Code, and State Election laws and guidelines
• Obtaining census information and reviewing population data and census block boundaries
• Preparing redistricting calendar
• Evaluate existing and potential polling places – locations, accessibility, parking, room size
• Reviewing Ward lines for minor adjustment options to achieve balance in population
• Review possible reduction in precincts to save election costs
• Reviewing past election results
• Identifying smaller precincts and neighborhoods that could be combined
• Identifying potential improved precinct boundaries consistent with neighborhood boundaries
• Identifying areas of future population growth
• Identifying potential improved precinct boundaries to match school district boundaries of
Hopkins and St. Louis Park thereby eliminating two different school ballots at one precinct.
• Working with staff from city departments including Information Resources GIS Technician,
Community Development, and Engineering.
• Determine public notification sources (televised meetings, Park Perspective, Website, voter
guides, brochures, press releases, publishing and posting of ward plan)
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Subject: Redistricting Update
Ward Census Population Information with current Ward boundaries
WARD
2010
Census
Population
Average
to achieve equal
Ward population
Difference needed to
achieve equal Ward
population
Deviation
Percentage
1 11,385 11,310 - 75 - 0.6%
2 12,068 11,310 -758 - 6%
3 11,252 11,310 +58 + 0.5%
4 10,536 11,310 +774 + 7%
Ward Boundaries
Ÿ Wards must be drawn to meet statutory requirements in addition to population equality
Ÿ Wards must be equal in population as practicable (M.S. 205.84 subd. 1)
Ÿ Wards must be composed of census blocks
Ÿ Wards must be bounded by precinct lines
Ÿ Wards must be compact in area (closest to a circle shape)
Ÿ Wards must be composed of contiguous territory (no islands or peninsulas) (M.S. 205.84)
Ÿ Deviation in population in any ward of the city is recommended to be within 5% of the average.
Ward Redistricting and City Council Residence in WARD
When elected, a Ward councilmember must be, and remain, a resident of the ward they
represent. If redistricting causes a ward boundary to move, and that boundary change causes a
councilmember to be shifted into another ward, the councilmember is allowed to continue to
serve for the remainder of the term. However, if the councilmember runs for re-election, they
will need to become a resident of the ward they represent. (M.S. 205.84, subd. 2)
Precinct Boundaries
Ÿ All Precinct boundaries must follow a census block line (M.S. 204B.14, subd.6)
4 Census blocks are geographic areas bounded by physical features such as streets, lakes,
rivers, railroad tracks.
Ÿ Precinct boundaries cannot cross Legislative or Congressional District boundaries
Ÿ Precincts cannot cross Ward boundaries
Ÿ No population requirement
Ÿ Precinct population can be any size where elections can be administered efficiently
Ÿ Precinct boundary shape should be compact and contiguous.
Polling Place Designation
Ÿ Large enough to accommodate required number of voters expected in presidential election
Ÿ Fully accessible and usable by elderly or disabled persons
Ÿ Adequate floor space to set up equipment and preserve voter secrecy
Ÿ Acceptable travel distance
Ÿ Free of other, non-election activities
Ÿ Located within the precinct boundary or within 1 mile of the precinct boundary
Ÿ Free from smoking and liquor
Ÿ Separated from other activities within the building
Ÿ Designated by resolution of the City Council
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 4
Subject: Redistricting Update
Every city and school district must make their facilities available for holding city, county, school
district, state and federal elections. Redistricting provides an opportunity to minimize the current
number of precinct locations by utilizing larger facilities and combining smaller precincts.
Benilde St. Margaret (Precinct 1) is the only one of our 17 current precincts that has indicated
they are no longer interested in serving as a polling place.
Staff has been in contact with the following establishments who are very interested in serving as
a future polling location:
1. Sabes Jewish Community Center, 4330 S. Cedar Lk Rd
2. Beth El Synagogue, 5224 West 26th St.
3. Park Assembly of God Church, 1615 Texas Ave
4. Fire Station #1, 3750 Wooddale (training room)
NEXT STEPS
Staff will provide redistricting options to Council for discussion at the March 12 Study Session
Meeting so that a final plan can be approved and implemented by the April 3, 2012 deadline.
The public hearing and first reading is scheduled for March 19.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
A slight reduction in the election budget could occur with less precincts due to expenses for less
equipment, less election judges, less staff time, etc. Expenses related to citywide registered voter
mailing notification will be covered by Hennepin County.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Map of Current Ward Boundaries and Census Blocks
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Current Ward Map
Current Ward Map
Ward Council Member Residence
Census Blocks
Precincts
Ward/Population
1 - 11,385
2 - 12,068
3 - 11,252
4 -10,536
0 0.5 1
Miles
Ward 1
Ward 4
Ward 3
Ward 2
Study Session Meeting of Feburary 13, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Redistricting Update Page 5
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 12
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:
Community Energy Services (CES)/Green Remodeling Home Improvement Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. However, in the future the Council will be asked to consider adopting a
resolution supporting the Community Energy Services program and promoting resident
participation. If Council desires, representatives from CES will attend a future study session or
Council meeting to describe the program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to participate in the proposed CES program? Please let staff know if
you have questions, comments or concerns regarding this initiative.
BACKGROUND:
CES Background.
CES is a program designed and implemented by the non-profit Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE). CEE has been providing energy conservation programs, home
improvement lending services and conducting energy research for over 30 years. The City has
been successfully partnering with CEE on a variety of home improvement initiatives since 1999.
These include our discount loan and move up in the park loans, homebuyer assistance program,
energy loans, stimulus program rebates, pilot green remodeling program, the annual remodeling
tour and remodeling advisor service.
In 2009 CEE was awarded a grant through the Minnesota Environment and Natural Resource
Trust fund to design an approach that could address energy efficiency in the residential sector
and jump-start these efforts throughout the state. Eight Minnesota cities participated in the pilot
Energy Efficient Cities project including the metro cities of Minneapolis and Apple Valley. CES
is the result of the demonstration project.
