HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/05/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 14, 2012
6:15 p.m. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEW – Westwood Room
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 21 and May 29, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. CAR Properties, LLC’s Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application
to Renovate the Former Home Hardware Building at 6414 West Lake Street
3. 7:00 p.m. Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
4. 7:45 p.m. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
5. 8:30 p.m. 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program
6. 9:00 p.m. National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
7. 9:30 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:35 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. Wild Animal Feeding Ordinance Amendment
9. MN GreenStep Cities Update
10. Administrative Penalties - Next Steps
11. Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
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: May 14, 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 – May 21 and May 29, 2012.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session scheduled
for May 21 and for the regularly scheduled Study Session on May 29, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas 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 a Special Study Session scheduled for May 21 and for the regularly scheduled Study
Session on May 29, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 21 and May 29, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 21 and May 29, 2012
Special Study Session, May 21, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Brewery Tap Room – Community Development (50 minutes)
Staff will provide Council with information for consideration of a request from Steel Toe
Brewing to allow a tap room at its brewery in the Beltline Industrial Park. This would require
St. Louis Park to adopt rules and regulations by amending both the zoning ordinance to allow
tap rooms as a land use change, and liquor licensing ordinance provisions.
Study Session, May 29, 2012 (Tuesday) – 6:30 p.m.
(Mayor Jacobs Out)
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Voter ID Constitutional Amendment – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Staff will provide information on the Voter ID constitutional amendment question that will
be on the November 6, 2012 ballot and how this may impact the City of St. Louis Park.
3. Environmental Task Force – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Council will review applications submitted from residents for the Environmental Task Force.
4. Storm Water Follow-Up – Wetlands Inventory – Public Works (45 minutes)
Provide Council information requested pertaining to wetland inventory, classification, and
management in the City.
5. Storm Water Follow-Up – Pond Classifications and Treatments – Public Works (30 minutes)
Provide Council with information regarding the possible classification and treatment of
storm water ponds in the city.
6. Sidewalks and Trails – Public Works (30 minutes)
Continue the discussion on proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway segments being considered
by the Council.
7. 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
8. April 2012 Financial Report
9. Misc. Minor Code Amendments for Animals, Nuisances and Licensing
End of Meeting: 9:25 p.m.
Meeting Date: May 14, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Public Hearing
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
CAR Properties, LLC’s Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application to Renovate the
Former Home Hardware Building at 6414 West Lake St.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff wishes to receive feedback on CAR Properties, LLC’s application for financial assistance
from the Construction Assistance Program relative to renovating 6414 West Lake St.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to provide up to $25,000 in financial assistance through the Construction
Assistance Program (CAP) to assist in the renovation of 6414 West Lake St. so as to bring the
property up to code as well as retain and attract commercial tenants?
BACKGROUND:
The subject building is located in the Lenox neighborhood near the intersection of Wooddale and
West Lake Street. It was originally constructed in the 1950’s within a strip of commercial
buildings and has always been a hardware store. Due to the death of the previous owner and
issues with the Do It Best franchise, an auction was held and the building was sold. Mr. Curt
Rahman acquired the building last month. The building has moderately good traffic visibility
due to its proximity near the senior high school and its athletic fields.
The Applicant
CAR Properties is a single member LLC created by St. Louis Park-resident Curt Rahman. In the last
twelve years Mr. Rahman has purchased, renovated and successfully filled several buildings in the
city with numerous small businesses. Mr. Rahman’s past projects include:
• 6418/6420 West Lake Street. In 2000 Mr. Rahman purchased and made extensive repairs to
this property. It has been completely leased for twelve years. Current tenants include: Alota
Pilates, Sara Mattson Skin Care, Thai Healing Therapy, Carolyn's Floral, and Non-toxique.
• 3333 Republic. In 2008 Mr. Rahman purchased, made numerous upgrades and leased the
property to PDA.
• 6416 West Lake Street (next door to subject property). Mr. Rahman acquired the old
Palm's Bakery building in 2009. Due to age and neglect, renovating the building proved
to be a considerable challenge. The building is currently rented to Munchies.
• 3540 Dakota (former Bikemasters building). Mr. Rahman purchased and renovated this
building in 2010 for which he received a $70,000 CAP loan. With the EDA’s assistance
he fully renovated the building (both interior and exterior) and added new energy
efficient HVAC equipment. Today, the building is fully leased with 6 tenants (the
anchor tenant is Minneapolis Window Shade), which employ a total of 23 workers.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No.2) Page 2
Subject: CAR Properties, LLC’s Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application
The Proposed Project
Despite its use as a former hardware store, the 6414 West Lake Street building has been
neglected for some time. CAR Properties plans to make necessary repairs and renovate the
building. To date, the building has been emptied, and some repairs have been made but many
code deficiencies remain to be addressed before a certificate of occupancy could be issued.
Renovation will include new roof, a new front window, new energy efficient HVAC equipment,
as well as remodeling the bathroom and making other various repairs so as to make the building
code compliant. The 6416 building next door, which Mr. Rahman also owns, is in need of a new
roof as well. With the close configuration of the two buildings it is most efficient to repair the
roofs of both buildings simultaneously. Upon renovation Mr. Rahman expects to lease the 6414
West Lake Street property to another commercial tenant. He has already received numerous
inquiries on the space.
Current/Estimated Market Value
The subject property’s current assessed value is $142,100 and is declining. Upon renovation and
tenancy the property’s value should stabilize.
Job Creation
The proposed repair and renovation work would result in several temporary construction jobs.
Additional employment opportunities would result from the future commercial tenant.
Project Schedule
CAR Properties is anxious to begin the proposed work as soon as possible and have it all
completed this summer.
Land Use
The subject property is guided and zoned C2 – General Commercial. The renovated building
would be suitable for a variety of retail, service and office uses. It is located in the Walker/Lake
commercial area, a “Priority Redevelopment Area” as listed in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed investment in the 6414 building could potentially serve as a catalyst for similar
renovations in the neighborhood.
Request for Financial Assistance
The total estimated cost to renovate the subject building as described above is approximately
$76,500. Based on its review of the proposed renovations, staff believes CAR Properties’ cost
assumptions are reasonable and appropriate. Of this amount, CAR Properties has applied for up
to $25,000 in Construction Assistance. This amount equals 33% of total estimated project costs;
the maximum amount for which businesses may apply under the CAP Policy.
Mr. Rahman currently has two lines of credit available to him; one of which has been maximized
for expenses on this and other properties. Since the subject building is vacant it has no income
and will lose money at a rate in excess of $25,000 per year. To maintain adequate cash flow on
the subject property as well as for emergencies on other buildings he owns, Mr. Rahman needs to
keep a substantial portion of his remaining credit line available. Therefore, the most he is
allowed to spend on repairs to the subject building is $50,000.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No.2) Page 3
Subject: CAR Properties, LLC’s Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application
Financial Need
As expressed in the CAP Policy, proposed financial assistance is based upon demonstrated
need. A business or building owner must provide the EDA with written evidence that the
requested assistance is warranted and necessary and without such assistance the project
would be unable to proceed. Based upon the submitted documentation it is clear that CAR
Properties is unable to undertake all the necessary repairs to the subject building without the
EDA’s financial assistance.
Structure of CAP Funds
Should the EDA wish to financially assist the proposed project, funds would be provided to CAR
Properties on a reimbursement basis upon prove-up that qualified construction costs were
incurred. The reimbursement would be structured as a forgivable loan. Provided the building is
held and properly maintained by CAR Properties for 5 years after project completion, the
entirety of the loan would be forgiven. If the property is sold within 5 years of project
completion, the entirety of the loan must be repaid in full along with 6% accrued interest
from the date funding was provided.
Proposed Funding Source
The source of the CAP funds is unallocated pooled tax increment generated by eight of the City’s
TIF districts which would be disbursed from the Development Fund.
Compliance with the Construction Assistance Program Policy
The goal of the Construction Assistance Program is to improve the city’s
commercial/industrial building stock by constructing new structures or rehabilitating
existing ones so as to increase property values, attract and retain jobs as well as stimulate
additional private investment in the city. The resulting new investment should result in a
higher market value for the underlying property consistent with the city’s Comprehensive
Plan. The project should also have the potential to serve as a catalyst for additional
neighborhood investment. The repair and substantial renovation of the 6414 and 6416 West
Lake Street buildings as proposed by CAR Properties meets all of the objectives for funding
as expressed in the CAP Policy.
Compliance with Green Building Policy
Since CAR Properties’ request for financial assistance is less than $200,000 it is exempt from the
City’s recently-adopted Green Building Policy. The proposed financial assistance would
however be applied toward the cost of purchasing energy efficient HVAC equipment for the
building.
Next Steps
If the EDA is supportive of CAR Properties’ application for CAP assistance, staff would begin
drafting a proposed Redevelopment Contract with the applicant. Such a contract would likely be
brought back to the EDA for formal consideration on June 4th.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing CAR Properties, LLC with up to $25,000 under the Construction Assistance Program
to repair and renovate the properties at 6414/6416 West Lake Street. Such funds would be
provided as a forgivable loan from tax increment generated by the City’s various TIF districts.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No.2) Page 4
Subject: CAR Properties, LLC’s Construction Assistance Program (CAP) Application
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Renovating existing buildings through the Construction Assistance Program is consistent with
elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and promotes environmental stewardship and
green development.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report and discussion is to update the Council on recent project development
activities, financial activities, and status of the public art process related to this project – Project
No. 2012-0100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the revisions/additions to the public art
project being proposed for this project?
Does the City Council have any specific questions on the overall project, financing, etc?
(As noted later in this report, the Council will need to make a decision on whether it wishes to
commit to undertaking this project by later this spring or summer.)
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) indentifies the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
intersection as a priority improvement project. The proposed project, which provides for the
construction of a grade-separated interchange at Louisiana Avenue and Highway 7, also includes
pedestrian and bicycle friendly improvements along with re-configuration of the frontage roads
in order to improve access, safety, and traffic flow for both the Highway 7 corridor and
Louisiana Avenue. This proposed improvement is essential in meeting long term transportation
and safety needs of both Mn/DOT and the City.
Project Purpose and Need
The primary purpose of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project is to address
deteriorating safety and operational conditions at the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
intersection. These deficient conditions are resulting in numerous crashes and causing high
levels of congestion. In conjunction with the proposed project, there are also opportunities to
improve pedestrian and bicycle movements across Highway 7 that are anticipated to increase
with the construction and operation of a future LRT Station along Louisiana Avenue. In
addition, the transportation improvements will help foster economic development in the area.
As listed above, the need for the project is centered on the following:
• Improve Vehicle Safety
• Maintain Mobility / Reduce Congestion / Reduce Vehicle Delays
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
In addition, the following were identified as opportunities to consider in the development of the project:
• Improve Pedestrian/Bicycle Movements
• Environmental Improvements (reduce greenhouse gases / air pollution, stormwater
quality improvements, site clean-up activities)
• Foster Economic Development
• Improve Response Time for Emergency Vehicles
Detailed information and data supporting the Project Purpose and Need is documented in the
Project’s Environmental Assessment which can be viewed here at the project’s website:
http://www.sehinc.com/files/online/LouisianaFINALEA.pdf
Phase 4 Activities (underway)
Council authorized the City’s consultant, SEH, Inc., to begin Phase 4 activities on April 4, 2011
with an expected cost of approximately $958,600. Phase 4 activities, described as Final Design
and Plan Preparation, include detailed engineering work needed to complete plans and
specifications to obtain final Mn/DOT project approvals and authorization for bidding. The
following is a list of tasks associated with this phase of the project:
• Project Management
• Public Involvement
• Survey Work
• Geotechnical Analysis
• Drainage Design
• Wetland Permitting
• Roadway Design
• Bridge Design
• Construction Staging
• Lighting
• Public Art
• Utility Coordination and Relocations
• Right of Way Acquisition
• Aesthetic Design and Landscape
Architecture
Final Design: Mn/DOT and city staff has reviewed and commented on the sixty percent
construction plans completed in February 2013. SEH is now in the final plan preparation phase.
Final plans will be ready for Mn/DOT’s final review sometime in June/July. Mn/DOT final review
and project authorization is a lengthy process which can take as long as 2-3 months. Other work
which is ongoing or just beginning includes the private utility coordination/relocation work, remedial
action plan (RAP), permit application work and contract specification writing. A copy of the project
schedule is attached (Attachment 1).
Right of Way Activities: The right of way activities which are part of the final design are being
contracted separately from the engineering work. The City has selected Evergreen Land
Services as its consultant. Evergreen has successfully worked for the city on previous projects.
To keep the project on schedule for a February 2013 bid letting and a spring 2013 construction
start, staff has authorized Evergreen to start the appraisal process on the 7 private parcels from
which the City needs to acquire temporary and/or permanent easements. Evergreen’s estimated
cost for the appraisal work is $48,000. The appraisal work should be completed by early to mid-
July. Based on future authorization by Council, negotiations with the property owners will need
to commence sometime in late July to early August.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Public Art
Staff, consultants from SEH, George Hagemann from Friends of the Arts and artist Andrea
Mykelbust met with council at the February 27th study session to show preliminary designs for
artwork for the Hwy 7 & Louisiana Ave bridge. Artists Andrea Mykelbust and Stan Sears have
worked on the following additional art features to address council’s comments:
Sloped area and boulevard pavement under bridge: the design for the area under the bridge deck
will incorporate a curvilinear design composed of different colored pavers laid in stripes. The
paver work and landscape design approaching the bridge will complement the formliner design
shown at the February meeting. The concept sketch (Attachment 2) shows the design for the
sloped pavement area. Benches created using the formliner artwork will also be incorporated
into the space.
Vertical Element/Railings: Bob Kost from SEH explored the concept of decorative railings with
the project engineers and Mn/DOT and because of clearance zones and safety requirements
railings are not feasible on this bridge; however, a vertical “gateway” element similar to what is
seen on the 35W bridge is feasible. A concept for two “gateway” elements in poured concrete
and stainless steel with internal LED lighting has been developed. This will add boldness to the
design and provide a visual queue to motorists on Hwy 7. These will be located at the NE and
SW approaches/exit ramps and will be visible from both Louisiana Ave and Hwy 7. Attachment
3 shows the design for the gateway elements which adds to the other art elements of the project.
Lighting: In addition to the lighting of the gateway elements, the artists have talked to SEH’s
lighting designer about using more atmospheric lighting to light the space under the bridge.
Programmable and/or colored lighting may be incorporated into the bridge and columns possibly
using LED lights. The project will also incorporate decorative pedestrian lighting into the
design. Decorative poles the same as those recently installed along W. 36th Street between
Wooddale Avenue and Hwy 100 will be used along with a new energy efficient LED light fixture.
Piers and Pier Caps: To avoid the bridge appearing too boxy, the outer sides of the first and
fourth pier/column will be rounded. Additional pattern work to the pier cap has been designed to
provide a connection to the rounded ends. This art will be shown at the study session.
Landscaping: Landscaping for the area will be done in an environmentally friendly and
sustainably sound way. Native plants will reduce maintenance and the landscaping will
complement the artwork. A schematic drawing along with photos of plant types will be shown at
the study session.
The cost estimate for public art design and development for this project is currently estimated to
be $65,000 and will be paid for out of the Development Fund. The various art elements that are
incorporated into the bridge design will be paid for out of the project construction budget.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The following summarizes the project development phases and the costs contracted for with
SEH, Inc. to date:
Phase Contract Amount Cost to Date Status
1 & 2 $306,548.00 $296,420.77 Work Completed
3 $535,000.00 $561,231.81 Work Completed
4 $976,656.00 $786,495.06 80% Complete
Total $1,818,113.00 $1,644,147.64
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Project Costs
In addition to the SEH consulting fees above, the city has incurred expenses since the
establishment of the project in 2007. These expenses are related to staff time, city attorney’s
time, consultant fees for preparation of the original Met Council STP grant application and other
miscellaneous charges resulting in a total project expenditure to date of $1,742,662.89.
Presented below are the current project costs based on advanced design work. Funding sources
known at this time are also presented below:
Current Estimated Project Costs
Construction $18,090,000
Preliminary and Final Design Engineering $ 1,818,000
Construction Engineering (estimated consultant cost) $ 1,800,000
Undergrounding Power Lines $ 600,000
Right of Way Acquisition Services (appraisals, title work, attorney fees) $ 100,000
Right of Way (Purchasing land and easements, condemnation costs) $ 2,600,000
Total Costs $25,008,000
Funding Sources
Federal (STP) Funds $7,630,000
Mn/DOT Access Management Funds $1,000,000
Mn/DOT Cooperative Agreement Funds $ 594,000
Mn/DOT (Construction Eng’r Value) $1,800,000
City Funds (20% construction grant match – source HRA Levies) $2,398,000
City Funds (Preliminary and Final Design Eng’r – source HRA Levies) $1,818,000
City Funds (Right of Way – source HRA Levies) $2,700,000
City Water and Sewer Utility Funds $ 200,000
Total Committed Funds $18,740,000
Unfunded Amount $6,268,000
Funding Opportunities
The city recently submitted an application for the 2012 Transportation Economic Development
(TED) grant program. The city is seeking a $3 million grant to help close the remaining
$6,268,000 funding gap. Based on the city’s scoring in the previous 2010 TED pilot grant
program, staff feels we should be very competitive in obtaining a portion of the $30 million TED
grant funds available this year. Results from this year’s grant solicitation are expected to be
released on May 18, 2012. If the City should receive approval of this grant our total financial
participation level would be approximately $11 million (including what we have already spent).
If we are not successful our total financial participation level would be approximately $14
million.
Funding Sources and Funding Gap
The City Manager, Public Works Director, Community Development Director and Finance
Controller have examined various funding sources to finance the City’s share of the project and
have determined that the HRA Levy proceeds are able to adequately fund the City’s financial
commitment listed above including the unfunded amount. At the Council Workshop in January
staff presented a scenario where HRA Levy proceeds would be used to fund the City’s total share
of this project. Two scenarios have been updated to show how HRA Levy proceeds can be used.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
One scenario assumes an $11 million city commitment to the project and the other assumes a $14
million commitment. (Attachment 4 - HRA Levy Project Financing Sheets).
Should the city be successful in obtaining the $3 million TED grant, this would leave a
$3,268,000 funding gap increasing the city’s total necessary participation in the project to
$10,984,000, or about 44 percent of the $25,008,000 project total.