Utilities throughout Minnesota are required by the state to implement conservation improvement
programs to help customers save energy. CEE partners with Xcel Energy and Center Point
Energy in designing and implementing their state mandated conservation improvement
programs.
Staff contacted CEE about the pilot and suggested that CES be considered for St. Louis Park.
Coincidently, Center Point Energy indicated interest in testing a suburban community with the
fully developed CES program. St. Louis Park is a good fit – a community committed to housing
and the environment, organized neighborhoods and engaged residents, housing stock built before
energy conservation advances, and a positive partnership with CEE. St. Louis Park and
Minneapolis are the only cities where CES is currently being offered.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 2
Subject: Community Energy Services (CES)/Green Remodeling Home Improvement Program
What is CES?
CES is a comprehensive one-stop residential energy program designed to help residents save
energy. It moves beyond the traditional energy audit to include free neighborhood presentations
on how to save energy and money and a customized home energy visit. Unlike a typical utility
energy audit, the home visit includes installation of: compact fluorescent light bulbs,
programmable thermostats, faucet aerators, high efficiency showerheads, pipe wrap, water heater
blankets, weather-stripping and more. Residents can opt for diagnostic services that include a
blower door test to measure air infiltration into the home and a gas appliances combustion safety
test. The analysis report provides residents with three actionable, practical steps they can take to
reduce their home energy use. The service also provides information about recommended
contractors, 0% interest energy loans, and assistance in securing utility and city rebates.
Project Participation
Based on participation levels in the demonstration project, staff is proposing to offer this
program to include up to 500 home visits. If there is a stronger demand, staff will apprise
Council and determine if additional funding could be shifted to this effort. The utilities have
committed funding this program through 2012. The utility’s 2013 conservation improvement
programs have not been confirmed, so for the time being this is being considered a one-year
program.
Marketing
The City would promote this program through the website, Park Perspective, Community Ed
bulletin, utility bill inserts and housing improvement brochures. The City’s VIPs, including
neighborhood leaders will be invited to attend special previews before the program is launched
citywide to create a buzz. CEE will also market through direct mailings and neighborhood
organizations.
Project Budget
City funds would be highly leveraged with private utility funding via CEE and resident co-pays.
• City funds will cover 20% of the program costs, or $57,000, of the total $302,000.
o The City will fund up to 500 home visits, at a fee of $60, for a total of $30,000.
o The City will fund energy rebates estimated at $27,000. The City already
provides an energy rebate to residents that qualify for utility rebates. Based on
the demonstration project, 30% of the owners that had the home visit made energy
improvements that qualified for utility rebates.
• The resident co-pay will range from $50-$100, with an average $75 per visit. This
co-pay ensures commitment from residents and off-sets program costs.
In addition, CEE is making the Department of Commerce’s 0% energy loan (no income limits)
available exclusively to residents that make improvements through CES. The following table
shows programs funding and costs.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 3
Subject: Community Energy Services (CES)/Green Remodeling Home Improvement Program
CES Program Sources and Uses
Home Visits and Program Delivery
Rebates – if 30% of home
visits result in qualifying
improvements
Total
Program
Costs
Funding Source Per
Owner
# Home
Visits Cost Per
Owner
#
Rebates Cost
City Housing
Rehab Fund $60 500 $30,000 $180 150 $27,000 $57,000
Resident
Copay $75 500 $37,500
CEE -Xcel Energy
& Center Point $310 500 $155,000 $350 150 $52,500 $207,500
Total $445 500 $222,500 $530 150 $79,500 $302,000
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2012 approved Housing Rehab Fund budget has funds set aside for this program. The
contract is being written so that program activity will not exceed 500 home visits. However if
there is a stronger demand, staff will evaluate activity when 400 home visits have been
conducted. Staff will then apprise council and recommend if additional Housing Rehab Funds
be redirected to this program.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This program is consistent with the City Council’s Strategic Directions - Commitment to being a
leader in environmental stewardship and to provide well-maintained housing. It is also
consistent with enhancing the green remodeling programs, which was one of the opportunity
areas identified in the 2011 Housing Programs Evaluation, and noted in the recent citywide
survey as an activity strongl y supported by residents.
NEXT STEPS:
If Council desires, CES representatives will present the program at an upcoming study session or
meeting. Council will be asked to consider a resolution supporting the program at an upcoming
meeting. Council members, boards and commissions members, school board members and
neighborhood leaders will be invited to a VIP preview presentation of the program prior to city-
wide launch.
Attachments: Community Energy Services Info Sheet
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Save Energy, Save Money!
Your Guide to Community Energy Services in St. Louis Park Website Coming Soon!
What is Community Energy Services?
Community Energy Services (CES) is a comprehensive one-stop residential energy
program being offered in St. Louis Park beginning in April 2012. CES is designed to
help residents save energy and money while staying comfortable in their homes.
Through the program, St. Louis Park residents will have access to a FREE
presentation on home energy efficiency and conservation, the opportunity to
schedule a home visit, access financing, follow up and qualified contractors.
Free Presentations
Beginning in April 2012, St. Louis Park residents can attend a free home energy
presentation and learn how their home uses energy and low cost ways to begin
saving. The presentations last about an hour and CES provides free cookies,
coffee and childcare. After attending the presentation, residents can schedule
one of the home visit packages listed below.
Home Visit Packages
Community Energy Services offers three (3) home visit packages for St. Louis Park
residents at discounted prices. The details and prices are listed below:
1. Basic Home Visit (Direct Install) Cost: $50 - Visit includes
installation of compact fluorescent light bulbs, including specialty
bulbs, programmable thermostat, faucet aerators, high efficiency
showerheads, door weather stripping, pipe wrap, water heater
blanket and more. Blower door test not included in Basic Home Visit.
2. Home Visit Plus (Direct Install + Diagnostic Services) Cost: $70 – Visit
includes all materials installed during Basic Home Visit plus
diagnostic services including a blower door test, combustion
safety testing, and access to CEE’s qualified insulation contractor
list. The Home Visit Plus also qualifies you for available utility
rebates.