If we are unsuccessful in obtaining this TED grant, we would be left with a $6,268,000 funding
gap thus increasing the city’s total necessary participation in the project to $13,984,000, or about
56 percent of the project total.
For comparisons purpose, the city’s anticipated total commitment on the Wooddale Avenue
interchange is $8,151,729 or about 44 percent of the $18,759,902 project total. Staff earlier
advised Council that the city may have to participate to at least the 50% level to fully capitalize
this project.
At some point in the next several months (probably before the end of July), Council should
decide whether to proceed with or terminate this project. Staff feels that the 2012 TED grant
program is the last source of outside financing available for reducing the existing funding gap.
At this time, staff sees no other sources of financing becoming available within our current
project timeline to meet the deadline of our next March 2013 Federal Funds sunset date.
Summary and Next Steps
In summary, final plans will be completed within the next two months and will include public art
components. To continue project development activities, staff needs final direction from Council
on public art components for the project at this time. As noted earlier in this report, the Council
will need to make a decision this spring or summer on whether it wishes to commit to this
project. It is expected that we should know about the success of our grant application later this
month. Setting aside funding issues, the following schedule provides for a bid opening during
February of 2013:
Right of Way Acquisition May – Dec 2012
Completion of Final Plans June 2012
Utility Relocations June 2012 – May 2013
Mn/DOT Approval of Plans, Specifications, Estimate Oct 2012
FHWA Authorizes Project Dec 2012
Advertise for Bids Jan 2013
Bid Opening Feb 2013
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Directions and focus areas have been identified by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding
sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and
SWLRT.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community
aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: Attachment 1 – Schedule (early start)
Attachment 2 – Public Art Concept Sketch of Pavement Work Beneath Bridge
Attachment 3 – Public Art Concept Sketch of Vertical Gateway Element
Attachment 4 – HRA Levy Project Financing Sheets (2)
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DRAFT Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange
Design and Right of Way Schedule - EARLY START
Revised December 2011
Printed 11/30/2011
Assumes one year extension for Federal funds to March 31, 2013.
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
FONSI (EA approved)
Final Design (April 1 Start)
60% plans
Agency Review 60% Plans
Final plans
Agency Review Final Plans
Public Art Process/Aesthetic Design
Utility Coordination
Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
Agency Review of RAP
Special Provisions
Engineer's estimate
State Aid Engineer approval of plans
FHWA Authorization
Utility relocation certificate
Permit applications submitted
R/W Acquisition
R/W identification
Appraisals
Offers/Negotiation/Title & Possession
Condemnation initiated
Right of Way Certificate 1
Private Utility Relocation
Advertise for bids
Open bids (February 2013)
Award contract
Begin construction (April 1, 2013)
2012 2013
S:\PT\S\Stlou\116227\2-mgmt\Design Schedule (Early) Revised Dec 2011.xlsx
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 7
Conceptual design for paving artworks
at the T.H. 7/
Louisiana Avenue interchange project
Andrea Myklebust & Stanton Sears
5.2012
Paving design for the area under the bridge deck
and sloped abutment
The bands in the design are composed of different
colored pavers laid in stripes that vary in width from
three to five feet. Curvilinear stripes echo the organic
forms of the bridge formliner artwork.
Circles indicate locations for
benches created using the
formliner artwork.
(This is the sloped area)
(This is the roadway)
Landscape design approaching the bridge can echo
or compliment the design of the paving. Brick selec-
tion to be determined in collaboration with project
landscape architects. Installation of the paving bricks
is over a concrete base with a bituminous tack coat,
with bricks butted together. The bricks selected for
use in the pavement artwork can be textured to re-
duce skateboarding.
The pedestrian/bicycle
path is bituminous
pavement, 10’ wide.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 8
Conceptual design for landmark vertical artwork at the T.H. 7/ Louisiana Avenue interchange project Andrea Myklebust & Stanton Sears5.2012Vertical “gateway” elements in poured concrete and stainless steel with internal LED lighting. Abstract imagery developed from patterns used in the brodge formliner art-works. The perforations of the square-sided column are designed to match edge-to-edge, creating a seamless whole. Stainless steel sculptural sections with an overall height of approximately 16’ h x 2’ x 2’.Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 9
05/09/2012
City of St. Louis Park
Financial Management Plan
BASED ON CITY CONTRIBUTING A TOTAL OF $11 MILLION FOR ENTIRE PROJECT AND RECEIVING AN ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION GRANT
HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas.
Inflation 3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
interest 1.50%1.75%2.00%2.50%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Actual Actual Budgeted Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
HRA Levy 989,407 1,003,783 1,028,888 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574
Intergovernmental 30,856 31,025 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000
Interest Income 99,690 55,305 100,000 70,000 72,352 4,346 11,822 14,482 15,234 41,508 73,071 105,580 139,065 173,554 209,078 245,667
Misc/Other - - - - - 1,100,000 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 1,119,953 1,090,113 1,155,888 1,080,574 1,082,926 2,114,920 1,022,396 1,025,056 1,025,808 1,052,082 1,083,645 1,116,154 1,149,639 1,184,128 1,219,652 1,256,241
Expenditures
Services & Other Charges 53,761 51,000 36,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Expenses - 1,532 - - - - - 1,000,000 150,000 - - - - - - -
Capital Outlay - 971,687 770,976 2,398,000 5,000,000 1,859,337 1,012,542 - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 53,761 1,024,219 806,976 2,398,000 5,000,000 1,859,337 1,012,542 1,000,000 150,000 - - - - - - -
Net Transfers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 1,066,192 65,894 348,912 (1,317,426) (3,917,074) 255,583 9,854 25,056 875,808 1,052,082 1,083,645 1,116,154 1,149,639 1,184,128 1,219,652 1,256,241
Fund Balance - Beginning 3,970,810 5,037,002 5,102,896 5,451,808 4,134,382 217,308 472,891 482,745 507,802 1,383,610 2,435,692 3,519,337 4,635,491 5,785,130 6,969,257 8,188,909
Fund Balance - Ending 5,037,002 5,102,896 5,451,808 4,134,382 217,308 472,891 482,745 507,802 1,383,610 2,435,692 3,519,337 4,635,491 5,785,130 6,969,257 8,188,909 9,445,150
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 10
05/09/2012
City of St. Louis Park
Financial Management Plan
BASED ON CITY CONTRIBUTING A TOTAL OF $14 MILLION FOR ENTIRE PROJECT
HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas.
Inflation 3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
Interest 1.50%1.75%2.00%2.50%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Actual Actual Budgeted Budgeted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
HRA Levy 989,407 1,003,783 1,028,888 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574 983,574
Intergovernmental 30,856 31,025 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000
Interest Income 99,690 55,305 100,000 70,000 72,352 4,346 11,822 14,482 15,234 16,008 13,806 8,537 39,110 70,601 103,036 136,445
Misc/Other - - - - - 4,100,000 - - - - - - - - - -
Total Revenues 1,119,953 1,090,113 1,155,888 1,080,574 1,082,926 5,114,920 1,022,396 1,025,056 1,025,808 1,026,582 1,024,380 1,019,111 1,049,684 1,081,175 1,113,610 1,147,019
Expenditures
Services & Other Charges 53,761 51,000 36,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Other Expenses - 1,532 - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 - - - - -
Capital Outlay - 971,687 770,976 2,398,000 5,000,000 4,859,337 1,012,542 - - - - - - - - -
Total Expenditures 53,761 1,024,219 806,976 2,398,000 5,000,000 4,859,337 1,012,542 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,200,000 - - - - -
Net Transfers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Incr/(Decr) in Fund Balance 1,066,192 65,894 348,912 (1,317,426) (3,917,074) 255,583 9,854 25,056 25,808 (73,418) (175,620) 1,019,111 1,049,684 1,081,175 1,113,610 1,147,019
Fund Balance - Beginning 3,970,810 5,037,002 5,102,896 5,451,808 4,134,382 217,308 472,891 482,745 507,802 533,610 460,192 284,572 1,303,683 2,353,367 3,434,542 4,548,153
Fund Balance - Ending 5,037,002 5,102,896 5,451,808 4,134,382 217,308 472,891 482,745 507,802 533,610 460,192 284,572 1,303,683 2,353,367 3,434,542 4,548,153 5,695,171
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 11
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff desires Council direction in the policy areas identified below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Based on Council input obtained over the past year, Staff has developed definitions and
classified sidewalks as either “Community” or “Neighborhood”; has developed maps showing
final proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems; has compiled a list of improvements
Council would like to discuss further; and, has provided information to previously asked Council
questions. Staff desires Council direction regarding the following:
• Given the input from individual City Councilmembers regarding proposed sidewalks or
trails to deleted or added to the plan (see Exhibit 3), how should staff amend the plan to
allow project planning to continue? As a reminder, if a sidewalk or trail remains in the
proposed plan, it does not mean the Council has provided a final commitment to build it.
However, it would mean that the sidewalk or trail would be included in the preliminary
plan as part of the public process staff will undertake.
• The proposed classification of sidewalks – Community and Neighborhood. Is it
acceptable?
BACKGROUND:
History - At the April 16th Study Session Council requested:
1. Revisions be made to the definition of “Community” sidewalk
2. Revisions be made to the “Goals and Objectives” associated with the plan
3. Staff compile a list of improvements Council members do not feel comfortable including
in the plan along with rationale used to explain why the improvements were included in
the plan
4. Provide prioritization criteria listing rationale used in plan development
5. Provide a list of improvements by street name
6. Exhibits (maps) be revised so street names could be seen
Follow Up Actions – based on Council comments from April 16th, staff has:
1. Revised the definition of Community and Neighborhood sidewalks with regard to
“activity nodes” – see attached Exhibit 1
2. Revised the “Purpose and Goals” as directed by Council – see attached Exhibit 2
3. Compiled a list of improvements that Council would like to discuss further – see attached
Exhibit 3
4. Staff has reviewed the principles and prioritization criteria used in developing the plan
and still finds them relevant:
In general the system plan provides sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile and
bikeways every ½-mile in order to improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
throughout the community. Both the system plan and the set of general criteria for
prioritizing the pedestrian and bike improvements was generated through community
input from a Citizen Advisory Committee, Community Meeting, 205 online survey
responses, and meetings with Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission, and City Council. In addition, general support for the goals has been
vetted through the subsequent Plan-By-Neighborhood process, Community Survey,
and Community Recreation Survey. Plan development and prioritization was tied
directly to public health, safety and well-being. The system plan and goals were
adopted in the Comprehensive Plan in 2009.
The logic behind prioritization and plan implementation is based on the following
objectives:
• Focus on key destinations: segments that serve multiple community gathering
centers in the community (schools, parks, transit stops, commercial nodes) rate
higher.
• Focus on Transportation: routes that provide north-south connections through
the community, into adjacent communities, and to key transit stops rate higher.
• Focus on Bicycling and Walking: the ultimate goal is to provide a quarter-mile
“city” grid of sidewalks and half-mile grid of bike routes. Improvements that fill
gaps in the city pedestrian and bicycle networks, improve safety at certain
intersections, and provide crossings (bridges or tunnels) of major railroad and
highway barriers rate higher.
5. Listed the planned improvements by street name – see Exhibit 4
6. Included earlier exhibits updated to include street names on the maps – see Exhibits A
thru G
Proposed Future Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway Systems
Based on Council input, staff previously classified proposed sidewalks as “Community” or
“Neighborhood” (see Exhibit A). Please note that while doing this review / classification staff
feels two existing “Neighborhood” sidewalks should be reclassified as “Community” sidewalks.
Proposed “Community” sidewalks are highlighted in pink in Exhibit A while the two existing
“Neighborhood” sidewalks recommended to be reclassified are highlighted in green.
Based on these classifications, staff previously developed a map (Exhibit B) which depicts the
proposed future sidewalk system (estimated 2023 completion). In addition, staff also developed
maps depicting the proposed future trail and bikeway systems (Exhibits C and D). Finally,
Exhibits B, C, and D have been combined into Exhibits E (sidewalks and trails) and F (trails and
bikeways) which depict the proposed future “pedestrian” and “biking” systems.
Summary and Next Steps
Staff would like Council input in the following areas in order to finalize the proposed sidewalk,
trail, and bikeway systems:
1. Classification of sidewalks – Neighborhood and Community sidewalks
2. Removal or addition of improvements to the proposed plan
The following tentative process and schedule has been developed to aid in implementing this
plan:
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Council reviews and determines sidewalk classifications (Community
vs. Neighborhood) May 14
Council reviews and determines future proposed sidewalk, trail, and
bikeway systems May 14
Council reviews and determines CIP priorities May 29
Council considers remaining policy questions May 29
Council reviews financial and public involvement plans June 11
Staff conducts public involvement / input process July - October
Council adopts proposed sidewalk, trail, and bikeway systems along
with, final policies, and the CIP
November - December
Construction May 2013 – Oct 2025
Based on the process associated with the adoption of the last sidewalk / trail plan and CIP, it is
possible this schedule could be extended for months to a year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Staff felt it would be beneficial for Council to have a well-defined purpose and goals as an aid in
discussing and deciding the policy questions associated with this initiative as well as assessing if
this is in alignment with the community vision. In that regard, the Active Living, Sidewalks and
Trail Plan recommended an approach to developing citywide pedestrian and bicycling systems,
addressing trails, sidewalks, key crossings and prioritizing their importance. It suggested a
strategy for implementation and identified preliminary costs. It looked at how existing areas of
concern might be improved and where and how new walks and trails should be installed.
Strategic Direction - The following vision Strategic Direction and focus areas were identified
by Council.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
Attachments: Exhibit 1 – Definition of Walks
Exhibit 2 – Purpose and Goals
Exhibit 3 – Council Identified Improvements of Concern
Exhibit 4 – Improvements Listed by Street Name
Exhibit A - Proposed Future “Community” Walks
Exhibit B - Proposed Future Sidewalk System
Exhibit C - Proposed Future Trail System
Exhibit D - Proposed Future Bikeway System
Exhibit E - Proposed Future “Pedestrian” System
Exhibit F - Proposed Future “Biking” System
Exhibit G - Existing Sidewalk System
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Exhibit 1
Definition of Walks
Community Sidewalks - are intended to link activity nodes in the City and to
provide logical routes through town; they are intended to benefit the larger community
and are generally used more intensely by more pedestrians than neighborhood sidewalks.
They generally create a network to major points of interest such as transit, schools,
shopping areas, parks and other key community destinations in an attempt to make
important connections within the City and to neighboring cities’ systems. Most of these
walks are located along collector and arterial roadways carrying many thousands of
vehicles per day. The planned system attempts to provide pedestrian facilities (sidewalks
and/or trails) at roughly ¼-mile intervals across the community. Community walks link
residents to:
• Activity nodes (generally viewed as community or area destinations, e.g., the
Library, schools, retail areas, major parks, etc.
• Transit nodes
• Regional trails
Neighborhood Sidewalks – these walks generally occur in the established older
neighborhoods within the City and are described as being more of localized interest and
use. They provide accessibility for pedestrians within their immediate area to transit,
schools, parks, commercial areas, and “Community” walks. They also serve as a safe
place for smaller children to play near their home as well as to serve as informal places
for neighbors to meet. Neighborhood walks link residents to:
• Community walks or trails (e.g., Minnetonka Boulevard or W. 26th Street)
• Their neighbors
• Close or immediate destinations
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 4
Exhibit 2
Purpose and Goals
Purpose - "To develop a comprehensive, city-wide system of trails and sidewalks that provides
local and regional connectivity, improves safety and accessibility, and enhances overall
community livability."
Goals and Objectives - The following goals and objectives were developed for this planning
effort:
• Develop an interconnected network of pedestrian and bicycle routes throughout the city
and linked to transit systems, providing options to automobile dependence.
establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks approximately every ¼-mile
establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities approximately every ½-mile
close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks
• Anticipate increases in the use of mass transit, including the possibility of a much
improved multi-modal system comprising buses, light rail, heavy commuter rail, local
circulators, etc.
• Establish safe crossings of highways, arterial roads and rail corridors using innovative
traffic calming strategies, improved traffic control systems, grade separations, etc.
• Develop safe links to schools, commercial hubs, employment centers, institutions and
transit facilities.
• Develop recreational pathways that link neighborhoods to parks and natural areas,
providing opportunities to improve the health and well-being of community residents and
workers.
• Make connections to regional and recreational trails to link St. Louis Park to larger
metropolitan open space systems and destinations.
• Provide safe and easily accessible routes for residents and workers in the community,
including children, seniors and the disabled.
• Provide for walks along high traffic pedestrian and street use areas.
• Create a cohesive, well-designed system that includes a coordinated approach for signs
and orientation, standard designs for street crossings and additional "user-friendly"
amenities such as rest areas, information kiosks and upgraded landscaping.
• Incorporate strategies for funding, maintenance and snow removal into the overall plan.
• Develop a Capital Improvement Plan based on priorities, needs and available resources.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 5
Exhibit 3
Council Identified Improvements of Concern
ID Ward Request Item Street /
Location
Termini Rationale to Include Segment in Plan
1 2 Remove SW
W 41st St (south
side) West of Wooddale
This is an important connector sidewalk for several reasons:
• It is part of a larger east-west pedestrian route from Alabama Avenue to
Susan Lindgren Elementary School
• It connects to a valuable public infrastructure investment: a pedestrian
bridge over Highway 100 (the next closest crossing to the south is 44th
Street approximately ½ mile away)
• It provides an alternate to walking along busy Excelsior Boulevard and
thru the Highway 100 interchange area
2 4 Remove SW
All in ward 4 -
no need for more
walks
This plan (including ward 4 proposed improvements) was developed based on
the community “Vision” process and subsequent Council direction. The
“Vision” process is viewed as having determined / assessed the public need
and support for additional sidewalks, trails, and bikeways in the community.
3 1 Remove SW
Cedar Lake Rd
(south side)
France Ave west to
the ped bridge /
Cedar Lake trail
This is an important connector sidewalk for several reasons:
• It connects to France Avenue and Minneapolis Grand Rounds and Chain
of Lakes to the east
• It is connects directly to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
• It connects to a valuable public infrastructure investment: 1 of only 3
bridge connections across the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in St.
Louis Park (the next closest bridge crossing is almost two miles away at
Louisiana Avenue)
• It is part of the Cedar Lake Road east-west route through St. Louis Park
• It connects to the Jewish Community Center, West End, Lifetime Fitness,
and points beyond
4 1 Remove SW
Basswood Rd /
W25th St. (north
side)
France Ave to
proposed BSM /
Twin Lakes Park
trail
This sidewalk was included for several reasons:
• to provide an east-west connection at a ¼-mile interval (approximately
halfway between the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and 26th Street)
• It connects France Avenue to Twin Lakes Park, Benilde/St. Margaret’s,
Parkwoods Road, and the Hwy 100 east frontage road
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 6
Exhibit 3
Council Identified Improvements of Concern
5 1 Remove SW
Raleigh Ave
(west side)
Minnetonka Blvd to
W. 27th St.
The main reason for this segment was the pedestrian bridge across CSAH
25/Hwy 7, which is accessed from Raleigh:
• This link will encourage north-south foot traffic to use the pedestrian
bridge
• At the north end it connects to Beth El/BSM and there seems to be fewer
cars west of the relatively busy 25½ Street/26th Street intersection so
pedestrians cross with fewer conflicts
6 3 Remove SW
W33rd St (south
side)
Texas Ave east to
Rhode Island Ave
(Lou Oaks Park)
This is an important connector sidewalk because it is part of a larger east-west
pedestrian route from the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail across a pedestrian
bridge over Louisiana Avenue ending at Dakota Avenue. This route serves the
High School, Library, Louisiana Oaks Park, Oak Hill Park, and Aquila Park.
7 1 TBD SW
Pending Sorenson
Neighborhood Input
Neighborhood Ass’n representatives are discussing needs regarding addition
or removal of sidewalks in their area
8 1 Revise
Tr to
BW Toledo Ave
W28th St to W26th
St
A trail is proposed to provide for a more consistent facility-type connection
between the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and the Cedar Lake LRT Trail.
9 1 Revise SW
Zarthan Ave
(east side -
change to west
side)
Lake St north to
Minnetonka Blvd
Staff supports this suggestion
10 3 Add SW
W34th St (south
side)
Aquila Lane S east
to Aquila Ave S
11 1 Add SW
Joppa Ave (west
side)
Minnetonka Blvd
north to Sunset Ave
12 1 Add Tr Twin Lakes Park
Existing Twin Lakes
Park trail to
proposed BSM trail
13 1 Add
Tr /
Br
east Hwy 100
frontage road
W23rd St. over
BNRR to Cedar
Lake Road
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 7
SW
Order Ward Project Tpye Class Location (on or along)Side Begin End
1 1,2 B L Beltline Blvd na CSAH 25 36th St
2 1 B L France Ave na N City Limits Minnetonka Blvd
3 1,3 B L Lake St na Walker St Minnetonka Blvd
4 1 BW 26th St na Edgewood Ave Dakota Ave
5 1 BW 26th St na Toledo Ave France Ave
6 1 BW 27th St na Webster Ave Utica Ave
7 1 BW 28th St na Quentin Ave Ottawa Ave
8 1 BW 28th St na Yosemite Ave Webster Ave
9 1,3 BW 28th St na Texas Ave Zarthan Ave
10 1 BW Cedar Lake Road na North Cedar Lake Regional Trail France Ave
11 1,3 BW Dakota Ave na 26th St Wooddale Ave
12 1 BW Minnetonka Blvd na Vernon Ave France Ave
13 1 BW Ottawa Ave na CSAH 25 Minnetonka Blvd
14 1 BW Ottawa Ave na 28th St Minnetonka Blvd
15 1 BW Quentin Ave na 26th St 28th St
16 1 BW Utica Ave na 27th St 26th St Ped Bridge
17 1 BW Webster Ave na 28th St 27th St
18 1,2 BW Wooddale Ave na Lake St 36th St
19 1 SW C 25 1/2 St south and west Hwy 100 26th St
20 1 SW C Basswood Road / 25th St north west end of 25th St France Ave
21 1 SW C Cedar Lake Road south North Cedar Lake Regional Trail France Ave
22 1 SW C France Ave west 22nd St 26th St
23 1 SW N Hamilton St south Alabama Ave Zarthan Ave
24 1 SW N Ottawa Ave east and west 28th St 29th St
25 1 SW N Quentin Ave east 28th St 200' north of 28th St
26 1 SW N Quentin Ave east 26th St 27th St
27 1 SW N Raleigh Ave west Minnetonka Blvd 27th St
28 1 SW N Zarthan Ave west 33rd St Hamilton St
29 1 SW N Zarthan Ave east south of Minnetonka Blvd Lake St
30 1,4 Tr / Br Edgewood Ave na BNSF RR BNSF RR
31 1 Tr / Br Hwy 100 west 26th St (Ped Br)Cedar Lake Road
32 1 Tr Toledo Ave west Minnetonka Blvd 27th St
33 1 Tr / Br Twin Lakes Park / BSM na 25th St Parkwoods Road
1 2 B L 36th St na Monterey Dr Alabama Ave
2 2,1 B L Beltline Blvd na CSAH 25 36th St
3 2 B L Monterey Dr na 36th St Excelsior Blvd
4 2 BW 38th St na Excelsior Blvd France Ave
5 2 BW Alabama Ave na 36th St 41st St
6 2 BW Brookside Ave na 41st St Yosemite Ave
7 2 BW France Ave na Randall Ave 40th St
8 2 BW Park Commons Drive na Quentin Ave Monterey Dr
9 2 BW Quentin Ave na 44th St Park Commons Dr
10 2 BW Texas Ave na Hwy 7 SW LRT Regional Trail
11 2,1 BW Wooddale Ave na Lake St 36th St
12 2 SW N 36 1/2 St north Monterey Dr Excelsior Blvd
13 2 SW N 39th St south Inglewood Ave France Ave
14 2 SW N 39th St south Natchez Ave Inglewood Ave
Proposed Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway CIP
( Sorted by Ward, Type, and Street Name )
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 8
SW
Order Ward Project Tpye Class Location (on or along)Side Begin End
Proposed Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway CIP
( Sorted by Ward, Type, and Street Name )
15 2 SW C 41st St south Hwy 100 Wooddale Ave
16 2 SW C Brookside Ave north 42nd St Yosemite Ave
17 2 SW N Browndale Ave west 43 1/2 St 1/4 block north of 43 1/2 St
18 2 SW C Browndale Ave west Wooddale Ave Morningside Road
19 2 SW C Excelsior Blvd south Louisiana Ave Meadowbrook Blvd
20 2 SW C Louisiana Ave west Lake St Oxford St
21 2 SW C Louisiana Ave west Excelsior Blvd Minnehaha Creek
22 2 SW C Morningside Road north Mackey Ave Browndale Ave
23 2 SW C Morningside Road south Wooddale Ave East City Limits
24 2 SW N Quentin Ave west Excelsior Blvd 40th St
25 2 SW C Wooddale Ave west Excelsior Blvd Vernon Ave
26 2 Tr Beltline Blvd west CSAH 25 36th St
27 2 Tr / Br Minnehaha Creek south Louisiana Ave west side of Meadowbrook Complex
28 2 Tr / Br Minnehaha Creek north west side of Meadowbrook Complex Meadow Brook Road
1 3,1 B L Lake St na Walker St Minnetonka Blvd
2 3 B L Texas Ave na 28th St Hwy 7
3 3,1 BW 28th St na Texas Ave Zarthan Ave
4 3 BW 28th St na Virginia Ave Texas Ave
5 3 BW 33rd St na Louisiana Ave Dakota Ave
6 3 BW 33rd St na Virginia Ave Rhode Island Ave
7 3 BW 36th St na Hwy 169 Texas Ave
8 3,1 BW Dakota Ave na 26th St Wooddale Ave
9 3,4 BW Virginia Ave na Cedar Lake Road 28th St
10 3 BW Walker St na Texas Ave Lake St
11 3 SW C 28th St south Virginia Ave Texas Ave
12 3 SW N 31st St south Dakota Ave Colorado Ave
13 3 SW N 31st St south Texas Ave Dakota Ave
14 3 SW C 33rd St south Texas Ave Rhode Island Ave
15 3 SW N 33rd St south Aquila Ave Virginia Ave
16 3 SW C 36th St south Aquila Ave Wyoming Ave
17 3 SW C Aquila Ave east Minnetonka Blvd 1/2 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
18 3 SW C Aquila Ave / 34th St south Flag Ave Cavell Lane
19 3 SW C Aquila Lane south Cavell Lane one block north of Cavell Lane
20 3 SW C Flag Ave east 34th St 36th St
21 3 SW N Georgia Ave east Minnetonka Blvd 31st St
22 3 SW N Jersey Ave east Minnetonka Blvd 1/4 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
23 3 SW N Jersey Ave west Minnetonka Blvd 1/4 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
24 3 SW N Maryland Ave east and west Minnetonka Blvd 1/4 block south of Minnetonka Blvd
25 3 SW N Quebec Ave west 31st St Oak Hill Park
26 3,4 SW C Virginia Ave west 28th St Cedar Lake Road
27 3 SW C Walker St south east of Pennsylvania Ave 37th St (frontage road)
28 3 Tr 32nd St south Pennsylvania Ave Oregon Ave
29 3 Tr Louisiana Ave west 32nd St Walker St
30 3 Tr Walker St north Louisiana Ave west of 37th St
1 4 B L Louisiana Ave na Wayzata Blvd Excelsior Blvd
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 9
SW
Order Ward Project Tpye Class Location (on or along)Side Begin End
Proposed Sidewalk, Trail, and Bikeway CIP
( Sorted by Ward, Type, and Street Name )
2 4 B L Quentin Ave na Douglas Ave Cedar Lake Road
3 4 B L Shelard Parkway na Betty Crocker Dr Wayzata Blvd
4 4 B L Wayzata Blvd na Ford Road 14th St
5 4 B L Zarthan Ave na Cedar Lake Road Wayzata Blvd
6 4 BL Texas Ave na Wayzata Blvd Cedar Lake Road
7 4 BW 14th St na Wayzata Blvd Flag Ave
8 4 BW Cedar Lake Road na Hwy 169 Louisiana Ave
9 4 BW Cedar Lake Road na Louisiana Ave North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
10 4 BW Edgewood Ave na Cedar Lake Road BNSF RR
11 4 BW Flag, Westmoreland, and Franklin Ave's na 14th St Texas Ave
12 4 BW Ford Road na Runnymeade Ave Crestridge Dr
13 4 BW Park Place Blvd na I-394 Cedar Lake Road
14 4 BW Quentin Ave na Louisiana Ave Pennsylvania Ave
15 4,3 BW Virginia Ave na Cedar Lake Road 28th St
16 4 BW Wayzata Blvd na Texas Ave Zarthan Ave
17 4 BW Wayzata Blvd na Park Place Blvd East City Limits
18 4 SW C 14th St west and south Wayzata Blvd Flag Ave
19 4 SW C 18th St south Hillsboro Ave Flag Ave
20 4 SW N 25th St north 26th St Sumter Ave
21 4 SW N 26th St north Virginia Ave 25th St
22 4 SW C Cedar Lake Road south Texas Ave Virginia Ave
23 4 SW C Cedar Lake Road south 16th St Zarthan Ave
24 4 SW C Edgewood Ave east Cedar Lake Road BNSF RR
25 4 SW C Flag Ave west 18th St Franklin Ave
26 4 SW C Franklin Ave south Hampshire Ave Cedar Lake Road
27 4 SW C Hillsboro Ave west 14th St Franklin Ave
28 4 SW C Louisiana Ave east Cedar Lake Road Wayzata Blvd
29 4 SW C Pennsylvania Ave east Cedar Lake Road 16th St
30 4 SW C Quentin Ave east Douglas Ave Cedar Lake Road
31 4 SW N Sumter Ave west Cedar Lake Road 25th St
32 4 SW C Texas Ave west Cedar Lake Road Wayzata Blvd
33 4,3 SW C Virginia Ave west 28th St Cedar Lake Road
34 4 SW C Westmoreland / Franklin Aves north 14th St Westwood Nature Center
35 4 SW C Zarthan west 16th St Cedar Lake Road
36 4,1 Tr / Br Edgewood Ave na BNSF RR BNSF RR
Sidewalk (SW)Splits - a portion in two wards
Bikeway (BW)
Bike Lane (BL)
Trail (Tr)
Bridge (Br)
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 10
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 11
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
3 6TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NING SIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
P OWELL R D
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPA R K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RR
CP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STA NLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK C OM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD R D
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA
AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C ED A R L AK E RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23 RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FR A N K L IN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit B
Proposed Future Sidewalk System
4-23-2012tw
Legend
Community Sidewalks City Maintained 55.51 miles/293,086 feet
Community Sidewalks SSD Maintained 2.1 Miles/11,018 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Resident Maintained 64 miles/337,980 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Developer Maintained 2.15 miles/ 11,342 feet
.(Sidewalk Systems 2023)
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 12
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH S
TFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCEL
SI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESH ELAR D PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR B
L
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36 TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE R DZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
D OU GLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPA RK C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RR
CP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG
A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT
I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16T H S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH L
N
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANL EN R D
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPAR K COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARW OOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDAL
L
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEH AHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C E D AR L AK E RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14 TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L IN AV E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
2 2N D S T BRUNSWICK AVE16T H ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEA62
A6A
2
7 A37A38
A17 A28A18
Exhibit C
Proposed Future Trail System
4-24-2012tw
Legend
Existing Trails
Future Trails
Future Bridges
.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 13
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCP RRPAR K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
VE
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 TH S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE DRLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIGHWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHACT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
CED AR LAKE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA NK L I N A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit D
Proposed Future Bikeway System .
4-11-2012tw
Legend
Future Bikeways
Existing Bikeways
Continuation in adjacent City
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 14
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK G
L
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
2 3 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOOD RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCP RRPA RK C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
CP
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 TH S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16T H S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLEN RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE D
RLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEM EADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T LN
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C ED AR LA KE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 T H ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
1 8 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L I N AV E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit E
Proposed Future "Pedestrian" System
4-24-2012tw
Legend
Sidewalks
Trails
Future Bridges
.(Sidewalks and Trails)
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 15
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOO D RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVESUNS ET BLVDCP RRPAR K C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A
A
VE
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 TH S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE DRLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
AR LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIGHWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND
DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T L
N
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHACT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
CED AR LAKE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH ST
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE2 3RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA NK L I N A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit F
Proposed Future "Biking" System
.