3. Home Visit Plus + Bid (Direct Install+ Diagnostic Services + Contractor
Bid for Insulation) Cost: $100 - Visit includes everything included in a
Home Visit Plus in addition to a detailed bid for insulation at a fair
price that CEE negotiates with our qualified and pre-screened
contractors. An infrared inspection of the work completed is
available upon request by CEE.
DRAFT
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 12)
Subject: Community Energy Services (CES)/Green Remodeling Home Improvement Program Page 4
Insulation Contractors
Participants in Community Energy Services receiving a Home Visit Plus or Home Visit
Plus Bid will have access to the CES insulation contractor list. These contractors have
signed participation agreements with the Center for Energy and Environment to do
work according to the highest quality standards. The contractors have agreed to have
their work randomly checked to ensure they consistently meet high standards. These
contractors offer a one (1) year warranty to CES participants.
Financing and Follow Up
Participants in Community Energy Services receiving a Home Visit Plus or Home Visit
Plus Bid will receive follow up from the Center for Energy and Environment.
Participants will gain access to numerous financing vehicles available through the City
of St. Louis Park, the state and elsewhere. Participants are also provided with the most
recent rebate information available through CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy.
Who’s Eligible for Community Energy Services?
St. Louis Park single-family, duplex and triplex homeowners are eligible for any of the
packages. Renters are eligible for only the Basic Home Visit package.
How Do I Sign Up?
The first presentations will be held in April 2012. Look for presentation information
beginning in March 2012. Registration for presentations will be available online or by
calling (612) 219-7334
Questions?
For more information please contact Kyle Boehm at kboehm@mncee.org or at
(612) 219-7334.
Program Partners
Community Energy services is a partnership between the Center for Energy and
Environment, the City of St. Louis Park, CenterPoint Energy and Xcel Energy.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 12)
Subject: Community Energy Services (CES)/Green Remodeling Home Improvement Program Page 5
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 13
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:
Concussion Awareness Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the status
of the City’s Concussion Awareness Program and the actions the Parks and Recreation
Department is taking to adhere to this program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff now of any comments or questions that you might have.
BACKGROUND:
Parks and Recreation staff have been working with the Minnesota Recreation and Parks
Association (MRPA) to provide information to residents who are coaching sports that have a
higher probability of head injuries and concussions. The National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognized the seriousness of
concussions and created education resources for use by various individuals and organizations. A
new state law, Chapter 90 (SF612/HF905) sets into place policies and new standards for
educating youth athletes, parents and coaches on the topic of concussions. In response to this
change in Minnesota state law requiring the need for a concussion management plan, staff has
implemented the following procedures:
• All coaches, officials and appropriate state/contractors will be required to view the
concussion training on CDC’s website, and complete, maintain and submit a training
certificate which will be kept on file in the Parks and Department.
• Program participants and parents will be given a CDC concussion fact sheet with
schedules/program information.
• Adult league teams require participants to be 18 years of age or older and therefore do not
require concussion awareness material.
• All registration forms, appropriate rental guides/applications and electronic receipts now
include the following information: St. Louis Park Parks & Recreation Department is
committed to educating youth athletic volunteers, officials, instructors, parents and
participants about the nature and risks of concussions. Information regarding
concussions is available at www.cdc.gov/concussioninyouthsports.
The Minnesota Recreation and Park Association will be featuring an article on this topic in a
future publication in 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Resources are provided by the CDC and will have no financial impact on the City.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 13) Page 2
Subject: Concussion Awareness Program
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 14
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:
December 2011 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues
and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds are
important in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use of
tax levy dollars.
The December report was delayed two weeks to the first Study Session in February to allow for
the final 2011 payroll expenses to be recorded and the final property tax settlement to be
received. Preliminary year end numbers show General Fund revenues for 2011 at 100.2% of
budget, and expenditures at 96%. Park & Recreation revenues are at 99.7%, while expenditures
are at 103%.
This report does not represent the final numbers for the year ending December 31, 2011. The
final audited financial statements for 2011 will be presented at a separate Council meeting in the
spring of 2012. Invoices for 2011 expenses will continue to be paid through mid-February,
additional revenues pertaining to 2011 will be recorded, and year end audit entries will be
completed over the next few months.
As was noted in the December 19, 2011 Council Report regarding fund balance levels and
transfers, the Park & Recreation Fund is expected to require a small transfer from the General
Fund of $50,000 to maintain the desired level of fund balance. While the Park & Recreation
Fund will exceed budget on expenditures, it also will exceed budget for revenues once the year
end ice time receivable revenue is recorded. The preliminary numbers indicate that the General
Fund and Park & Recreation Fund combined will have a positive change in fund balance of
approximately $900,000, prior to the transfers recommended in the December 19, 2011 report.
Some variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied with a
general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues will exceed budget by nearly 20% or approximately
$455,000 in the General Fund. The liquor and business license revenues are 6% or
$44,000 above budget, and total permit revenues for the year have surpassed budget by
$411,000 or 26%.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 14) Page 2
Subject: December 2011 Monthly Financial Report
• Intergovernmental revenue has exceeded budget by just over 8% or $93,000 because we
have received more DOT Municipal State Aid than was anticipated this year. The State
typically withholds 10% of the maintenance allotment until the following year, however,
the full 2011 allotment was sent in advance of the State shutdown in June. In addition,
we also received the 10% hold back of our 2010 allotment.
Expenditures:
• The Administration Department will be as much as 5% below budget overall for the year.
This is primarily because only 82% of the legal services budget was spent in 2011.
• The Facilities Maintenance Department will be well below budget overall at between
85% and 86%. This is due to the retirement of the Facilities Superintendent and the
subsequent staffing reorganization and contracting of janitorial services which resulted in
cost savings. This was taken into consideration for the 2012 budget.
• The Communications & Marketing Division will be approximately 12% below budget for
the year. By utilizing existing staff, a significant amount of graphics work was able to be
done in house in 2011. Also, approximately $10,000 was planned for translation services
in 2011, but due to other priorities, this work has been moved to 2012.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• Expenditures in the Organized Recreation and Park Maintenance Divisions will exceed
budget by 2% to 3%. This was expected due to the seasonal nature of the expenditures in
these divisions.