4-24-2012tw
Legend
Bikeways
Trails
Future Bridges
Continuation in adjacent City
(Trails and Bikeways)
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 16
34TH ST
LAKE S
T
27TH ST
WALKE R ST ALABAMA AVETEXAS AVE44 TH STFLORIDA AVEOXFOR
D
S
T GEORGIA AVEYOSEMITE AVE41ST STIDAHO AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEJERSEY AVEWOODDALE
AVE37TH ST LOUISIANA AVEBNSF RR
EXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
N
3 5 T H S T
38TH STKENTUCKY AVE39TH ST
CEDAR LAKE R D
VERNON AVEKIPLING AVEWAYZATA B L V D
2 8 T H S T
F O R D R D
INGLEWOOD AVESHELARD PKWY
25 1/2 ST
GORHAM AVEPARK GL
E
N
R
D
BRUNSWICK AVEBELT LINE BLVDMINN ETON KA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BL
V
D
31ST ST
BROWNDALE AVE16TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVEZARTHAN AVEC
LUB RD
36TH S T
23 R D S T
26TH ST
3 6 1/2 STMARYLAND AVEMOR NINGSIDE RDZINRAN AVETOLEDO AVEMELROSE AVE32ND ST
UTICA AVENORTH
S
T
42ND ST
DOUGLAS AVE
GLENHURST AVE24TH ST
HAMILT ON ST
XENWOOD AVEWEBSTER AVENEVADA AVEF R A N K LIN AV E
POWELL RD
VIRGINIA CIR
22ND ST
29TH ST
40TH STDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVE25TH S T
BASSWOOD RD18TH STOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
FRANCE AVECAMBRIDGE STQUEBEC AVERALEIGH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILA AVECOLORADO AVEPENNSYLVA NIA AVEEDGEWOOD AVERIDGE DR
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE33RD STOREGON AVES UNS ET BLVDCP RRPARK C E N TER BLVDUTICA AVE35TH ST
18TH ST
AQUI
L
A A
V
E
WEBSTER AVEUTICA AVE32ND ST XENWOOD AVEYOSEMITE AVE31ST STBRUNSWICK AVEIDAHO AVEQUEBEC AVECP RR
C
P
RRCP RRKENTUCKY AVEGEORGIA AVE29TH ST
3 7 T H S T
27TH ST
2 2N D S T
QUENTIN AVEWAYZATA BLVD
JOPPA AVE37TH ST
36TH ST TEXAS AVE34TH STFLAG A
VE
JERSEY AVEALABAMA AVE2 3 R D S TQUENT I
N AVEFLAG
AVEFORD RDLAKE ST34TH ST
OXFORD ST OTTAWA AVEWO
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
33RD ST
28TH ST
16TH ST
36TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE35TH ST
JOPPA AVE26TH ST
27TH ST
ALABA MA AVEEDGEWOOD AVE28TH ST
CEDAR
L
A
K
E
R
D
31ST ST
25TH ST
3 9 T H S T
26TH ST
16TH S T
1ST ST2ND STPARK PLACE BLVDZARTHAN AVEZARTHAN AVETOLEDO AVE
32ND ST
42ND ST
42ND STAQUILA LNGLENHURST AVEBROOK AVEXENWOOD AVEEDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
R
FOREST RD
NEVADA AVE40TH LN
ELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
43 1/2 ST
MACKEY AVE40TH S
T
DAKOTA AVEDAKOTA AVESALEM AVELYNN AVELYNN AVE18TH ST
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
V A L L A C H E R A V EWESTWOOD HILLS D R WESTWOODHILLSDR30 1/2 ST
34 1/2 ST
14TH ST
BOONE AVEBOONE AVE
BOONEAVEWEST
M
ORELAND LNUTAH DRQUE
B
E
C
A
V
E
Q UEBEC AVERALEIGH AVERALEIGH AVEX YLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVEGAMBLE DR
22ND LN
B
R
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
35 TH STJORDAN AVEDART AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEBURD
PL
STANLE N RD
CA
V
E
L
L
AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEPARKLANDS RDCOLORADO AVECOLORADO AVECEDAR LAKE AVEKILMER AVEKILMER AVEPARK COM M O N S D R
32 1/2 ST
CEDARWOOD RD
C ED ARWO
O
D
R
D
MEADOWBROOK RDPARKER RD
BLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVEBLACKSTONE AVE13TH LN
13TH LN
TAFT AVEWYOMING AVEWYOMING AVEEDGEWOOD AVEEDGEWOOD AVE13 1/2 ST
M
O
NIT
O
R
S
T
FORD LN
RANDALL
A
V
E
INDEPENDENCE
A
VEINDEPENDENCE AVEINDEPEND ENCE AVEINDEPENDENCE AVEPA RKWOODS R D
MONTEREY AVEHAMPSHIRE AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE3 3 R D S T
33RD ST 33RD ST NATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVENATCHEZ AVEW O L F E PKW Y24TH ST W
OREGON AVEOREGON AVEOREGON AVEREPUBLIC AVEVIRGINIA
A
V
E
VIRGINIA AVEVIRGINIA AV E
VIRGINIA AVEPRINCETON AVEPRINCETON AVEWESTSIDE DR
DECATUR LNYUKON AVEY U KON AVEGETTYSBURGAVEGETTYSBURG AVECAVELL LN
H ILLSBORO AVEH
I
L
LSBORO AVEHILLSBORO AVEHILL SBORO AVEPARKDALE DRLANCASTERAVE
PHILLIPS PKWYGLENHURST RDC
E
D
A
R LAKE RDHILL LN
DECATURAVEDECATUR AVEMEADOWBROO
K
B
L
VDMEADO
WBROOK
B
L
V
D
GLEN PL
HIG
HWOOD RD
MINNEHAHA C
I
REXCELSIORWAYWOODLAND DRBROOKVIEWDR F
O
R
E
S
T LN
LOUISIANA CTLNFAIRWAYLN
ENSIGNAVETE X A TONKA AVEWILLOW LNWILLOWLNPRKR24THLN WESTWOOD HILLS CRV
AQUILA CIRBOONECT WESTRIDGE LNMINNEHAHA
CT
TEXAS
CIR
OAK LEAF
CT
FORD
CIR
OTTAWA AVE28TH STAQUILA
AVE
31ST
ST
YOSEMI TE AVEAQUILA AVEFLAG AVE31ST ST
C EDAR LAKE RD
24TH S
T
31ST ST
22NDST COLORADO AVE25 1/2 ST
ZARTHAN AVE16TH ST
ALABAMA AVE14TH S T
FLAG AVE16TH ST
1 6 TH ST
26TH
ST
SALEM AVEQUEBEC AVEPENNSYL VANIA AVEZINR AN AVEGLENHURST AVETOLEDO AVE18TH ST
2 3 R D ST
31ST ST
SALEM AVELYNN AVEPENNSYLVANIAAVECOLORADO AVE23RD ST
24TH ST
HUNTINGTON AVE18TH ST
27TH STDAKOTA AVE25TH ST
VERNON AVE41ST ST
29TH STMARYLAND AVE28TH
ST
25TH ST
18 T H S T
26TH ST
ID
A
H
ONEVADA AVE24THST
23RD ST
RALE
IGH
AVE
37TH ST
22ND ST
31ST
ST
18TH
KIPLING AVEPENNSYLVANIA AVESUMTER AVE23RD
ST
FRA N K L IN A V E
WEBSTER AVEWEBSTERAVEFLORIDA AVE28TH ST
OTTAWA AVEOTTAWA AVE14TH ST
RHODE ISLAND AVE16TH ST
22ND ST BRUNSWICK AVE16TH ST
OXFORD ST YOSEMITE AVEJOPPA AVEDAKOTAAVE39TH ST INGLEWOOD AVEFRANKLIN AVE
41ST ST
29TH STWEST END BLVDDUKE DR16TH ST
UTICA AVEExhibit G
Existing Sidewalk System
Legend
Community Sidewalks City Maintained 45.7 miles/241,531 feet
Community Sidewalks SSD Maintained 2.2 miles/11,818 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Resident Maintained 60.5 miles/319,680 feet
Neighborhood Sidewalks Developer Maintained 2.2 miles/11,508 feet
4/23/2011tw
±
(Sidewalk Systems 2012)
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 17
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with requested information and seek
Council input on the policy questions below.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Staff seeks City Council input on the following policy questions:
1. Is the final proposed 2013-2018 residential program identified in Exhibit 1 acceptable to
the Council?
2. Do the final proposed curbside collected materials shown in Exhibit 4 meet Council needs?
3. What concerns does Council have, if any, over the example/possible PAYT Rates shown in
Exhibit 5?
4. Staff is interested in Council input regarding future discussion of proposed solid waste
services / requirements for multi-family, commercial/ industrial, and schools/religious
institutions which are identified in Exhibit 2.
5. Is Council interested in a future study session to learn more about plastic recycling
complexities as noted in this report?
BACKGROUND:
History
On April 9, 2012 staff presented Council:
• a summary of advantages and disadvantages for single stream recycling
• a listing of surrounding cities that have single and dual sort recycling
• a matrix showing Best Management Practices used by St. Louis Park and surrounding cities
• a matrix showing materials collected curbside by St. Louis Park and surrounding cities
• a list of best practices that could be added to the program
• a list materials collected at city recycling / reuse centers in our metro area
• and a list of retail drop-off sites in St. Louis Park and surrounding communities
Council discussed some of their ideas for changing the program and provided the following
guidance to staff:
• no need to require single sort recycling - allow for both single sort and dual sort in the
future proposal process
• no need to create a recycling / reuse center - work with area vendors and businesses to
expand availability of local drop-off opportunities for residents
• find ways to expand recycling / increase recycling quantities
• provide for greater accountability with respect to recycling
• increase public education to residents / property owners
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program
Follow up Actions
Based on all of the past Council direction received, staff has done the following:
1. has prepared a summary of the proposed 2013-2018 single family – 4-plex residential
curbside collection program
2. has prepared recommendations for the other waste streams (multi-family,
commercial/industrial, and schools/churches)
3. has prepared a list of materials proposed for the 2013-2018 residential curbside collection
program
4. has created several possible Pay As You Throw (PAYT) rates scenarios that provide for
organics collection and provide an economic incentive to reduce garbage and increase
recycling
Exhibit 1 (attached) provides a summary of the proposed 2013-2018 residential organized
collection program. The exhibit identifies existing services and changes being proposed.
Exhibit 2 (attached) provides a summary of services / requirements being proposed for multi-
family, commercial/ industrial, and schools/churches. The exhibit identifies services that can be
done by existing staff and those services that will require additional resources and staff to
provide.
Exhibit 3 (attached) provides a list of materials proposed for the 2013-2018 residential organized
collection program.
Exhibit 4 (attached) provides a more detailed list of recyclable materials proposed to be collected
curbside for the 2013-2018 program.
Exhibit 5 (attached) provides possible Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) rate scenarios that provide
for organics collection and provide an economic incentive to reduce garbage and increase
recycling. The methodology used is similar to what was recently done with the water rates. The
possible PAYT rate calculations include: a rate by volume, a rate by base and volume and a
hybrid combination of the two. The rates were based on actual 2011 expenses and revenues.
Complexities with Plastics
As indicated in Exhibit 3, many cities are collecting plastics #1 - #7. In researching best
practices associated with recycling, staff notes there are varied methods for dealing with plastics
collection, reuse, and disposal. In addition, there are documented health concerns associated
with the manufacture, use, and disposal of some plastics (in particular #3). Some plastics are not
recyclable or even reusable; most are manufactured for one time use and should either be
disposed of as trash or can only be re-used once (collected and remanufactured for use as one last
product then disposed of as trash). And finally, for some plastics that could be recycled, there
are no markets for their re-use (#6 plastic for example).
Staff supports collection of additional plastics as proposed; however, staff has concerns that not
all residents may agree on this. In addition, environmental organizations, available educational
materials, and societal collection activities regarding plastics appear to be contradictory and are
confusing to the public. It is likely that additional research and education on this topic is needed
to allow staff and Council to effectively interact with residents in anticipated future public
discussions on this topic. Staff recommends Council consider a future study session later this
summer where plastics manufacture, re-use, and recycling information can be provided and
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program
discussed. In the meantime, Council may be interested in visiting / exploring the following
websites:
1. http://www.eurekarecycling.org/page.cfm?ContentID=126
2. http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html
3. http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/view/page.basic/class/feature.class/Lesson_Next
_Gen_Curbside_Recycling
The current Hennepin County Residential Recycling Policy requires the city to collect of #1-5
plastics.
Next Steps
Based on Council input, staff envisions two processes in moving forward:
1. The first would involve continued development and implementation of our 2013 – 2018
residential organized collection contract(s) and,
2. The other would involve further discussion associated with the proposed solid waste
services / requirements for multi-family, commercial/ industrial, and schools/religious
institutions.
Based on Council input obtained on May 14th, Public Works staff and the City’s
Communication Coordinator will develop a public involvement / communication plan to inform
the public of our proposed 2013 – 2018 organized residential collection program (Exhibits 1 and
4). We expect this to occur from June through August this year. Any public input obtained
during this time will be considered in determining our final contract and proposal requirements
later this summer.
Staff has determined that most of the proposed non-residential services / initiatives identified in
Exhibit #2 exceed existing staff workload capacity and available resources. As a result, staff
desires future discussions regarding resource requirements, citizen involvements, and strategies
that might be needed to implement these services / requirements.
Process / 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 that deadline cannot be met, extensions of the current
contracts will likely need to be negotiated.
Below is a draft schedule showing major steps necessary to develop and award new collection contracts.
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 informs public of proposed residential collection program & services Jun - Aug 2012
Staff / Council determine future collection program and services Jun - Aug 2012
Staff / Council determine contract and proposal requirements Aug - 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
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program
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 process and schedule for considering and implementing collection services beyond the
current proposed organized residential collection will be developed if Council wants to consider
providing any of those programs or services.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time
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: Exhibit 1 – Proposed Residential Program 2013-2018
Exhibit 2 – Proposed Non-Residential Services / Requirements
Exhibit 3 – Materials Collected Curbside in High-Yielding Cities
Exhibit 4 – Proposed Recyclable Materials to be Collected Curbside
Exhibit 5 – Possible Pay-As-You-Throw Rates
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
EXHIBIT 1
2013-2018
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE PROGRAM
(May 2, 2012)
BLACK indicates Existing
RED indicates Proposed
Residential Services (Single-family to 4-plex)
General (applies to multiple service types)
• All items set out for collection by 7:00 a.m. on collection day
• Collection containers set out for collection can’t be placed in the street, alley,
or on the sidewalk
• Collection containers must be returned to storage location within 24 hours
after being set out
• Educational tags given for improperly prepared material
• Walk-up service available at an extra cost, paid directly to the hauler
• Special pick-up service available at an extra cost, paid directly to the hauler
• Extended absence credit available if gone for five or more consecutive weeks
• Solid waste collection rates (PAYT) that encourage refuse reduction and
increased recycling / organics collections
Garbage
• Weekly collection using city owned carts
• Service Levels
o Existing twelve garbage service level options: 30-gal (4,136), 60-gal
(5,749), 90-gal (2,075), 120-gal (94), 150-gal (36), 180-gal (168), 210-gal
(1), 240-gal (2), 270-gal (18), 360-gal (12), 450-gallon (1), 540-gal (1)
o Add smaller service level option: 20-gal
o Free service level change once per calendar year; fee charged for
additional changes during same year
• Extra Refuse Stickers
o Require use of extra refuse stickers for bagged household
o Increase the cost of refuse stickers to encourage refuse reduction
• Carts stored outside need to be behind the building line extended, 4-feet from
interior lot lines, and least visible location to neighbors
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Page 5
Recycling
• Create ordinance to require all households to separate recycling from garbage
• Allow for either Single or Dual Sort Collection
o Dual Sort Collection
o 2-sort collection (paper & containers) with 18 gal bins
o Weekly collection
o Free & unlimited number of recycling bins (delivered weekly)
o Free bin wheel kits available upon request (resident needs to
install)
o Indoor storage of bins required
o Single Sort Collection
o Single sort collection with a 60-gallon or 90-gallon cart
o Bi-weekly collection
o Carts provided free to residents
o Carts will have large colored sticker showing what materials can
be recycled
o Outdoor storage of carts allowed
• Cardboard must be cut into 3’x3’ and tied in bundles
• Additional plastic materials to be collected
• Textile material collected
• Add metal collection (2’ in length or less)
• Create partnership(s) with outside organizations to expand local recycling
efforts
Yard Waste/Organics
• Create ordinance to require all households to separate organics from garbage
• Provide for weekly year-round organics collection
• Provide for weekly yard waste collection April through November, and first
three (currently two) weeks in January (holiday trees)
• Provide a yard waste credit (currently $3/quarter) for not putting grass
clippings out for collection
• Yard Waste Containers/Bags
o Collection placed in properly marked containers or compostable bags
o Containers should not exceed 32-gallon, have handles and a lid, be labeled
with “yard waste only sticker”, and weigh 40 pounds or less
o Compostable bags are either Kraft paper bags or compostable plastic bags
meeting the ASTM D6400 standards
• Provide for collection of twigs/branches that are less than 4” in diameter, 4’ or
less in length, and are tied in bundles
• City Brush Drop-off Site available for disposal of larger diameter trees and
non-bundled brush
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Page 6
Other Services
• Citywide Clean-Up-Day events held at the MSC (Spring & Fall)
• Expand materials being accepted at Clean-Up-Day events
Other Services (Cont’d)
• Semi-weekly bulk, appliance, and electronics curbside collection is available
at an extra cost, paid to the hauler
• City Drop-off Services / Sites:
o Household batteries
o City Hall, MSC, SLP Library, and Jerry’s Hardware
o Holiday / Seasonal / Decorative lighting
o Rec Center
o Cell phones, PDA’s, iPods, MP3 players, and print cartridges
o City Hall, Rec Center, Westwood Nature Center, and MSC
• Provide for electronics and appliance collection events in addition to cleanup
events
Education & Customer Service
• Solid waste customer service phone staff from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday and some Saturdays by contractor
• Education provided in various media to residents by city staff
• Education provided at events by city staff & contractor
• Recycling Guides and Recyclopedias provided in new resident packets and to
residents and businesses upon request by city staff
• Educational tags are left for residents by contractor for things such as, but not
limited to: improper material preparation and cart/bin/yard waste container
placement in street, alley or on sidewalk
• Educational letters to residents by city staff
• Educate residents regarding the benefits of separating organics from garbage
• Promote the use of reusable (i.e. canvas) shopping bags at grocery & retail
stores
• Develop a waste reduction messaging campaign
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Page 7
EXHIBIT 2
PROPOSED SERVICES / REQUIREMENTS
for
MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL, &
SCHOOLS/CHURCHES SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
(May 2, 2012)
Garbage
Additional Resources • Conduct waste audits and recommend strategies to reduce waste
Recycling/Organics
Existing Staff • Create an ordinance to require all property owners to separate
recycling from garbage (current ordinance requires only Multi-family
Residential to separate recycling)
• Create an ordinance to require all property owners to separate organics
from garbage (consider criteria to determine if some businesses would
be excluded)
• Create an ordinance to require all property owners submit a recycling
and/or organics improvement plan, when requested by the City
• Revise licensing to require solid waste haulers provide recycling and
organics collection services to all properties they service
• Revise licensing to require solid waste haulers provide the City with
monthly tonnage reports for all recycling and organics collected
Additional Resources • Provide assistance to help grow recycling and organics programs
• Provide monitoring and enforcement of recycling and organics
requirements
• Review non-compliance issues on a complaint basis
• Work with the property owners to resolve non-compliant issues
(property owners subject to an administrative penalty if violations
aren’t addressed in a timely manner)
• Conduct recycling and organic audits and recommend strategies to
improve material quality
• Improve recycling in city parks and offer recycling in all parks
• Collaborate with local artists to design recycling bins for city parks
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Page 8
Education
Additional Resources • Educate property owners on the benefits of separating recycling and
organics from garbage and inform them of this City requirement
• Create an enhanced overall solid waste education program
• Establish an Award Program to recognize property owners who do an
above the norm job reducing their garbage through purchasing,
recycling and organics
• Encourage businesses to donate perishable food and other items to
local charities
Construction /
Demolition Services
Existing Staff • Require all city-initiated construction projects to incorporate
construction and demolition waste recycling or recovery practices
Additional Resources • Create a construction / demolition program for larger size commercial
and multi-family projects to show how excess/waste material will be
recycled
• Require waste management plans be submitted with permit
applications for larger size commercial and multi-family projects
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program
Page 9
Materials Collected Curbside as of
December 2011 Seattle, WASt. Louis Park, MNToronto CanadaFresno, CAPortland, OROakland, CASan Francisco, CAChicago, ILBoulder, CODenver, COGreensboro, NCSan Jose, CAAlameda County, CAPhiladelphia, PAAtlanta, GAOrange County, NCIndianapolis, INAustin, TXCOUNTGlass bottles and jars X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18
Paper, news, magazines X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18
Paper boxes (cereal, kleenex)X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18
Corrugated cardboard *X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18
Aluminum cans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17
Yard waste X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16
Tin and Steel cans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15
Cartons-Gable Top (1/2 gallon
milk/orange juice cartons)X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13
Plastic clamshells, deli trays, except
Styrofoam (#3 - #7)X X X X X X X X X X X X 12
Plastics bottles (#1 and #2)X X X X X X X X X X X 11
Aluminum foil X X X X X X X X X X 10
Plastics 1-5 + 7 bottles X X X X X X X X X X 10
Aerosol cans (empty)X X X X X X X X X 9
Aseptic packaging (juice boxes)X X X X X X X X X 9
Shredded paper X X X X X X X X 8
Metal jar lids & steel bottle caps X X X X X X 6
Scrap metal (2'x2'x2' or 30lbs)X X X X X X 6
Used motor oil X X X X X 5
Plastic - (big toys, lawn furniture)X X X X X 5
Plastic lids (3" or wider)X X X X X 5
Food waste (organics - veggie, meat,
and dairy)X X X X X 5
Food waste (organics - veggie only)X X X X 4
Plastic bags (bagged not loose)X X X X 4
Coated papers (hot drink cups)X X 2
Oil filters X X 2
Textiles X X 2
Electronics X X 2
Fluorescent bulbs 0
COUNT 21 21 18 17 17 16 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 11 10 8 8
Materials Collected Curbside in High-Yielding Cities
EXHIBIT 3
* Pizza boxes and pop/beer cases are included in Corrugated Cardboard
X - Currently Collected
X - Additional Materials Proposed for Collection
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Page 10
EXHIBIT 4
Proposed Recyclable Materials to be Collected Curbside
1. Paper
a. mail, office and school papers
b. magazines and catalogs
c. newspapers and inserts
d. phone books
e. shredded paper in closed paper bags
f. boxes
i. cardboard
ii. cereal and cracker boxes
iii. shoe boxes, gift boxes, and electronic boxes
iv. toothpaste, medication, and other toiletry boxes
g. pop/beer cases
h. pizza boxes (not frozen)
2. Cartons
a. milk cartons
b. juice boxes
c. soup, broth and wine cartons
3. Plastic (Household – Kitchen / Bathroom)
a. bottles and jugs
i. water, soda, and juice bottles
ii. milk and juice jugs
iii. ketchup and salad dressing bottles
iv. dishwashing liquid bottles and detergent jugs
b. cups and containers (no Styrofoam)
i. yogurt, pudding, and fruit cups
ii. disposal cups and bowls
iii. margarine, cottage cheese, and other containers
iv. produce, deli, and take out containers
c. plastic caps and lids
d. plastic bags (bagged not loose)
e. packaging
i. clear packaging from toys and electronics
4. Glass
a. food and beverage bottles and jars
5. Metal
a. food and beverage cans
b. scrap metal (max. - 2’ length & 30 lbs.)
c. aluminum foil/trays
d. Metal jar lids & steel bottle caps
6. Textiles
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Page 11
2011
Existing
2011
Existing
Projected
Future
Rate by
Volume
Hybrid (staff
recommended)
Rate by
Base and
Volume
Service Size
(gallons)Customers
Quarterly
Rate Customers
Quarterly
Rate
Quarterly
Rate
Quarterly
Rate
20 0 $0.00 2,068 $19.73 $25.99 $29.67
30 4,136 $44.57 2,068 $29.60 $33.99 $36.81
60 5,749 $56.68 5,749 $59.20 $57.97 $58.22
90 2,075 $68.78 2,075 $88.80 $81.96 $79.63
120 94 $80.91 94 $118.40 $105.94 $101.04
150 36 $93.02 36 $148.01 $129.93 $122.46
180 168 $105.13 168 $177.61 $153.91 $143.87
210 1 $117.25 1 $207.21 $177.90 $165.28
240 2 $129.36 2 $236.81 $201.88 $186.69
270 18 $141.47 18 $266.41 $225.87 $208.10
360 12 $177.82 12 $355.21 $297.82 $272.33
450 1 $214.16 1 $444.02 $369.78 $336.57
540 1 $250.49 1 $532.82 $441.73 $400.80
Refuse Stickers 550 $2.00 550 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00
Yard Waste Credit 7,920 -$3.00 7,920 -$3.00 -$3.00 -$3.00
$0.0759 $0.0615 $0.0549
$0.00 $10.00 $15.40
Volume Rate
Base Rate
EXHIBIT 5
Possible Pay-As-You-Throw Rates
April 27, 2012
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Page 12
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide information on a water and sewer utility service line
warranty program with Council. If Council feels this program is acceptable, staff would
negotiate a specific marketing agreement for future Council adoption.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
Does the City Council wish to pursue the NLC Service Line Warranty Program?
BACKGROUND:
Program Description
The National League of Cities (NLC) Service Line Warranty Program, administered by Utility
Service Partners, Inc. (USP), is a home protection solution for residents arranged by NLC
Enterprise Programs. This program appears to provide an affordable home protection solution
which could help residents save thousands of dollars on the high cost of repairing broken or
leaking water or sewer service lines. Currently, only residential properties with non-shared
(single) service lines are eligible to participate in this program.
Homeowners in participating cities are eligible to purchase low-cost warranties, which provides
for cleaning, repairs, or replacement of broken or leaking water and sewer service lines of up to
$4,000, or more, per occurrence. T ypically, service line repairs range in the several thousands of
dollars and can create significant financial hardships for an unprepared homeowner. This
warranty program is designed to transfer the risk of these costly repairs. Approximate
homeowner costs will likely range from $5 to $6 per line per month – specific rates are
determined for each city’s particular situation based on local infrastructure and policies.
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program provides residents a warranty for service line cleaning,
repair, or replacement for monthly fee, with no deductibles or service fees. This work is
performed by licensed, local contractors who are to return customer calls within one hour of a
claim being filed. USP provides a personally staffed 24/7 hotline for residents, 365 days a year.
There is no cost for a city to participate in this program. However, participating cities can elect
to receive a share of the revenues collected from within the city. This program is in the final stage
of being offered to all cities in the 48 contiguous states with completion expected spring of 2012.
Staff has attached four exhibits providing information on this program:
1. Exhibit 1 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Brochure
2. Exhibit 2 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Availability
3. Exhibit 3 - Frequently Asked Questions
4. Exhibit 4 - Implementation Process
In addition, the following link provides very good info on the USP website and their program:
http://www.utilitysp.net/index.html
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
Plus the following link is to a video providing information on their program:
http://www.utilitysp.net/overview-video/
About Utility Service Partners, Inc.
USP, headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is an independent provider of service line
warranties and water heater rentals in the United States. USP is a portfolio company of
Macquarie Capital, part of Macquarie Group Limited, one of the world’s largest owners and
managers of infrastructure assets and a manager of over $36 billion in infrastructure equity
around the world.
A Late April USP Communication to Staff:
Program momentum seems to be growing (see the attached NLC press release – Exhibit 5)
with large cities such as Atlanta, Phoenix, Milwaukee, and Plano now participating in the
USP program.
Utility Service Partners enjoys an A+ Better Business Bureau rating with a three year history
of zero complaints. As all, cities and residents alike, are watching their dollars, the NLC
Service Line Warranty Program is an example of a cost-free Public Private Partnership (P3)
program that may be the right solution for a city.
Since introducing the program in November, 2010, over 125 cities in 27 states have adopted
the program. In that time, over 1,200 service lines have been repaired or replaced saving
those residents over $1,000,000 in repair costs that would have otherwise come from their
pockets.
What cooperation is needed from the City of St. Louis Park?
St. Louis Park is required to enter into a marketing services agreement with USP which creates a
co-branded marketing program for USP in the city. Staff has attached a sample marketing
agreement for informational purposes - see Exhibit 6. The agreement provides for the use of the
city name/logo, in conjunction with USP’s logo, on marketing materials sent to citizens. By
participating in this program, the city is endorsing USP as the service provider for this warranty
program.
The term of the marketing agreement is for one year and it renews on an annual basis unless one
party provides a 90 day advance written notice of intention not to renew. City may terminate the
agreement 30 days after giving notice of material breach if breach is not cured within 30 days.
Staff Analysis
Staff has discussed the pros and cons of this program with NLC staff, LMC staff, our city
attorney, and the regional representative for USP. Based on that input, staff has analyzed this
program (see Exhibit 7 – Staff Analysis) to aid Council in discussing participation in this program.
Local Participation:
Buffalo, Mn is currently participating in this program. They began program participation
during the last half of 2011 and state they are pleased with the results to date. They received
quite a few calls for the first several weeks when the program was initially marketed by USP;
resident inquiries have since ceased. Buffalo opted to receive revenues rather than rebate
savings to the residents. They just received their first quarterly revenue check for sewer service
line registrations which amounted to about $1,500.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program
Columbia Heights, Mn recently approved participation in the program and USP begins their
spring marketing campaign there this month. Columbia Heights approved the program for both
sewer and water service lines. They opted to receive no rebate and passed the savings on to the
participating property owners. The program was approved by the Council on a 4-1 vote. The
council member who did not vote for it felt this was an optional only type coverage and felt that
the City shouldn't be involved. This item was brought forward by a council member and was
only briefly and lightly discussed before adoption.
Chanhassen, Mn considered this program at a Study Session earlier this year and is still
considering participation in the program. They have the following concerns:
1. the program is so new to Minnesota there is no track record here yet
2. USP use of the city logo on their letter head
Chanhassen staff feels if other Minnesota cities participate in this program with good results,
Chanhassen probably will also.
Summary and Next Steps
In general, this program appears to deal with a commonly heard residential complaint - the high
cost associated with unexpected service line repairs. City contacts have confirmed this is a good
program and we should consider participation in the program.
Based on the analysis provided in Exhibit 7, staff feels this is a reliable credible program that
could be of benefit to some residents in St. Louis Park. Staff has developed the following basic
steps and schedule should Council wish to participate in this program:
Staff negotiates a marketing agreement with USP May
Council adopts marketing agreement June
City conducts a public information campaign informing residents of
service line warranty program availability fall of 2012 June - Sept
USP markets program Sept - Oct
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No impact to the city. If Council decides to participate in this program, staff recommends the
city pursue the agreement which offers the warranties at the 10% discount rate to the residents so
they realize the savings associated with this program (no revenues for the city).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Exhibit 1 – NLC Service Line Warranty Program Brochure
Exhibit 2 - NLC Service Line Warranty Program Availability
Exhibit 3 - Frequently Asked Questions
Exhibit 4 - Implementation Process
Exhibit 5 – NLC Press Release
Exhibit 6 - Sample Marketing Agreement
Exhibit 7 – Staff Analysis
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
NLC SERVICE LINE
WARRANTY PROGRAM
BUILDING PEACE OF MIND, ONE COMMUNITY AT A TIME
Bringing Solutions and Savings to Cities
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 4
HOME PROTECTION SOLUTION
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program, administered
by Utility Service Partners, Inc. (USP), is an affordable
home protection solution for your residents offered at no
cost to the city. It helps city residents save thousands of
dollars on the high cost of repairing broken or leaking
water or sewer lines. The city also receives a share of
the revenues collected.
PEACE OF MIND
Residents, who have not set aside money to pay for an
unexpected, expensive utility line repair, now have an
opportunity to obtain a low-cost warranty that will pro-
vide repairs for a low monthly fee, with no deductibles
or service fees. The work is performed by licensed, lo-
cal plumbers who will call the customer within one hour
of filing a claim. The repair is performed professionally
and quickly, typically within 24 hours. USP provides
a personally staffed 24/7 repair hotline for residents,
365 days a year.
NLC SERVICE LINE
WARRANTY PROGRAM
BUILDING PEACE OF MIND, ONE COMMUNITY AT A TIME
This program is offered by Utilities Service Partners, Inc. (USP).
USP is solely responsible for the implementation and operation of the program.
BENEFITS
NO COST to your city
Generates revenue for your city
Affordable rates for residents
24/7 customer service
Trusted local contractors
Simple implementation process
Fewer citizen complaints
Repairs performed to local code
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
Once your city agrees to participate in the program,
start up is simple. The program is designed for a quick
launch, taking up little of your city employees’ valuable
time. USP administers the program and is responsible
for marketing, billing, customer service, and perform-
ing all repairs to local code.
MORE INFORMATION
To learn more about this program, visit NLC’s website
at www.nlc.org/enterpriseprograms or contact Denise
Belser, Program Director, at belser@nlc.org or (202)
626-3028. Call your State League or NLC to sign up
for the program.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 5
National Roll-Out Schedule NLC SERVICE LINE WARRANTY PROGRAMCurrentlyAvailableAvailable nolater thanMarch 2012VermontNew HampshireRhode IslandMassachusettsConnecticutPennsylvaniaNew YorkNew JerseyMarylandDistrict of ColumbiaDelawareWest VirginiaVirginiaNorth CarolinaWisconsinMichiganIllinoisTennesseeKentuckyOhioIndianaSouth CarolinaGeorgiaMississippiAlabamaMaineFloridaTexasLouisianaMissouriArkansasSouth DakotaNebraskaOklahomaKansasNew MexicoColoradoWyomingUtahIowaArizonaOregonNevadaCaliforniaNorth DakotaMontanaMinnesotaWashingtonIdahoTo view the latest update, please visit www.utilitysp.net.Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty ProgramPage 6
UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS
How long has the company been in business?
The company was originally formed in 1998 within
Columbia Energy to provide service line warranties for its
utility customers. USP was formed in September 2003 to
purchase Columbia Service Partners from Columbia Energy.
USP continues to expand the product offerings and grow the
business through city and utility partnerships. USP is a proud
member of the Better Business Bureau.
PROGRAM
Is this program available everywhere?
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program will be introduced
throughout the contiguous United States in phases over the
next 18 months. Please see our National Roll-Out Schedule
map for details regarding your state.
How are our citizens notified of the program?
USP mails each resident a campaign letter which outlines
the cities’ endorsement, followed by a reminder letter two
weeks later to ensure the highest response rate. USP only
solicits through direct mail — no telemarketing is ever
employed. All homeowners will have the option to enroll in
the program, regardless of the age of their residence.
What cooperation will be needed from the cities?
USP desires to enter into a co-branded marketing services
agreement with each city. The agreement provides for the
use of the city name/logo, in conjunction with USP’s logo,
on marketing materials sent to citizens. The city is endorsing
USP as the service provider for the warranty program.
When do you solicit residents?
Through the years, we have found the optimal times to invite
citizens to participate are in the Spring and Fall of each year.
Does NLC or USP sell or rent the personal
information of residents that enroll in the program?
No. Neither the NLC nor USP will sell or rent the names of
prospective customers or participants.
How much does the resident pay for this service?
Each warranty is sold separately and the price range is
generally between $4 and $5 a month per product.
BENEFITS
How much will residents save by using the warranty
program?
While costs for water line and sewer line repairs can vary,
the average cost of repairing a broken water line or sewer
line may range from $1,200 to over $3,500.
Will this program cost the city any money?
Not a cent. USP pays for all marketing materials and
program administration. Furthermore, USP will pay the city
a royalty for every resident that participates in the program!
What benefit does the city receive from endorsing
these programs?
By endorsing the USP programs, the city is able to reduce
residents’ frustration over utility line failures by bringing
them low-cost service options. 96% of survey respondents
say that their image of the city is enhanced because the
warranty program is offered as a service by the city. These
programs also generate extra revenue for the city through
the royalty that is paid by USP to the city. Finally our
programs help to stimulate the local economy. USP only
uses local contractors to complete the repairs which helps
to keep the dollars in the local community.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Who administers the program?
Utility Service Partners (USP) administers the program and
is responsible for all aspects of the program including
marketing, billing, customer service, and performing all
repairs to local code.
What are the city’s responsibilities?
We ask each city to work with USP to provide the
following; 1) a copy of the city seal, if available, for the
solicitation letterhead 2) the city’s return address for outer
envelope (this ensures a high “open-rate”) 3) the name, title
and signature sample of the designated solicitation signor
and 4) the appropriate zip codes of the city to allow USP
to purchase a mailing list of the residents.
Why does the city have to provide a city seal,
address and signature?
We have found that while the letter is written in such a manner
as to leave no doubt that it is a USP program (the USP logo is
on the enrollment form), the city address drives a very high
“open-rate” and the city seal and signature lend credibility
to the offer, thus driving a much higher enrollment rate.
NLC SERVICE LINE WARRANTY PROGRAMFAQ’s
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 7
Will we get a lot of calls from citizens when they
get the letter?
A press release provided by USP and issued prior to the first
mailing will help alleviate citizen concerns, which should
result in nominal calls to city hall.
PRODUCTS
How will citizens know what is covered?
All customers receive a set of terms and conditions upon
enrollment in a utility warranty program. They have 30 days
from the date of enrollment to cancel and receive a full refund.
What items are included as part of the water line
warranty?
The external water warranty covers the underground service
line from the point of connection to the city main line to the
water meter. It also covers the underground service line
between the water meter and the exterior foundation of the
home. If any part of the line is broken and leaking, USP will
repair or replace the line in order to restore the service.
Coverage caps listed in the terms & conditions are per
occurrence as follows:
$4,000 plus an additional $500 for public
sidewalk cutting, if necessary
What items are included as part of the sewer line
warranty?
The external sewer line warranty covers the underground
service line from the point of connection to the city main line to
the point of entry to the home. If any part of the line is broken
and leaking, USP will repair or replace the line in order to
restore the service. Coverage caps listed in the terms &
conditions are per occurrence as follows:
$4,000 plus an additional $4,000 for public
street cutting, if necessary
The Coverage Cap looks adequate but is there an
annual or lifetime restriction on how much you will
pay to repair?
No. Unlike some other warranties available, we provide you
with the full coverage per incident. We will pay up to your
coverage amount each and every time you need us. We do
not deduct prior repair expense from your coverage cap or
limit the amount we will pay annually.
Doesn’t Homeowner’s Insurance cover this type
of repair?
Typically, no. Most homeowner policies will pay to repair the
damage created by failed utility lines but they generally do
not pay to repair the actual broken pipes or lines. We
encourage you to call your insurance company to determine
your actual coverage.
Who replaces landscaping if damaged?
USP will provide basic restoration to the site. This includes
filling in the holes, mounding the trench (to allow for settling)
and raking and seeding the affected area. Restoration does
not include replacing trees or shrubs or repairing private
paved/concrete surfaces. This is outlined in the terms &
conditions sent to the customer.
What building codes will you adhere to?
If the line is broken and leaking, USP will repair or replace
the leaking portion of the line according to the current code.
However, USP is not responsible for bringing working lines
up to code that are not in need of repair.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Will a citizen have a long hold time when
reporting a claim?
No. Repair calls receive the highest priority and are
answered 24/7. Repair calls are connected to a live agent
through a voice recognition unit (VRU).
Will the customer always get a live operator when
they call?
Yes. Customers are directed to select to speak with either a
service or claims agent and will then be directed to a live
Agent.
What is the claims process?
Program participants call a toll-free USP number to file a
claim. USP selects the contractor, who is required to contact
the customer within one hour of receiving the job to schedule
a time to begin the repairs. Typically, repairs are completed
within 24 hours. Emergencies receive priority handling.
CONTRACTORS
Who performs the repair work?
USP retains local, professional plumbers to perform all the
service line repair work.
How selective are you when choosing contractors
to conduct repairs?