• The Environment Division will exceed budget by approximately 7% due to additional
tree work permitted by the mild winter. This division also received State grant revenue
for tree maintenance, which is why Intergovernmental Revenue in the Park & Recreation
Fund will exceed budget for the year.
• Total expenses in the Vehicle Maintenance Division will exceed budget by
approximately 12% for the year. Motor fuel expense is at 115% of budget, due mainly to
snow removal costs incurred in the first quarter of 2011. Repair and maintenance
services have also been higher than budget this year, as there have been many
unanticipated equipment repairs requiring external service and labor work. Repair
expenses related to accidents will be analyzed and reimbursed through a transfer from the
Uninsured Loss Fund if applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues – General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures – General Fund and Park & Recreation
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2010 2011 2011 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Dec YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,061,268$ 15,426,072$ 15,372,076$ 53,996$ 99.65%
Licenses and Permits 2,359,094 2,345,910 2,801,255 (455,345) 119.41%
Fines & Forfeits 401,554 328,200 260,805 67,395 79.47%
Intergovernmental 1,578,946 1,136,187 1,229,595 (93,408) 108.22%
Charges for Services 1,125,867 1,152,643 965,761 186,882 83.79%
Miscellaneous Revenue 130,265 100,150 128,654 (28,504) 128.46%
Transfers In 2,588,235 2,589,876 2,550,876 39,000 98.49%
Investment Earnings 105,927 200,000 - 200,000 0.00%
Other Income 28,128 4,750 22,686 (17,936) 477.60%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,379,284$ 23,283,788$ 23,331,708$ (47,920)$ 100.21%
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,014,872$ 4,000,561$ 4,000,561$ -$ 100.00%
Licenses and Permits 622 6,600 110 6,490 1.67%
Intergovernmental 89,631 77,652 149,875 (72,223) 193.01%
Charges for Services 1,022,826 1,095,250 1,095,439 (189) 100.02%
Miscellaneous Revenue 954,739 937,400 860,507 76,893 91.80%
Other Income 63,126 15,000 6,708 8,292 44.72%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,145,818$ 6,132,463$ 6,113,199$ 19,264$ 99.69%
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of December 31, 2011 (Preliminary)
Study Session Meeting of Feburary 13, 2012 (Item No. 14)
Subject: December 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
2010 2011 2011 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Dec YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Government:
Administration 840,147$ 889,798$ 840,217$ 49,581$ 94.43%
Accounting 562,372 612,964 600,978 11,986 98.04%
Assessing 488,548 500,141 506,076 (5,935) 101.19%
Human Resources 593,329 652,770 628,995 23,775 96.36%
Community Development 1,019,114 1,094,186 1,082,258 11,928 98.91%
Facilities Maintenance 952,856 1,114,551 951,001 163,550 85.33%
Information Resources 1,384,228 1,394,226 1,420,584 (26,358) 101.89%
Communications & Marketing 241,465 294,470 256,537 37,933 87.12%
Community Outreach 81,530 88,515 84,300 4,215 95.24%
Total General Government 6,163,588$ 6,641,621$ 6,370,946$ 270,675$ 95.92%
Public Safety:
Police 6,986,658$ 7,148,512$ 6,934,184$ 214,328$ 97.00%
Fire Protection 2,989,550 3,164,344 3,061,860 102,484 96.76%
Inspectional Services 1,729,156 1,863,296 1,818,075 45,221 97.57%
Total Public Safety 11,705,363$ 12,176,152$ 11,814,120$ 362,032$ 97.03%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 872,845$ 829,698$ 803,282$ 26,416$ 96.82%
Public Works Engineering 798,240 846,032 816,204 29,828 96.47%
Public Works Operations 2,575,138 2,550,285 2,462,110 88,175 96.54%
Total Public Works 4,246,224$ 4,226,015$ 4,081,596$ 144,419$ 96.58%
Non-Departmental:
General 278,554$ 60,000$ 76,397$ (16,397)$ 127.33%
Transfers Out 1,800,000 - - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 2,078,554$ 240,000$ 76,397$ 163,603$ 31.83%
Total General Fund Expenditures 24,193,729$ 23,283,788$ 22,343,058$ 940,730$ 95.96%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,171,301$ 1,239,230$ 1,262,708$ (23,478)$ 101.89%
Recreation Center 1,364,584 1,442,447 1,423,943 18,504 98.72%
Park Maintenance 1,413,840 1,435,374 1,472,828 (37,454) 102.61%
Westwood 488,258 502,366 488,499 13,867 97.24%
Environment 366,887 371,324 398,063 (26,739) 107.20%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,258,156 1,141,722 1,268,492 (126,770) 111.10%
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,063,026$ 6,132,463$ 6,314,534$ (182,071)$ 102.97%
Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of December 31, 2011 (Preliminary)
Study Session Meeting of Feburary 13, 2012 (Item No. 14)
Subject: December 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 15
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:
2012-2013 Wellness Incentive Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for informational purposes in
anticipation of future Council action.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to have more detailed information provided on the proposed Wellness
Incentive Program for 2012-2013?
BACKGROUND:
Why provide a wellness incentive? As health care costs continue to rise year after year, we have
searched for ways to keep our premiums low. Methods such as switching health care providers,
offering consumer driven health plans, creating VEBA/HRA accounts, and reducing plan options
have been implemented. At a certain point, the only remaining way to lower costs is to have
healthier employees. We can attempt to make employees healthier by focusing on prevention
and targeting specific behavior changes.
In 2011, the City Council approved the first Wellness Incentive Program, which provided
employees an additional $25 per month in Employer Contribution in 2012 for completing
required wellness activities in 2011. The wellness activities needed to be undertaken to be
eligible for the incentive included a health risk assessment questionnaire, must be tobacco-free
(or participating in a cessation program), biometric screen, flu shot, and preventive
medical/dental exams.
How many people participated? We exceeded expectations and had 177 employees (of 245
eligible, or 72%) qualify in 2011 and are receiving the incentive in 2012.
How can we keep the momentum going? This program is in the beginning stages of an ongoing
and evolving strategic wellness program. Our long term goal is to continue and improve upon
the program to achieve results that align employee behaviors to desired healthy outcomes.
The first year’s requirements were participation based only. For the second year, it is
recommended that additional criteria are added in which behavior change is targeted. Our health
insurer, HealthPartners, has programs available (either three telephonic coaching sessions or an
eight week online program) focused on behavior change in the areas of physical activity,
nutrition, tobacco cessation, weight management, stress management, chemical health, emotional
health, back health, cholesterol, blood pressure management, and others.
In order to receive the 2013 wellness incentive, employees will be required to complete the
participation-based requirements (same as previous year), plus one behavior change program
(either telephonic or online) as described above.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 15) Page 2
Subject: 2012-2013 Wellness Incentive Program
What is the recommended 2013 incentive amount? Because the required criteria for achieving
the incentive have increased, it is recommended that the incentive be increased as well. The
incentive for 2012 was $25/month for participation activities.
It is recommended that the City of St. Louis Park provide $35 per month in 2013 as additional
Employer Contribution to employees who successfully meet the requirements of the Wellness
Incentive Program in 2012. This is an increase of $10 to the 2012 amount. The 2013 Employer
Contribution amount has not yet been determined, but a recommendation of this amount will be
provided to Council (based on premium increases and budget) in fall 2012.
Other info? Future incentives, if any, will be recommended to Council after review of the
previous year. It is recommended that the full Wellness Incentive amount be provided to ALL
benefit earning employees who successfully meet program requirements (i.e., not pro-rated for
part-time employees).
NEXT STEPS:
• If Council has no comments on this program, the item will be presented at the next
regular meeting as a consent item for approval.
• We have negotiated into union contracts automatic participation in whatever incentive the
Council approves for the regular non-union groups.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
If approved, the Wellness Incentive amount will be reflected in the 2013 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Offering a competitive benefits package helps in the recruitment and retention of connected,
engaged, and diverse staff.
Attachment: Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 15) Page 3
Subject: 2012-2013 Wellness Incentive Program
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 12-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING
2012-2013 WELLNESS INCENTIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective
means for providing employee group benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council establishes contribution amounts for each calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as
approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans; and
WHEREAS, organizations with healthy staff often report higher morale and productivity,
and lower absenteeism and health costs; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage and incent staff to participate in activities
designed to improve the health and wellness of our staff to reap more of the aforementioned
benefits;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that a Wellness Incentive Program is approved as follows:
• Benefit-eligible employees who successfully complete the components of the program as
determined by the City Manager in 2012 are eligible for the incentive in 2013, and
• The amount of the incentive is set at $35 per month as additional Employer Contribution
in 2013. This amount is not pro-rated for part time employees (will be provided in full),
and
• The City Manager has the authority to set final program criteria, determine if criteria has
been met, and has complete authority in awarding the incentive to staff.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 21, 2012
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: February 13, 2012
Agenda Item #: 16
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:
2011 Solid Waste Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of solid waste activities in 2011.
The information in this report may be helpful in the discussion at this same study session on the
future of the City’s solid waste program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any concerns or questions relating to the solid waste program? If so,
please contact staff.
BACKGROUND:
On October 1, 2008 the City entered into a 5-year contract with Eureka Recycling for collection
and processing of recycling materials and with Waste Management for the collection and
disposal of garbage and yard waste.
Each year staff prepares a report that summarizes the solid waste program activities that occurred
during the previous year. The report includes the following information: amount of materials
collected, customer’s level of service, recycling participation, SCORE Grant, City clean up days
data, county household hazardous waste event data for the event held in SLP, program education,
educational tagging, performance indicators, solid waste program finances, and future goals &
initiatives.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As noted in the attached report, the Refuse Fund has a healthy fund balance.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic
Direction adopted by the City Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Public Works Department
2011 Solid Waste Program
Annual Report
February 7, 2012
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 2
1. PURPOSE
This report summarizes the activities of the residential Solid Waste Program for 2011.
The purpose of the Solid Waste program is to provide a service responsive to citizens’ needs to
ensure a vital community. Program goals include: High Quality Service, Environmental
Stewardship, Cost Effective Services, Effective Communication, and the Continual Evaluation of
the Program and Industry.
2. COLLECTION
• Summary
The numbers in this report include tonnages as reported from Waste Management and
Eureka Recycling for 2011. Garbage, yard waste and recycling is collected at the curb on
a daily basis. Additionally, Waste Management collects garbage and bulky recyclable
materials at the annual spring and fall clean up events.
Garbage and recycling tonnages are slightly down from 2010, and yard waste is up. The
decrease in garbage and recycling may be indicative of a down economy. The increase
in yard waste could be due to the mild weather conditions and lack of snow cover into
November.
The following table summarizes the tonnages collected for garbage, recycling, and yard
waste for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The tonnages include materials collected curbside and
at the clean up events. Clean up event information can be found in section 3.
Yearly Collection Summary
Item Tons Collected % Change
2010 - 2011 2009 2010 2011
Garbage 8,799 8,505 8,429 -0.9
Recycling 3,487 3,529 3,306 - 6.3
Yard Waste 3,663 2,785 3,138 + 11.2
Total 15,949 14,819 14,873
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 3
Yearly Collection Summary
Year Tons Collected Total Garbage Recycling Yard Waste
1987 17,623 1,727 2,364 21,714
1988 14,317 2,482 2,521 19,320
1989 13,616 2,978 3,297 19,891
1990 12,296 3,270 3,288 18,854
1991 10,979 3,840 2,941 17,760
1992 10,836 4,098 3,774 18,708
1993 10,487 4,011 3,987 18,485
1994 10,519 4,131 3,639 18,289
1995 10,241 4,147 3,639 18,027
1996 10,462 3,902 4,246 18,610
1997 11,703 3,924 3,818 19,445
1998 10,243 3,588 4,128 17,959
1999 10,064 3,820 4,871 18,755
2000 10,005 4,033 3,942 17,980
2001 10,401 3,290 3,796 17,487
2002 10,188 3,525 3,679 17,392
2003 9,821 3,614 3,511 16,946
2004 8,946 4,339 3,997 17,282
2005 9,018 4,436 3,720 17,174
2006 9,000 4,251 3,405 15,656
2007 9,300 3,861 3,039 16,200
2008 9,031 3,562 3,651 16,244
2009 8,799 3,652 3,487 15,949
2010 8,505 3,529 2,785 14,819
2011 8,429 3,306 3,138 14,873
Total 264,830 91,151 88,839 444,820
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 4
• Service Levels
The City of St. Louis Park has a volume based pay-as-you-throw program designed to
encourage recycling and waste reduction. Residents are free to choose the service level
and cart size that best fits their needs. Residents may choose from 12 levels of service
using combinations of 30-, 60-, or 90-gallon carts.