USP only selects contractors who share our commitment to
excellence in customer service. Scorecards are maintained
for each contractor, tracking the customer satisfaction rating
for work performed. Customer feedback is shared with
our contractors and any contractor with a low customer
satisfaction rating is removed from the network.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 8
Implementation Process
1. Upon approval from city council (if applicable), execute
one-page contract provided by USP (upon contract execution,
USP will immediately begin to recruit and screen local contractors)
2. Approve Press Release provided by USP (general notice to
eliminate resident confusion/city calls) and if desired,
distribute to local media and/or post to the city website
3. Send the following to USP for the creation of the citizen
solicitation letter:
• City Seal artwork, if available
• Name/Title of designated signor plus signature
• City Address for outer envelope
• Zip+4 list of city territory
4. Approve Campaign Letter provided by USP
5. Access Monthly Reporting via the web
6. Receive Annual Payment
NLC SERVICE LINE WARRANTY PROGRAM
Participating is Easy…
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 9
News from the National League of Cities
www.nlc.org
www.citiesspeak.org
www.twitter.com/leagueofcities
www.facebook.com/nationalleagueofcities
For Immediate Release
March 6, 2012
Contact
National League of Cities
Gregory Minchak
202-626-3003
Minchak@nlc.org
Utility Service Partners
Brad Carmichael
724-749-1003
bcarmichael@utilitysp.net
NLC’s Service Line Warranty Program Tops 100 Cities
Washington, DC – The National League of Cities surpassed a significant milestone last month with more
than 100 cities now participating in the NLC Service Line Warranty Program. Under the program, more
than one million households are now eligible to participate. Administered by Utility Service Partners,
Inc., the program offers citizens in participating cities an affordable way to avoid the unexpected and
often large expense involved with a utility line break.
Cities and towns across the country, from Rolfe, Iowa (population 566) to Atlanta, Georgia (population
540,922) are helping residents who are faced with these unexpected repairs. Many citizens are unaware
that they are responsible for the utility lines that go from their houses to the utility connection. If these
lines break or leak, repairs can be very expensive.
“I am very encouraged by the warm reception this program has quickly received since its introduction 12
months ago” stated Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, National League of Cities. He continued, “In
these difficult economic times, cities are actively seeking creative ways to assist their residents. This
program was designed to help city residents save thousands of dollars on the high cost of repairing broken
or leaking water or sewer lines.”
NLC Service Line Warranty Program provides participating cities with everything needed to introduce
the program to its residents, communicate with local media and publicize where residents can find
information about the program.
National League of Cities
National League of Cities is dedicated to helping city leaders build better communities. NLC is a resource
and advocate for 19,000 cities, towns and villages, representing more than 218 million Americans.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 10
NLC Service Line Warranty Program
The NLC Service Line Warranty Program, administered by Utility Service Partners, helps city residents
save thousands of dollars on the high cost of repairing broken or leaking water or sewer lines. This
program is offered at no cost to the city and is endorsed by the National League of Cities.
Cities interested in participating in the NLC Service Line Warranty Program should contact Brad
Carmichael, Vice President of Business Development at Utility Service Partners,
at bcharmichael@utilitysp.net or (866) 974-4801. Further information is available
at www.nlc.org/enterpriseprograms.
Utility Service Partners
Headquartered in Canonsburg, PA, Utility Service Partners, Inc. (USP) is one of the largest independent
providers of service line warranties in North America with a portfolio of over 375,000 products in the
U.S. Since its formation in September 2003, USP has pioneered partnerships with city/municipal
governments and utilities to provide utility line warranties to their customers.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 11
February 3, 2012
The Honorable Jeffrey Jacobs
Mayor
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Marketing Agreement with Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc. d/b/a
Service Line Warranties of America (“SLWA”)
Dear Mayor Jacobs:
We have discussed entering into a marketing agreement between the City of St. Louis
Park (the “City”) and SLWA.
SLWA provides affordable utility service line warranties to consumers. It is SLWA’s
understanding that, in consideration of SLWA offering its external sewer and external water line
warranties (the “Warranties”) at a 10% discount from its standard rates to the Residents (as
defined below) the City has agreed to cooperate with SLWA in marketing SLWA’s services to
City’s residents and homeowners (the “Residents”) as described below:
1. City hereby grants to SLWA a non-exclusive license to use City’s name and logos on
letterhead and marketing materials to be sent to the Residents from time to time, and to be used
in advertising, all at SLWA’s sole cost and expense and subject to City’s prior review and
approval, which will not be unreasonably conditioned, delayed, or withheld.
2. As consideration for such license, SLWA shall offer the Warranties to the Residents at a
rate that is 10% less than its standard rate for Warranties offered elsewhere.
3. The term of this marketing agreement will be for one year from the date of the execution
of the acknowledgement below and this agreement will then renew on an annual basis unless one
of the parties gives the other advance written notice of at least 90 days that it does not intend to
renew this marketing agreement. City may terminate this marketing agreement 30 days after
giving notice to SLWA that SLWA is in material breach of this agreement if such breach is not
cured during such 30-day period. SLWA will be permitted to complete any marketing initiative
initiated or planned prior to the effective date of any termination of this marketing agreement
after which time, neither party will have any further obligations to the other and the license
described in this letter will terminate.
4. SLWA shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City, its elected officials, appointed
officials, and employees from and against any loss, claim, liability, damage, or expense that any
of them may suffer, sustain or become subject to in connection with any third party claim (each a
“Claim”) resulting from the negligence or willfulness of SLWA in connection with, arising out
of or by reason of this marketing agreement, provided that the applicable indemnitee notifies
SLWA of any such Claim within a time that does not prejudice the ability of SLWA to defend
against such Claim. Any indemnitee hereunder may participate in its, his, or her own defense,
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 12
but will be responsible for all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in connection
with such participation in such defense.
If City agrees that the foregoing fully and accurately describes the agreement between
City and SLWA, please arrange to have a duly authorized representative of City execute and date
the acknowledgement below in each of the duplicate original versions of this letter and return
one to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
If you have any questions or wish to further discuss this marketing agreement, please do
not hesitate to contact Oscar Arras via email at OArras@utilitysp.net or by phone at (214) 632-
6947.
Very truly yours,
Utility Service Partners Private Label, Inc.
By: ________________________________
Print Name: _ Philip E. Riley, Jr. _________
Title: President & CEO________________
By: ________________________________
Print Name: __ Brad H. Carmichael ________
Title: ___Vice President_________________
Acknowledged and Agreed:
City hereby acknowledges and agrees that the foregoing letter fairly and accurately
describes the agreement between City and SLWA as of the date of this acknowledgement.
City of St. Louis Park, MN:
By: __________________________________ Date: ________________________
Print Name: ____________________________
Title: _________________________________
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 13
Exhibit 7
Staff Analysis
What it is:
This is essentially a service line insurance program for the individual homeowner. In exchange
for the City of St. Louis Park (SLP) allowing Utility Service Partners, Inc. (USP) to market /
promote the availability of the program under our auspices (the extent of that promotion may
vary from city to city), the city can either receive a share of the proceeds, typically 10%, or can
pass this on to the homeowners in the form of reduced insurance rates.
Service line ownership costs:
Over the long term this program appears to be cost neutral to a homeowner. For example,
service line ownership cost options appear to be:
1. USP monthly cost (about $5 to $6 month per service line), or
2. special assessments over a 10 year period (currently at 5.85% interest), or
3. lump sum payment about once every 50 to 75 years
Televising and cleaning of sewer service lines could cost $300 to $500. Service line repair or
replacement costs typically range from $2,000 to $7,000.
Value to an individual city (see policy considerations below):
1. depends in large part on what kind of resources a city has on staff to handle customer
service issues
2. the temperament of its council
3. kinds of citizen demands a city would see generated by this kind of program
4. repairs completed within 24 - 48 hours
5. USP utilizes local contractors (SLP and surrounding area)
6. simple for residents - minimizes or removes political requests for city to fund private
service line costs
7. SLP can end program participation anytime
8. program is endorsed by the National League of Cities (NLC) so appears to be very credible
and of high quality
Value to SLP Residents:
1. eliminates unexpectedly high service line repair or replacement costs
2. essentially covers 100% of repair or replacement costs
3. covers cleaning tree roots from service lines
4. one call and service line problem is fixed
5. covers curb stop (shut off) repairs or replacement
6. resident can continue insurance coverage if SLP terminates program participation
Policy Considerations:
1. does the city think it will save time by turning these claims over to this company?
2. will it take more time to explain and manage the city’s role in this program than the
existing situation?
3. will this coverage act as a disincentive for residents to replace their service lines in
conjunction with our street reconstruction projects?
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 14
4. is it better to potentially deal with constituents who are unhappy with the company’s
service or a rejected claim rather than dealing with constituents who are unhappy because
of an unexpected high service line repair or replacement cost?
5. does the city want to generate revenues from this program for itself or pass on savings to
property owners?
6. possible complaints associated with this arrangement:
a. it is unfair for the city to promote a private business like this
b. company does not use the right group of subcontractors (i.e., my cousin’s a plumber;
why isn’t he on the list, poor quality or workmanship, poor customer relations, etc).
c. company goes out of business sometime in the future and insurance expires
7. city staff will spend a great deal of time dealing with the public at the initial, marketing end
of the process. Will that be a concern? Initially residents will likely call the city directly
when they receive the solicitation, even though the brochure contains a USP number. Some
people will call for more information, some people will call to express irritation about
being “sold” something, and some people will simply be confused as to what this is all
about. Elderly customers in particular will probably have a lot of questions about what the
program entails.
8. risk or concern associated with a new program – minimal track history with the USP
program.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: National League of Cities Service Line Warranty Program Page 15
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
Wild Animal Feeding Ordinance Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested at this time. This report is being provided to the City Council regarding a
code amendment staff plans to bring to the Council for approval relating to the feeding of wild
animals.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the proposed ordinance amendment? If
so, please inform staff.
BACKGROUND:
With the continued growth and expansion of urban wildlife (e.g. turkeys, coyotes), staff feels our
code requirements related to the feeding of wildlife needs to be updated.
Chapter 4, Section 4-44 of the City’s Code covers the prohibition of feeding deer, raccoon and
Canada geese. Chapter 12, Section 12-34 (14) of the code covers the prohibition of feeding deer
and raccoon only, with language pertaining to types of prohibited and accepted feeding. The
proposed changes affect both sections of both chapters.
The proposed changes are as follows:
• Combine ordinances into one section. This will assist in clarity and enforcement.
Section 4-44 will be titled “Feeding of Wild Animals” versus “Deer and Raccoon”;
Section 12-34 (14) will refer to Section 4-44.
• Add coyotes and wild turkeys to the list of prohibited animals to feed, Section 4-44
(a). Under the current ordinances/sections, the feeding of coyote and wild turkey is
allowed. Wild turkey and coyotes, due to easy, desirable and available food stock, are
approaching/feeding at various properties within St. Louis Park. The concentrated
presence of these animals causes alarm and creates habituation of these animals in
residential yards and people. It’s beneficial for people and the animals for them to remain
wild and afraid of humans. With the increased numbers of wild turkey and coyotes
present in St. Louis Park the addition of these two animals to the feeding ban is
necessary.
• Add specification of the method in which food can be offered, Section 4-44 (b). The
proposed change is to make the feeding of allowed animals, such as birds, ducks and
squirrels, acceptable but defines the method to feed them (a feeder/feeding apparatus that
has to be 5’ off the ground and screened, if necessary) to prevent undesirable (primarily
deer and wild turkey) animal feeding. Currently, there is no specified height limit and
various food items may be set anywhere which promotes high animal concentrations
causing concentrated fecal matter, attraction of undesirable animals to a site and, inability
to control the site through enforcement.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Wild Animal Feeding Ordinance Amendment
• Add specification for the type of food allowed and prohibited, Section 4-44 (b). The
proposed ordinance clearly defines what food material is acceptable and what food
material is not. The current ordinance references “edible liquids and material” which is
left to interpretation, which means any food material can be left out for any animal,
making enforcement challenging.
• Change effective enforcement of the feeding ban, Section 4-44 (d). Enforcement is
currently difficult since the manner in which the food is offered and specific food items
presented on site are not clearly defined. Under the current scenario any food item for
feeding desirable animals, such as birds, is acceptable. This situation creates an attraction
for deer, coyote, Canada geese and wild turkey to congregate at these feeding sites.
City Attorney, Tom Scott has reviewed and approved the proposed ordinances changes.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There is no cost to the city to expand the list of wildlife prohibited from feeding in St. Louis Park
or to refine the wild animal feeding ban.
Staff does not anticipate a large number of property owners to be affected by the proposed
changes to these ordinances. Clearly defined parameters in the proposed ordinances on what can
be fed, as well as how one can properly feed desirable animals, such as birds, water fowl and
squirrels will reduce staff time spent pursuing violators.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Amended Ordinance
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Wild Animal Feeding Ordinance Amendment
ORDINANCE NO. ____-12
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FEEDING OF WILD ANIMALS,
AMENDING SECTION 4-44 AND SECTION 12-34
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 4-44 of the City Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:
Sec. 4-44. Deer and raccoon Feeding of Wild Animals.
Feeding deer, raccoon or Canada Goose is prohibited and declared a nuisance. Persons
feeding deer, raccoon or Canada Goose shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(a) No person shall feed deer, raccoons, wild turkeys, coyotes or Canada goose
within the boundaries of the city.
(b) No person shall place or permit to be placed on the ground, or within five feet (5’)
of the ground surface any grain, fodder, salt licks, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay or other edible
materials (including feed for birds), which may reasonably be expect to result in deer, raccoon,
wild turkey, coyote or Canada goose feeding, unless such items are screened or protected in a
manner that prevents such feeding. The presence of living fruit trees and other live vegetation
shall not be considered feeding.
(c) The prohibitions in this section shall not apply to:
(1) Veterinarians, city animal control officers or county, state or federal game
officials who are in the course of their duties, have deer, raccoon, coyote,
wild turkey or Canada goose in custody or under their management;
(2) Persons authorized by the City of St. Louis Park to implement the Deer
Management Program approved by the City Council; and
(3) Any food placed upon the property for purposes of trapping or otherwise
taking deer where such trapping or taking is pursuant to a permit issued by
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
(d) In addition to being a violation subject to the general penalty provisions of the
City Code, a violation of this section is declared to be a nuisance affecting public peace and
safety subject to the abatement and assessment provisions of Section 12-35 of the City Code.
SECTION 2. Section 12-34(14) of the City Code is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: Wild Animal Feeding Ordinance Amendment
(14) No person shall feed deer or raccoons within the boundaries of the city. Feeding
shall include, but not be limited to, providing liquids or edible material to deer or
raccoons. Living food sources, such as fruit trees and other live vegetation, shall
not be considered as edible material. This section does not apply to veterinarians,
city employees, city animal wardens, or county, state or federal game officials
who in the course of their duties have deer or raccoons in their custody and/or
under their management.
(14) Feeding of deer, raccoons, wild turkeys, coyotes or Canada goose in violation of
Section 4-44.
Sec. 12-35. Nuisance abatement and assessment.
(a) Purpose of section. The purpose of this section is to provide the city with the authority,
pursuant to M.S.A. § 429.101, as may be amended from time to time, to remove or eliminate
public health or safety hazards from private property and to provide for the collection of unpaid
special charges for all or any part of the costs incurred by the city to remove or eliminate the hazards.
(b) Notice of need to abate nuisance. Whenever the existence of any nuisance defined in this
article, constituting a public health or safety hazard, within any lots or parcels of real estate
situated within the city, shall come to the attention of the health official, the official shall cause
an investigation of the reported nuisance. After the investigation, the health official shall
determine whether a nuisance exists. Upon finding a nuisance, the health official shall prepare a
written notice and mail the notice to the owner of the property. The term "owner" shall be
defined as the person listed as owner according to the current records of the county auditor. Such
notice shall contain the name of the owner, his address (if known), the address of the property
containing the nuisance and a description of the nuisance which must be abated at the owner's
expense, and the time frame within which the nuisance must be abated as determined in the sole
discretion of the health official. In determining the time within which owner must abate the
nuisance, the health official shall consider, among other factors, the following:
(1) The severity of the threat to public health and safety;
(2) The size or magnitude of the nuisance; and
(3) The number of persons affected by the nuisance.
The notice shall further state if owner fails to abate the nuisance within the time provided in such
notice, the city may enter onto the owner's property for purpose of abating the nuisance.
Noncompliance with the required action will result in city action to abate the nuisance the cost of
which will subsequently be assessed as a lien against the owner's property. If the owner's address
is not known, service of the notice may be made upon a tenant, lessee or owner's agent and shall
also be posted upon the property. Where no owner or owner's agent can be found, the city clerk
shall cause the notice to be published once in the official city newspaper within ten days of
issuance of the notice. If publication is required, the city shall allow an additional ten days from
the date of publication for owner to comply with the notice of violation and abatement.
(c) Time to respond. The owner shall abate the nuisance, at the owner's expense, within the
period of time contained within the notice. In the instance of publication of the notice, the owner
shall have ten days following the date of publication of the notice, plus the amount of time
provided in the notice to abate the nuisance. The health official shall cause an inspection of the
property containing the nuisance to be made the day after the last day for abatement as stated in
the notice or within such other time as may be reasonable and practical.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Subject: Wild Animal Feeding Ordinance Amendment
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2012, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ATTEST: By:
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
MN GreenStep Cities Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the City’s participation in the MN
GreenStep Cities program. No action is required at this time. A draft resolution for St. Louis
Park’s participation in MN GreenStep is attached; the intent is to bring the Resolution forward
for consideration at a future Council meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is participation in GreenStep Cities a useful action for achieving the City’s strategic direction of
being a leader in Environmental Stewardship?
Please let staff know of any questions or concerns you might have.
BACKGROUND:
Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program to help
cities achieve their sustainability goals through implementation of best practices. Each best
practice can be implemented by completing one or more specific actions from a list of four to
eight actions. These actions are tailored to all Minnesota cities; they focus on cost savings and
energy use reduction, and encourage innovation. See www.mngreenstep.org for more details.
Key milestones in SLP’s participation with GreenStep Cities include:
• Development of the GreenStep Cities program began in 2008 when Tom Harmening
served on the Advisory Committee that developed the framework for this effort, and city
staff served on technical advisory committees.