Customers by Level of Service
Service Level
2009
Monthly
Average1
2010
Monthly
Average
2011
Monthly
Average
30 gallons 4,087 4,105 4,136
60 gallons 5,728 5,748 5,748
90 gallons 2,045 2,078 2,075
120 gallons 0 99 94
120-180 gallons 381 n/a n/a
150 gallons 0 39 36
180 gallons 0 183 168
210 gallons 0 1 1
240 gallons 0 2 2
270 gallons 23 18 18
360 gallons 14 13 12
450 gallons 1 1 1
540 gallons 1 1 1
Avg. Total Customers 12,280 12,288 12,292
1 Level of Service 120-180 gallons was no longer offered starting in 2010.
• Garbage Tonnages
Garbage tonnages include collection of carts, bulky items at the curb and clean up
events1, and recycling residuals2. Waste Management collected garbage from January 1
- December 31, 2011.
The table below shows the breakdown of garbage tonnages collected from residents in
2009, 2010 and 2011. The tonnages collected in 2011 were lower than in 2009 and
2010, which is consistent with what was experienced across the metro area.
1 Bulk items include household goods such as sofas, fans, basketballs, yard and garden equipment, and pianos that
are disposed of as garbage.
2 Recycling residuals include items picked up from recycling bins that are not recyclable and are therefore disposed
of as garbage. Eureka collects and reports on recycling residuals.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 5
Garbage Collection Summary
Item Tons Collected
2009 2010 2011
Carts 8,304 8,101 7,934
Bulky Items 452 363 450
Clean Up Events 21 29 36
Recycling Residuals 22 12 9
Total 8,799 8,505 8,429
Note the significant decrease in the amount of recycling residuals over the past three
years. This may suggest that residents are doing a better job of keeping non-recyclables
out of their recycling bins.
• Recycling Participation
Participation and set-out rates, along with recycling tonnages, were slightly lower in
2011. Recycling participation is reported two ways:
1. The set-out rate is the average number of households that set materials out for
recycling collection on a given day. For example, every Monday for one month,
collection drivers count the number of households that set out recycling on that day.
Then the four numbers are averaged to determine the average number of
households who set out recycling on a given Monday.
2. The participation rate is the number of households who set materials out for
recycling collection at least once over a period of one month (October is measured
by the County annually) as compared to the total number of households in the
program (100%). The participation rate is a better indication of overall recycling
participation because it includes households that recycle at least once a month,
recognizing that some households may not set out recycling every week. It more
8,799 8,505 8,429
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2009 2010 2011Tons Collected Garbage Collection
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 6
accurately indicates how many households are participating in the recycling program
overall, as opposed to the number of participants on a specific day.
The table below shows yearly participation in the recycling program.
Year Set-Out Rate Participation
2007 n/a 67%
2008 n/a 71%
2009 67% 89%
2010 67% 90%
2011 66% 88%
Participation shows an increase in 2009 because of the contract changes in October
2008. The methodology changed in 2009 because Eureka calculates participation over a
4 consecutive week period for a sample area of the city. Waste Management calculated
participation for the entire city on a given day.
• Recycling Tonnages
Recycling includes collection at the curb and clean up events. Eureka collected bin
materials at the curb. Waste Management collected appliances, tires, metal and
electronics at the curb and clean up events. Shred-it shredded and recycled the paper,
and USAgain collected and reused/recycled the textiles.
Recycling tonnages have slightly fluctuated over the past three years, as shown in the
table below. In general, recycling tonnages have declined in Hennepin County and the
metro area. The city is working closely with Hennepin County on ways to increase
tonnages collected within the city.
Recycling Collection Summary
Item Tons Collected
2009 2010 2011
Bins 3,452 3,490 3,254
Appliances 1 26 25 26
Electronics 2 4 7 8
Tires .6 .5 1
Metal 2 5 7
Bikes .2 1 2
Mattresses n/a n/a 4
Shredded Paper n/a n/a 3
Textiles n/a n/a 1
Household Goods 1.5 .4 1
Total 3,486 3,529 3,307
1 Appliance tonnages are based on Hennepin County ReTRAC
conversion of 150lbs per appliance.
2 Electronic tonnages are based on Hennepin County ReTRAC
conversion of 70lbs per electronic (changed in 2009 from 75lbs).
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 7
• SCORE Grant
The city received a SCORE grant of $103,166 from Hennepin County in 2011. The grant
agreement requires the city to make reasonable efforts to meet or exceed the average
pounds per household of recyclables collected from the residential recycling program in
the base year of 2007.3
The base year pounds per household is determined by dividing the total pounds of
recyclables collected in 2007 by the total number of households participating in the
curbside recycling program in 2007.
Failure to achieve this annual goal will result in the requirement that a plan be submitted
for Hennepin County approval that specifies the efforts the recycling program will
undertake to increase the recycling percentage within 90 days of the submittal of the
municipal or consortium year-end report. If the average pounds per household in any
given year decreases from the base year by more than 10%, the County reserves the right
to withhold that municipality’s grant funds until the County is satisfied that reasonable
efforts have been made to maintain the base year pounds per household. The County has
indicated the city’s SCORE grant will not be impacted by the 18% reduction in pounds
per household.
The table below shows the comparison between 2011 and the 2007 base year.
Recycling Pounds per Household
Item Base Year
2007 2011 Change
Pounds Collected 7,722,000 6,612,000 - 1,100,000
# of Households (HH) 12,220 12,350 + 130
Pounds/HH 631 535 - 18%
3 The base year metric will be replaced with multiple performance measurements starting in 2012.
3,486 3,529 3,307
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2009 2010 2011Tons Collected Recycling Collection
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 8
• Yard Waste
Yard waste increased from 2010 and 2011 with the largest increase occurring in October
and November. The increase in yard waste could be due to the mild weather conditions
and lack of snow cover. Additionally, the amount of yard waste also depends upon
residents’ use of the yard waste program.
Waste Management continued collecting pumpkins, along with yard waste, in November
2011. The goal is to remove pumpkins from the garbage and compost them along with
yard waste either by collecting them curbside or through backyard composting.
About 65% of the city’s households have the “No Grass Clippings” yard waste option.
Many residents leave their grass clippings on the lawn or use them in compost bins. The
City continues to promote residential composting.
The graph below shows yard waste tonnages collected from residents in 2009, 2010 and
2011.
3. CLEAN UP EVENTS
Two clean up events were held for St. Louis Park residents in 2011, and one household
hazardous waste event and one medication take back were held for Hennepin County
residents. The spring and fall clean up events were sponsored by Waste Management and
the household hazardous waste and medication take back events were sponsored by
Hennepin County.
• Spring and Fall Clean Up Events
The spring and fall clean up events were held on June 11 and October 1 at the Junior
High from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
3,663
2,785 3,138
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2009 2010 2011Tons Collected Yard Waste Collection
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 9
The table below summarizes the items collected at the clean up events. In 2011, the
events attracted 1,147 vehicles and collected a total of 44 tons of material. Of this,
about 55% was recycled and 45% was trash.
Cleanup Event Collection Summary
Item 2009 2010 2011
Trash 14.49 tons 22.69 tons 29.74 tons
C & D 1 7.04 tons 6.39 tons 5.80 tons
Metal 2.38 tons 4.97 tons 7.18 tons
Tires 58 tires 49 tires 106 tires
Electronics 2.99 tons 6.32 tons 6.84 tons
Appliances 96 appliances 181 appliances 235 appliances
Mattresses n/a n/a 43 mattresses
Paper Shredding n/a n/a 2.75 tons
Textiles n/a n/a 0.55 ton
Household Goods (reuse) .10 ton .40 ton 1.32 tons
Bikes (reuse) 18 bikes 113 bikes 184 bikes
Attendees 434 vehicles 750 vehicles 1,147 vehicles
1 C & D is Construction and Demolition debris (not recycled, considered trash)
• 2011 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event
Hennepin County sponsors annual Household Hazardous Waste collection events
throughout the county. St. Louis Park hosted one of the events, which was held at the
Economic Development Authority parking lot in the southwest quadrant of Highway 7 &
Louisiana Avenue. The event was free and open to all Hennepin County residents. The
collection event was held on June 8-11 from 9am to 4pm, which coincided with the
spring clean up event. There were a total of 1,939 vehicles that dropped off 128,600
pounds of hazardous waste.
Household Hazardous Waste Totals
Year # of Vehicles Pounds
2007 1,770 120,779
2008 1,323 89,110
2009 1,843 142,664
2010 1,682 169,339
2011 1,939 128,600
• 2011 Medication Take Back Event
The Hennepin County Medication Take Back event was held on September 24 from
10am to 2pm in the parking lot in the southwest quadrant of Highway 7 & Louisiana.
Hennepin County provided residents the opportunity to properly and safely dispose of
their unwanted, unused and expired medicines. The event was free and open to
Hennepin County residents only. There were a total of 606 participants that dropped
off 1,510 pounds of medications.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 10
4. PROGRAM EDUCATION
Program education is a joint effort by the City, Eureka, and Waste Management. The
contract requires the haulers to facilitate ongoing communication with residents, host an
annual open house for all residents, offer tours of its facilities, provide articles for publication
or distribution, and assist the city with other educational efforts.
Staff provides public information and education through various media to encourage waste
reduction and recycling. Educational efforts in 2011 were focused on textile recycling,
recycling bin wheel kits, and the addition of pizza boxes to the recycling stream.
Staff participated in the following educational efforts in 2011:
− Park Perspective articles
− Individual mailings
− Visited with residents
− Earth and Arbor Day Celebration
− National Night Out
− Cable television and the city’s external
web site
− Used Social Media to inform and
engage residents
− Distributed information at the spring
and fall cleanup events
− Tagging
− Presented an overview of the city’s
solid waste program to the Master
Recycler class
− Presented the city’s role in garbage
collection to the kindergartner class at
Peter Hobart Elementary
− Created a recycling bin wheel kit video
• Tagging
Tagging involves haulers leave an educational tag on the cart, bin, or yard waste
container when non-compliance issues are found. The tables below show tagging totals
for Eureka and Waste Management.
Eureka Tag Summary
Tag Description Number of Tags Issued
2009 2010 2011
Not Out by 7am 172 311 365
Used Plastic Bags 5,910 8,002 8,477
Plastic Bottles Only 12,207 11,616 8,697
Non-Recyclable 8,052 14,762 21,665
Not Sorted Properly 6,956 13,011 16,904
Cardboard Not Flattened/Too Large 811 861 922
Textiles 111 321 173
Cannot Accept Hazardous Materials 2,161 1,749 1,771
Extra Bins Needed 188 155 34
Bin Placement 1 n/a 1,689 606
Pizza Boxes 2 n/a n/a 655
Thank You For Recycling Properly 67 1,916 2,362
Total 36,635 54,393 62,631
1 Bin Placement tag introduced in November 2010. 2 Pizza Box tag introduced in September 2011.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 11
Eureka issued 62,631 educational tags in 2011. The breakdown by month is shown in the
graph below.
Waste Management’s tag summary is shown in the table below.