• In 2009 and 2010, SLP participated as one of five pilot cities with the Urban Land
Institute’s (ULI) Regional Council of Mayors. ULI assisted the MNPCA in
implementing the GreenStep demonstration project. The City’s E Group focused on
three best practices the city could pursue under the demonstration pilot.
• In 2011, as a subset of the GreenStep Cities demonstration project, SLP’s carbon
footprint measurement was calculated and reported to Council in 2011. See attached
report from April 11, 2011. St. Louis Park, Falcon Heights and Edina are the only three
MN cities that have undertaken this process. When 2010-2011 data is available, updated
calculations will be presented to Council.
Since the City is currently implementing over 90 of the GreenStep Cities' best practices and
activities, full participation in MN GreenStep is a natural progression that will continue to
challenge the city to be a leader in environmental stewardship and provide recognition for doing so.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012, (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Participation in GreenStep Cities does not require additional funds; the best practices being
pursued are within the City’s budget and part of the way SLP does its business.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Participation in MN GreenStep Cities is consistent with the City’s Vision and Strategic Direction
that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and that we
will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business”.
NEXT STEPS:
If Council desires to pursue MN GreenStep status, adoption of a resolution is required. Once the
resolution is adopted our proposed activities will be posted at the GreenStep website and SLP
will be recognized as a GreenStep City. A draft GreenStep Resolution is attached. The intent is
to bring this resolution to a future Council meeting for City Council adoption.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
List of Best Practices and Activities
Carbon Baseline Report April 2011
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012, (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update
DRAFT RESOLUTION
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM
WHEREAS, uncertainty in energy prices and the transition away from fossil fuel energy
sources present new challenges and opportunities to both the City of St. Louis Park and to the
economic health of its citizens and businesses; and
WHEREAS, local governments have the unique opportunity to achieve both
energy use and climate change gas reductions through building and facilities management;
land use and transportation planning; environmental management; and through economic and
community development; and
WHEREAS, a broad coalition of public and private stakeholders including the
League of Minnesota Cities, the MPCA, Office of Energy Security and CERTs responded to
the 2008 legislation by establishing the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program to provide a series
of sustainable development best practices focusing on local government opportunities to reduce
energy use and greenhouse gases; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota GreenStep Cities program assists in facilitating technical
assistance for the implementation of these sustainable development best practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Vision St. Louis Park and is committed to being a
leader in environmental stewardship and will increase environmental consciousness and
responsibility in all areas of city business; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Vision St. Louis Park will focus in areas of expanding energy
efficiencies in the City’s operations; educate staff and the public on environmental
consciousness, stewardship and best practices; work with rehab loan programs, development
projects to encourage green building design, creation of open space and environmental
initiatives, preserve, enhance and provide good stewardship of our parks; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Environmental Group (E Group), composed of
intradepartmental staff ensures that environmental activities are coordinated with all departments
and is actively involved in environmental activities and best practices outlined in the MN
GreenStep Cities.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
does hereby authorize the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) to participate in the Minnesota
GreenStep Cities program. Be it further resolved that the City:
1. Appoints Jim Vaughan, St. Louis Park Environmental Coordinator, and Kathy Larsen,
Housing Programs Coordinator to serve as the city’s GreenStep co-coordinators to
facilitate best practice; and
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012, (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update
2. Will facilitate the involvement of community members, civic, business and educational
organizations, and other units of government as appropriate in the planning, promoting
and implementing of GreenStep Cities best practices; and
3. Will identify a short list of best practices for further development and promotion:
• Buildings and Lighting – Promote and implement a Green Building Policy;
• Environmental Management – Manage solid waste by increasing waste reduction
and recycling at multi-family buildings;
• Efficient and Healthy Development Patterns – Adopt Active Living Resolution
and develop and adopt Active Living Policy;
• Economic and Community Development – Develop Green purchasing guidelines.
4. Will claim credit for having implemented and will implement in total 90 required and
optional GreenStep best practices and activities that will result in energy use reduction,
economic savings and reduction in the community’s greenhouse gas footprint. A
summary of the city’s implementation of best practices will be posted on the Minnesota
GreenStep Cities web site.
By: _______________________________
Mayor
_______________________________
City Manager
ATTEST:
______________________________
Date__________________________
1. Public Buildings
X
(1) Audit (or when cost-effective, recommission) all city-owned buildings in the bottom third of the B3 energy performance
ranking and implement a majority of energy efficiency opportunities that have a payback under 5 years.
X
(2) Complete energy efficiency improvements in at least one city, school or park district building (in addition to buildings
addressed in action 2) via retrofit and retro-/re- commissioning, with financing at attractive interest rates under MN’s PBEEEP
program or related lease-purchase financing, energy performance contracting, or other cost-justified program.
X
(3) Participate in other state or utility programs that provide rebates or co-funding for energy efficiency improvements to public
buildings.
X
(4) Document that the operation, or construction / remodeling, of at least one city-owned building (excluding park buildings)
meets or qualifies for a green building standard.
2. Private Buildings
X
(1) Create a marketing and outreach program with the local utility and/or the local Community Action Program to promote
residential energy use reduction and energy efficiency.
(2) Take action to conserve drinking water resources through at least one the following:
X a. Implement a robust watering ordinance.
X b. Implement a conservation rate structure.
X c. Adopt, with modifications as necessary, a model landscaping ordinance to allow for low water-use landscaping.
X
(3) Provide a meaningful and significant incentive to private parties (builders, homeowners, businesses, institutions) who
renovate to a green building standard:
X a. Green building design assistance
X b. Density bonus
(4) Customize a model sustainable building renovation policy and adopt language governing commercial renovation projects that:
X a. Receive city financial support, and/or
3. New Green Buildings
X (3) Customize a model sustainable building policy and adopt language governing new private development projects that:
a. Receive city financial support, and/or
b. Require city regulatory approval (conditional use permit, rezoning, PUD).
(4) Provide a meaningful and significant incentive to private parties (residents, builders, developers) who build to a green building
standard:
X a. Green building design assistance
4. Outdoor Lighting & Signals
MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES and ACTIVITIES CURRENTLY
IMPLEMENTED BY SLP
Updated 5/3/12
Buildings & Lighting Best Practices
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 5
X (1) Install solar-powered lighting in a street, parking lot or park project.
X
(2) Work with a utility program to relamp exterior building lighting for at least 30% of city-owned buildings with energy efficient,
Dark-Sky compliant lighting.
X (3) Replace at least one-third of the city’s traffic signals with energy efficient LED lighting technologies.
5. Building Reuse
X
(1) Adopt development and design standards that facilitate infill and redevelopment, such as developing strip/large format
commercial areas into more livable/walkable neighborhoods and gathering places.
1. Comp Plan
X
(1) Adopt/have an adopted comprehensive plan that is less than ten years old (required for Category A cities) OR, Category B and
C cities may simply adopt a land use plan that was adopted by a regional entity or the county less than ten years ago.
X
(2) Demonstrate that regulatory ordinances comply with the comprehensive plan including but not limited to having the zoning
ordinance explicitly reference the comprehensive plan as the foundational document for decision making.
(3) Include ecological/transportation provisions in the comprehensive plan that explicitly aim to achieve all of the following goals:
X a. Establish policies with numerical targets to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
X
(4) Adopt climate protection or energy independence goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan or in a separate policy
document, and link these goals to direct implementation recommendations.
2. Higher Density
(1) Limit barriers to higher density housing by including in the city zoning ordinance and zoning map a zoning district that allows:
X a. Neighborhood single-family density at six units per acre or greater.
(2) Encourage higher density housing through at least two of the following strategies:
X a. Incorporate a flexible lot size/frontage requirement for infill development.
(3) Encourage a higher intensity of commercial land uses through at least one of the following strategies:
X
a. Include in the city zoning ordinance and zoning map a commercial district with reduced lot sizes and zero-lot-line
setbacks, or a FAR minimum between .75 and 1.
(4) Provide one or more of the following incentives for infill projects, or for life-cycle housing near job or retail centers, or for
achieving an average net residential density of seven units per acre:
X a. Other incentives.
3. Mixed Uses
(1) Locate or lease a government facility that has at least two of these attributes:
X a. Adjacent to an existing employment or residential center.
X b. Designed to facilitate and encourage access by walking and biking.
X c. Accessible by existing regular transit service.
X
(2) Modify a planned unit development – PUD - ordinance to emphasize mixed use development or to limit residential PUDs to
areas adjacent to commercial development.
Land Use Best Practices
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 6
X (3) Certify a new development as complying with LEED-ND standards, including the mixed-use credits.
X
(4) Create incentives for vertical mixed-use development in appropriate locations (downtown, commercial districts near colleges
or universities, historic commercial districts).
4. Highway Development
X (1) Conduct a visual preference survey with community members and establish design goals for highway corridors.
5. Conservation Design
X
(1) Conduct a Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment (NRI and NRA) and incorporate protection of priority natural systems
or resources through the subdivision or development process, as described in Minnesota’s 2009 Model Ordinances for Sustainable
Development.
1. Complete Green Streets
X
(1) Document the installation of trees, and other green stormwater infrastructure, and utility renovations as needed (sewer,
water, electric, telecommunications) as part of at least one complete street reconstruction project.
X
(2) Identify and remedy street-trail gaps (at least one) between city streets and trails/bike trails to better facilitate walking and
biking.
X (3) Implement traffic calming measures in at least one street redevelopment project.
2. Mobility Options
(1) Promote walking, biking and transit use by one or more of the following means:
X
a. Produce/distribute a map(s) and/or signage and/or a web site that shows (by neighborhood if a larger city) key
civic/commercial sites, best bike and pedestrian routes, and transit routes and schedules.
X b. Increase the number of bike facilities, such as racks, bike stations, showers at city offices.
X c. Add bus infrastructure, such as signage, benches, shelters and real-time arrival data streaming..
X d. Launch an Active Living campaign in concert with your local community health board.
X
(2) Prominently identify on the city’s web site mobility options for hire: transit services; paratransit/Dial-A-Ride; cab service(s);
rental car agency(s).
(3) Accomplish at least one of the following transit / mobility sharing projects, working with other units of local governments as
needed:
X a. Add/expand transit service.
3. City Fleets
X (1) Right-size the city fleet with the most fuel-efficient vehicles that are of an optimal size/capacity for their intended functions.
(2) Document the phase-in of at least three of the following equipment and operational changes in vehicle contracts, for city or
local transit fleets, or for school/park board fleets:
X a. Monthly monitoring and reporting for staff on fuel usage and costs.
X b. Maintenance schedules that optimize vehicle life and fuel efficiency.
X c. Alternative fuel vehicles.
Transportation Best Practices
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 7
X
d. Lower-carbon fuels (such as biodiesel above the State-mandated 5%, straight vegetable oil) using a life-cycle
calculation.
X (3) Phase in bike, foot or horseback police patrols.
X
(4) Participate in Project GreenFleet to retrofit or replace diesel engines, or to install auxiliary power units that reduce truck and
bus idling.
4. Demand-Side Travel Planning
X
(1) In development standards, right-size parking minimum standards and add parking maximums in pedestrian-friendly or transit-
served areas.
X (2) For cities with regular transit service, require or provide incentives for the siting of retail services at transit/density nodes.
X
(3) For cities with regular transit service, require or provide incentives for the siting of higher density housing at transit/density
nodes.
(4) Incorporate demand-side transportation strategies into development regulations, adopting, with modifications as necessary,
at least one of the following from Minnesota’s 2009 Updated Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development :
X a. Travel Demand Management Performance Standard
X
(5) Document that a development project certifies under the LEED for Neighborhood Development program and is awarded at
least one of the following credits:
X a. Transportation Demand Management.
X b. Housing and Jobs Proximity.
5. Urban Forests
X (1) Qualify as a Tree City USA.
X
(2) Adopt as policy MN Tree Trusts’ Best Practices and use the guidelines in at least one development project to achieve an
excellent an exemplary rating.
(3) Budget tree installation and maintenance to, within 15 years, achieve the following tree canopy shading for streets, sidewalks
and parking lots in the following zoning districts:
X a. At least 25% for industrial and commercial zoning.
X b. At least 75% for residential zoning.
(4) Adopt at least one of the following ordinances/policies:
X a. Adopt an ordinance/policy relating to protection of trees on parcels affected by city planning/regulatory processes.
X b. Adopt landscaping/nuisance ordinances that promote, rather than create barriers for, native vegetation.
6. Stormwater
(1) Adopt by ordinance one or more of the following:
X a. A stormwater runoff volume limit to pre-development volumes for the 5-year, 24-hour rainfall maximum event.
X
(2) Adopt an ordinance with erosion and sediment control provisions as well are requirements for permanent stormwater
treatment.
7. Green Infrastructure
X (1) Identify gaps (connectivity breaks) in your city’s system of parks, trails and open spaces, and remedy at least one of them.
(2) Document at least one of the following performance measures:
X a. All residents are within ½ mile of a park or protected green space.
X (3) Create park management standards that maximize at least one of the following:
X a. Low maintenance native landscaping.
X
(4) Document that the operation, or construction/remodeling, of at least one park building meets or qualifies for a green building
standard, with special attention to highlighting and educating around the green features.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 8
X (5) Develop a program to involve community members in land restoration and stewardship.
8. Surface Water
X
(1) Work with other organizations to support citizen education about and involvement with actions to attain measurable, publicly
announced surface water improvement targets for lakes, streams and wetlands, adopted by the city council and reported on each
year.
X (2) Adopt a shoreland ordinance consistent with MN Dept. of Natural Resources rules as modified.
9. Water and Wastewater Facilities
X (1) Compare the energy use and performance of your facilities with other peer plants using standardized, free tools.
X
(2) Plan and budget for motor maintenance and upgrades so as to assure the most energy efficient, durable and appropriate
equipment is available when upgrades or break downs occur.
X
(3) Establish an on-going budget and program for decreasing inflow and infiltration into sewer lines, involving at least gutter,
foundation drains and sump pump disconnects.
X
(4) Assess energy and chemicals use at drinking water facilities and implement one-third of recommendations with a payback of
less than 3 years.
10. Solid Waste Reduction
(1) Document signing of at least one resource management contract with a waste hauler for one or more of:
X a. City government operations.
X b. Schools, libraries, parks, or municipal health care facilities.
X c. A commercial or industrial business.
X
(2) Publicize, promote and use the varied businesses collecting and marketing used and repaired consumer goods in the
city/county.
X (3) Organize residential solid waste collection by private and/or public operations to accomplish multiple benefits.
X
(4) For cities that provide direct or contract waste collection services, offer volume-based pricing on residential garbage and/or
feebates on recycling so that the price differences are large enough to increase recycling/composting but not illegal dumping.
11. Local Air Quality
(1) Regulate outdoor wood burning, using model ordinance language, performance standards and bans as appropriate, for at
least one of the following:
X a. Recreational burning.
1. Benchmarks & Community Engagement
X
(1) Report progress at least annually to community members on implementation of GreenStep City best practices, including
energy/carbon benchmarking data if gathered.
2. Green Business Development
X (1) Document steps taken to lower the environmental footprint of a brownfield remediation/redevelopment project.
3. Renewable Energy
Economic and Community Development Best Practices
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 9
(1) Consistently promote at least one of the following means of increasing renewable generation:
X a. Local, state and federal financial incentives for property owners to install renewable energy systems.
4. Local Food
(1) Expand/strengthen or create at least one of the following means of expanding local food access:
X a. A farmer’s market.
X b. A community or school garden, orchard or forest.
(2) Conduct at least one of the following campaigns to measurably increase:
X a. Backyard gardening / chickens.
5. Business Synergies
(1) Require, build or facilitate at least four of the following in a business/industrial project:
X a. Shared parking/access.
X b. Buildings located within walking distance of transit and/or residential zoning.
X c. Renovated buildings.
X d. Green buildings built to exceed the Minnesota energy code.
From among all the best practices (1 - 28), the "floating BP" requirement:
90 TOTAL BEST PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A STEP 3 GREENSTEP CITY
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 10
Meeting Date: April 11, 2011
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:
Carbon Baseline Measurement Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the Carbon Baseline Measurement that was
recently completed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This report is informational and no policy consideration is necessary at this time.
BACKGROUND:
In 2009 the City participated as one of five pilot cities in the Mn Pollution Control Agency’s
(MnPCA) GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) under the
auspice of the Regional Council of Mayors assisted the MnPCA in implementing the GreenStep
Cities demonstration project.
At the September 13, 2010 Study Session the Council was presented with the Environmental
Activities Update 2008-10. At this session the Council supported the next step in the MN
GreenStep Cities demonstration project; measuring the Community’s carbon footprint.
Calculating our carbon emissions creates a baseline from which the impact of future efforts to
reduce this carbon footprint can be measured.
An estimate of the City’s carbon footprint was prepared by the Urban Land Institute’s consultant
Rick Carter of LHB. A summary of Rick Carter’s analysis is provided below.
The St. Louis Park Community-Wide Carbon Baseline Assessment
Methodology
This study measured green house emissions as tons of CO2 produced within the city’s
boundaries.
• First, data was collected from: the utility companies, Met Council, City of St. Louis Park
Utilities, Mn Department of Transportation, Mn Pollution Control Agency, Mn Climatology
Office, and Hennepin County.
• The data included the amounts of solid waste processed (including recycling), water pumped,
natural gas and electricity consumed, and vehicle miles traveled for the two year period of
2008 and 2009.
• Finally, Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software developed by ICLEI –Local
Governments for Sustainability, was used to convert the measured amounts of waste, water,
gas, electricity and vehicle miles traveled to tons of CO2 produced citywide and per capita.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 11
Findings
Following is a chart which shows the quantities of waste produced, miles traveled and gas and
electricity used per St. Louis Park resident per day, along with the corresponding estimated
amount of CO2 produced annually. During the two year period an average of 16.1 tons/year of
CO2 was produced for each St. Louis Park resident, with a decline from 2008 to 2009 as
highlighted.