Waste Management Tag Summary
Tag Description Number of Tags Issued
2009 2010 2011
Cart in Street 2,065 2,984 1,818
Bulk Items 2,219 2,706 3,244
Extra Refuse Stickers 1,298 977 969
Overfilled Cart 1,566 725 468
Branches Not Cut & Bundled 14 372 246
Yard Waste in Garbage 583 617 182
Unbagged/Loose Trash 401 56 16
Miscellaneous Tags 1 679 589 410
Total 8,825 9,026 7,353
1 Total of the remaining tags.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 12
Waste Management issued 7,353 educational tags in 2011. The breakdown by month is
shown in the graph below.
5. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Staff and City Council have developed solid waste performance indicators that measure
quality and cost of the program in order to better monitor the contractor and better evaluate
the Solid Waste Program goals.
The continual monitoring, evaluation and responsiveness to residents should ultimately
increase the level of resident satisfaction with the solid waste program.
The Performance Indicators attachment shows the tracking of specific indicators for the
program.
6. FINANCES
During 2011, the total revenues were $2,660,318 and the total expenditures were $2,593,995.
In 2011, Hennepin County garbage disposal charges were $45/ton, increasing from $43/ton
in 2010. In 2011, the yard waste disposal was $43/ton (May-Aug. during the emerald ash
flight period) and $38/ton during the other months, similar to the cost in 2010.
The Refuse Fund balance at the end of 2011 is estimated to be $2,313,873, which reflects an
increase of $66,323 or 2.95% from 2010. The increase is mostly the result of recycling
revenue sharing. Capital reserves are being held for the future purchase of yard waste /
organics carts / recycling carts. The Finance Department has recommended maintaining a
minimum fund balance of $665,080 (three months of revenue), beyond what is needed for
capital expenditures.
See the attached graph for fund balance details. The 2012-2014 projections come from the
Utility Rate Study done by Elhers.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 13
7. FUTURE GOALS AND INITIATIVES
The ultimate goal of the program is to increase recycling, reduce refuse and yard waste
collected, and reduce service issues. Specific goals and initiatives include:
− Partner with Hennepin County on outreach efforts aimed at increasing recycling
− Partner with Hennepin County Master Recycler’s to improve multifamily recycling
− Research options for a multi-family recycling program
− Research options for residential curbside organics collection
− Conduct a resident survey to measure solid waste customer service satisfaction
− Work with haulers to expand the list of items collected and recycled to reduce the amount
of garbage going to the incinerator (HERC).
Attachments:
− Refuse Fund Balance Chart (1993-2014)
− Performance Indicators
O:\Pubwks\Solid Waste\Reports - City\2011\2011 Annual SW Report.doc
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 14
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 15
ST. LOUIS PARK SOLID WASTE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Indicators
Waste Management Eureka
Target
Measure 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Target
Measure 2008 2009 2010 2011
Recycling Rate 1 N/A 42% 42% 42% 45% 43% N/A N/A N/A N/A 45% 44% 45% 43% 43%
Recycling Participation Rate 2 N/A 59% 73% 69% 71% 67% N/A N/A N/A N/A 85% 71% 89% 90% 88%
Recycling Set Out Rate 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% N/A 67% 67% 66%
Households HH (Customers) N/A 12,207 12,220 12,219 12,217 12,220 12,225 12,280 12,288 12,292 N/A 12,225 12,280 12,288 12,292
Recycling (Ton/HH) 0.40 0.29 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.40 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.27
Recycling (Cost/HH) $48 $32 $28 $29 $29 $31 N/A N/A N/A N/A $48 $32 $36 $33 $34
Recycling (Cost/Ton) $120 $109 $82 $82 $88 $97 N/A N/A N/A N/A $120 $110 $127 $116 $125
Garbage (Ton/HH) 0.75 0.81 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.69 0.69 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Garbage (Cost/HH) $156 $97 $97 $101 $101 $100 $100 $92 $95 $96 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Garbage (Cost/Ton) $208 $130 $132 $135 $134 $141 $135 $128 $136 $140 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Yard Waste (Ton/HH) 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.26 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Yard Waste (Cost/HH) $36 $24 $26 $26 $26 $25 $30 $36 $32 $34 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Yard Waste (Cost/Ton) $144 $84 $79 $86 $91 $100 $99 $120 $143 $134 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Complaints 4 ≤ 40 17 64 64 62 50 77 34 21 43 ≤ 20 5 18 21 12
Missed Pickups ≤ 416 1,225 529 315 498 379 498 200 216 245 ≤ 104 150 169 188 87
Contract Penalties 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 0 0 1 2 0
Program Satisfaction 5 90% N/A N/A N/A 85% N/A N/A 91% N/A 93% N/A N/A 93% N/A 93%
Customer Service Satisfaction 5 80% N/A N/A 81% N/A N/A N/A N/A 92% N/A N/A N/A N/A 90% N/A
NOTE: The 2008 recycling numbers for Waste Management were combined under Eureka. Recycling Target Measures were determined through discussions with Eureka and are based on the current recycling program.
1 Recycling Rate % = Recycling Tonnage/(Recycling Tonnage + Garbage Tonnage) x 100. Recycling tonnage includes bin recyclables, tires, metal, electronics, appliances, textiles, and yard waste.
2 Recycling Participation Rate is the number of households that set out materials at least once over a period of one month, usually measured annually in October.
3 Set out rate is the average number of households that set out materials on any given day.
4 The Complaint category includes Litter, Property Damage, and Complaints. It only includes the Complaint category starting in 2010. The new Target Measure was determined by averaging
the total complaints from 2003-2008. Actual complaints were 5% lower than the old target measure. Using 5% as a guide, the new Target Measure is 60 complaints per year, with 2/3 allowed for Waste Management and 1/3 for
Eureka, which is based on the number of touches per address.
5 Satisfaction with the program is taken from the Solid Waste Program Survey results.
6 Satisfaction with customer service is taken from the Solid Waste Customer Service Survey results.
Study Session Meeting of February 13, 2012 (Item No. 16)
Subject: 2011 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 16