St. Louis Park Community -Wide Carbon Baseline Measurement - 2008 and 2009
2008 2009 Average of 2008-2009
Quantity
Person/Day
Tons CO2 Produced
Annually
Quantity
Person/Day
Tons CO2 Produced
Annually
Quantity
Person/Day
Tons CO2 Produced
Annually
Waste 7.1 pounds 0.23 6.5 pounds 0.21 6.8 pounds 0.22
Vehicle Miles Traveled 1 27 miles 5.6 27 miles 5.6 27 miles 5.6
Electric & Gas kBtu
Residential 118 kBtu 3.6 114 kBtu 3.4 116 kBtu 3.5
Electric & Gas kBtu
Commercial/Industrial 77 kBtu 7.0 75 kBtu 6.5 76 kBtu 6.8
Annual tons/ person 2 16.5 15.7 16.1
Annual tons/
residential equivalent 3 12.7 12.1 12.4
Total Tons–Citywide 731,186 696,192 713,689
Behind the measurements:
1 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is calculated as all cars, trucks, buses and train trips within the
city boundaries. This means all cars, buses, etc passing through the city are included as
VMT for the citywide carbon measurement. On the flip side, VMT by residents driving
outside the city boundaries are not included.
2 The population of St. Louis Park in 2008 was estimated at 44,221, in 2009 at 44,293.
3 The “residential equivalent” population includes residents, as well as workers, movie goers,
hotel guests, etc. that come into the city. The residential equivalent population in 2008 was
57,626 and in 2009, 57,511.
Notes:
• To address the effects of temperature and energy, gas and electric use was normalized for
heating and cooling degree days.
• Water use was not included in the calculation of CO2 produced since most of the CO2
production related to water use is already included in the energy use measurement. Water
use in gallons/day/capita was 124 gallons in 2008, 126gallons in 2009, for an average of 125
gallons per day per resident.
• Bike Counts were measured based on actual counts on the bike trail at Belt Line Blvd on
given days. In 2008 there were 382 bike trips a day, in 2009, 364 bike trips a day, for an
average of 373 bike trips per day.
• Although air travel has an impact it was not included due to the difficulty of measuring this
for SLP.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 12
Carbon Produced in St. Louis Park
Not surprisingly the use of natural gas and electricity are the major contributors of carbon
production as the following charts illustrate.
• Natural gas and electricity account for over 63% of SLP’s carbon footprint.
• Transportation/travel accounts for over 34% of SLP’s carbon footprint
• It is significant to compare the commercial-industrial use of gas and electricity to the
residential use.
• Two thirds of the carbon produced from energy use is associated with commercial,
industrial activity and only a third from residential use.
Comparisons of Green House Gas Emissions Per Capita
St. Louis Park is lower than the state and national averages and well above the world average for
production of CO2 per capita. Reasons for St. Louis Park’s lower production rate:
• SLP has virtually no agriculture industry which is a significant producer of CO2.
• The study did not include contribution from food consumption within the city.
• Since measurements are per capita, denser communities generally have lower CO2
production than more sparsely populated communities.
5
16.1
2020
0
10
20
World US Minnesota St. Louis ParkAnnual Tons of CO2 Produced Per Capita
Carbon Produced by Catagory
Waste, 1.4%
Travel,
34.7%
Energy,
63.9%
Carbon from Energy
Commercial-
Industrial,
66.0%
Residential,
34.0%
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 13
NEXT STEPS
Mr. Carter has been asked by ULI, Regional Council of Mayors to present findings from the
cities of Falcon Heights and St. Louis Park at its April 28, 2011 meeting. St. Louis Park, Falcon
Heights and Edina are leaders in establishing their citywide carbon footprints. Only a handful of
cities have prepared this tool to use for future educational outreach, planning and evaluation. At
the April 28th meeting, Mr. Carter will be using the findings from St. Louis Park and Falcon
Heights to illustrate the process and benefits of establishing the carbon baseline for cities.
Now that a baseline has been documented, the information can
• Deepen the understanding of opportunities to save energy and money, mitigate climate
change, and manage risk in the face of future green house gas (GHG) emission regulations
and oil insecurity.
• Assist in promoting public understanding of the cities’ effects on climate change and
increasing awareness of activities that can reduce carbon footprints.
• Inform subsequent analyses, plans, and policy decisions by the cities and others
The E-Group will develop a strategy for sharing this information with the Council and
community that will be consumable and actionable and a presentation will be made to Council if
so requested.
.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
City of St. Louis Park through Vision St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. The City of St. Louis Park strives to increase environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Development of the carbon
baseline assessment will be a valuable tool to assist the City in demonstrating and promoting its
environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Mr. Carter’s Carbon Baseline Measurement Power Point Report
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: MN GreenStep Cities Update Page 14
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
Administrative Penalties - Next Steps
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on the status of
the Charter Amendment recently approved by the City Council, and to summarize the next step
which is to amend the City Code to incorporate the proposed process for Administrative
Penalties.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to make this change to the City Code to allow for a simpler and more
direct code enforcement procedure?
BACKGROUND:
Staff is proposing an ordinance to implement an administrative penalties system to allow for a
simpler and more direct code enforcement procedure. The administrative penalty process does
not replace any existing enforcement tools or processes; it simply adds another tool to gain
compliance in a more efficient and quicker manner than working through the Hennepin County
Court system. The City amended the City Charter earlier this year to make it clear the City has
the authority to levy unpaid civil penalties.
Administrative Penalties:
In summary, the proposed administrative penalty ordinance is a process by which the City may
issue a citation to the owner of a property where a code violation exists. It imposes a fee (civil
penalty) to a property owner or citizen charged with a code violation. It also includes a process
to appeal the civil penalty, and a process for assessing unpaid fines in a manner similar to a
special assessment.
Charter Amendment:
The Charter Commission met on December 6, 2012 to review the proposed Charter Amendment,
and unanimously voted to recommend the City Council approved the amendment to the Charter.
On February 21, 2012, the City Council approved the first reading of the Charter Amendment.
The City Council approved the second reading on March 5, 2012.
The Charter Amendment was published in the local paper, giving residents 60 days to submit a
petition for a referendum on the Charter Amendment. The 60 days expires on May 14, 2012. As
of the date of this report, a petition has not been submitted, and staff has not been notified that a
petition is pending. Assuming a petition is not submitted, the Charter Amendment takes effect
30 days after the initial 60 day publication period expires. The additional 30 days expires on
June 15, 2012. An ordinance establishing the Administrative Penalty process may be adopted
any time after June 15th.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
Ordinance Amendment:
A draft ordinance that establishes the Administrative Penalty process was presented to the City
Council as a written report on June 13, 2011. It was also discussed in study session on August
22, 2011. At that meeting, the Council expressed support of the ordinance and directed staff to
proceed with the Charter Amendment and to continue researching and developing the
Administrative Penalty ordinance. The following specific comments and questions were
discussed:
1. Hearing Officers. The Council asked who the Hearing Officers would be, and about the
process the City will use to appoint them. Staff stated they would be active attorneys that
do not live in St. Louis Park. Staff will advertise for Hearing Officers, and assemble a
list of complete applications for the Council to review. The Council will review the
qualifications and appoint five to a list for staff to draw upon. The list will be updated on
an as-needed basis, such as when an attorney withdraws from the list or an attorney is
removed from the list because he/she repeatedly turns down requests to hear appeals.
2. Time limits on Hearings. A comment was submitted stating that the defendant should be
limited to 10 or 15 minutes to speak. Staff responded saying that the City and defendant
will be limited to the facts of the violation only.
3. Assessing unpaid fines. Council asked what happens if a house is sold prior to the fine
being assessed at the end of the year. Staff responded that the fines will be assessed in
the same manner as unpaid utility fees are assessed. If a home is sold prior to the end of
the year assessment, then they can be prepaid by the current owner. Typically the title
company checks for pending assessment prior to the property closing. They will be
notified of the unpaid fines at this time.
Administrative Process:
Since the August Council meeting, staff has been working on the administrative process and
forms to be used for issuing and tracking citations, receiving payment, assessing unpaid penalties
and conducting a hearing. In order to reduce cost and staff burden, emphasis was placed on
utilizing existing procedures as much as possible. The following is a summary of the process:
Issuing citations: Staff will issue and track citations in the same manner they are currently
issuing and tracking county citations, except that instead of mailing a copy of the citation to
Hennepin County District Court, staff will send the copy of the citation to the Finance
Department. Upon receipt of the copy of the citation, the Finance Department will enter it in a
log for tracking.
Receiving payment: Payment will be sent to the Finance Department. Upon receipt of the
payment, staff will note on the citation log that the penalty has been paid and deposit the funds.
Assessing unpaid penalties: At the end of the year, all unpaid penalties will be added to the list
of unpaid utility fees to be assessed to the property. This way, the penalties can be collected
using a collection process that already exists. Additional process and staff time is not required to
collect the unpaid penalty.
Conducting a hearing: If someone decides to contest a citation, he or she will call the City
Clerk’s office to set up a hearing. The Clerk will set up the hearing and notify all parties. This
process is an expansion of the current appeal process. Under the current ordinance, the appeal is
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
heard by the City Manager or a designee. The new process requires a hearing officer that is not a
City staff person, and notices mailed to all parties involved.
Civil Penalty Fine Schedule:
In addition to the ordinance, the City Council, by Resolution, needs to adopt a Civil Penalty Fine
Schedule. Staff from all departments that would issue administrative citations worked together
to form the draft fine schedule, which is attached for your review. It is written in such a way that
each chapter of the City Code has a penalty that covers any violation to that chapter. Some
chapters may carry greater penalties than others due to the severity of the violations typically
found in that chapter. There are some exceptions listed to each chapter that may require a greater
or lesser penalty than the standard penalty for that chapter. These exceptions are listed under
each chapter heading.
Consideration was given to determine the amount of the penalty so that it is fair, of sufficient
amount to gain compliance, and not so much that people will appeal the penalty in the hopes of
getting it reduced.
For repeat violations, the penalty will double the previous penalty levied, up to a maximum of
$2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the
fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth:
$400).
NEXT STEPS:
1. Present an update to the City Council in a Study Session in June.
2. City Council conducts the first and second readings of the ordinance.
3. Ordinance becomes effective in August, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is the intent of the civil penalty process to respectfully resolve code violations in a manner that
reduces staff time and ensures all fines are paid.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Draft Administrative Penalty Ordinance
Draft Civil Penalty Fine Schedule
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 May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Sec. 1-14. Civil Penalties.
(a) Purpose.
(1) Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this section are intended to
provide the public and the city with an informal, cost effective and expeditious
alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations of certain ordinance provisions.
(2) The procedures are intended to be voluntary on the part of those who have been
charged with administrative offenses. At any time prior to the payment of the
administrative penalty as is provided for hereafter, the individual may withdraw from
participation in the procedures in which event the city may bring criminal charges in
accordance with law. Likewise, the city, in its discretion, may choose not to initiate an
administrative offense and may bring criminal charges in the first instance.
(3) In the event a party participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not
pay the monetary penalty which may be imposed, the city will seek to collect the costs
of the administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in the
event the party is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal violation.
(b) Administrative offense defined. An administrative offense is a violation of a provision of
this Code and is subject to the administrative penalties set forth in the schedule of offenses and
penalties referred to in subsection (h), hereafter.
(c) Notice. Any person employed by the city, authorized in writing by the city manager,
shall, upon determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator, or in the case of a
vehicular violation, attach to the vehicle a notice of the violation. Said notice shall set forth the
nature, date and time of violation, the name of the official issuing the notice and the amount of
the scheduled penalty.
(d) Payment. Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven days of the
time of issuance of the notice, pay the amount set forth on the schedule of penalties for the
violation. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall be deemed to be an
admission of the violation.
(e) Appeal. Any person who is required by the city to pay an administrative penalty may
make a written appeal of the penalty to the city manager, or designee, within seven days of
notice by the city of the penalty. The city manager, or designee, will have authority to reduce the
fine or determine whether the appellant is to be charged with a penalty.
(f) Failure to pay. In the event a party charged with an administrative offense fails to pay the
penalty, a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge may be brought against the alleged violator
in accordance with applicable statutes.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 5
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
(g) Disposition of penalties. All penalties collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to
the city and may be deposited in the city's general fund.
(h) Offenses and penalties. Offenses which may be charged as administrative offenses and
the penalties for such offenses may be established by resolution of the city council from time to
time and listed in appendix A to this Code.
(i) Subsequent offenses. In the event a party is charged with a subsequent administrative
offense within a 12-month period of paying a penalty for the same or substantially similar
offense, the subsequent administrative penalty shall be increased by $10.00 above the previous
administrative penalty.
***
(a) Purpose. The city council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcing
the city code. While criminal fines and penalties have been the most frequent enforcement
mechanism, there are certain negative consequences for both the city and the accused. The delay
inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution. Citizens resent being labeled as
criminals for violations of the City Code. The higher burden of proof and the potential of
incarceration do not appear appropriate for most Code violations. The criminal process does not
always regard city code violations as being important. Accordingly, the city council finds that
the use of administrative citations and the imposition of civil penalties is a legitimate and
necessary alternative method of enforcement. This method of enforcement is in addition to any
other legal remedy that may be pursued for city code violations.
(b) Alternative methods of enforcement.
(1) The administrative hearing process provided for in this Article shall be in addition to
any other legal or equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
(2) The city may initiate a civil enforcement action to obtain code compliance before,
during or after an administrative enforcement proceedings.
(3) If the final adjudication in the administrative penalty procedure is a finding of no
violation, then the city may not prosecute a criminal violation in district court based on
the same set of facts. This does not preclude the city from pursuing an administrative
penalty or a criminal conviction for a violation of the same provision of the City Code
based on a different set of facts. A different date of violation will constitute a different
set of facts and a separate offense.
(c) General provisions.
(1) A violation of a provision of the city code or a violation of the terms and conditions of
a city approval, including permits and licenses, required and granted under this code is
an administrative offense that may be subject to an administrative citation and civil
penalties. Each day a violation exists constitutes a separate offense.
(2) An administrative offense may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $2000.00 per
separate offense.
(3) The city council will adopt by ordinance a schedule of fines for offenses initiated by
administrative citation. The city council is not bound by the schedule when a matter is
appealed to it for administrative review.
(4) The city council may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing
officers for his or her services.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 6
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
(5) The city manager must adopt procedures for administering the administrative citation
program.
(d) Administrative citation.
(1) A person authorized to enforce provisions of the city code may issue an administrative
citation upon belief that a code violation has occurred. The citation must be issued in
person or by first class mail to the person responsible for the violation. The citation
must state the date, time, and nature of the offense, the identity of the person issuing the
citation, the amount of the scheduled fine, and the manner for paying the fine or
appealing the citation. If the city seeks to impose more than one fine for a continuing
violation, a separate citation shall be issued for each violation date.
(2) The person responsible for the violation must either pay the scheduled fine or request a
hearing within ten calendar days after issuance of the citation. Payment of the fine
constitutes admission of the violation. A late payment fee of 10% of the scheduled fine
amount will be imposed in accordance with section 1-14(h).
(e) Administrative hearing.
(1) The city council will periodically approve a list of lawyers licensed to practice law in
the State of Minnesota, from which the city manager will randomly select a hearing
officer to hear and determine a matter for which a hearing is requested. The accused
will have the right to request no later than five calendar days before the date of the
hearing that the assigned hearing officer be removed from the case. One request for
each case will be granted automatically by the city manager. A subsequent request
must be directed to the assigned hearing officer who will decide whether he or she
cannot fairly and objectively review the case. The city enforcement officer may
remove a hearing officer only by requesting that the assigned hearing officer find that
he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. If such a finding is made, the
officer shall remove himself or herself from the case, and the city manager will assign
another hearing officer. The hearing officer must not be a city employee. The city
manager must establish a procedure for evaluating the competency of the hearing
officers, including comments from accused violators and city staff. These reports must
be provided to the city council.
(2) Upon the hearing officer's own initiative or upon written request of a party
demonstrating the need, the officer may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a
witness or the production of books, papers, records or other documents that are material
to the matter being heard. The party requesting the subpoena is responsible for serving
the subpoena and for paying the fees and expenses of a witness in accordance with the
same rules governing civil lawsuits in state court. A person served with a subpoena
may file an objection with the hearing officer promptly but no later than the time
specified in the subpoena for compliance. The hearing officer may cancel or modify
the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive. A person who, without just cause,
fails or refuses to attend and testify or to produce the required documents in obedience
to a subpoena is guilty of a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the party requesting the
subpoena may seek an order from district court directing compliance.
(3) Notice of the hearing must be served in person or by mail on the person responsible for
the violation at least 10 calendar days in advance, unless a shorter time is accepted by
all parties. At the hearing, the parties will have the opportunity to present testimony
and question any witnesses, but strict rules of evidence will not apply. The hearing
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 7
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
officer must tape record the hearing and receive testimony and exhibits. The officer
must receive and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, which possesses
probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of
their affairs.
(4) The hearing officer has the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a
citation, to impose or modify (increase or decrease) the scheduled fine, and to modify,
stay, or waive a scheduled fine either unconditionally or upon compliance with
appropriate conditions. When imposing a penalty for a violation, the hearing officer
may consider any or all of the following factors:
a. The duration of the violation;
b. The frequency or reoccurrence of the violation;
c. The seriousness of the violation;
d. The history of the violation;
e. The violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing;
f. The good faith effort by the violator to comply;
g. The economic impact of the penalty on the violator;
h. The impact of the violation upon the community; and
i. Any other factors appropriate to a just result.
(5) The hearing officer's decision and supporting reasons must be in writing.
(6) Except for matters subject to administrative review under section 1-14(f), the decision
of the hearing officer is final without any further right of administrative appeal. In a
matter subject to administrative review under section 1-14(f), the hearing officer's
decision may be appealed to the city council by submitting a request in writing to the
city clerk within 10 calendar days after the hearing officer's decision.
(7) The failure to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's rights to an
administrative hearing and an admission of the violation. A hearing officer may waive
this result upon good cause shown. Examples of “good cause” are: death or
incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order requiring the accused to appear for
another hearing at the same time; and lack of proper service of the citation or notice of
the hearing. “Good cause” does not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay.
(f) Appeal to City Council.
(1) The hearing officer's decision in any of the following matters may be appealed by a
party to the city council for administrative review:
a. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval typically granted by
the city council as required by an ordinance;
b. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, of the conditions attached
to the permit, license, or approval, that was granted by the city council; and
(2) The appeal will be heard by the city council after notice served in person or by
registered mail at least 10 calendar days in advance. The parties to the hearing will
have an opportunity to present oral or written arguments regarding the hearing officer's
decision.
(3) The city council must consider the record, the hearing officer's decision, and any
additional arguments before making a determination. The council is not bound by the
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 8
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
hearing officer's decision, but may adopt all or part of the officer's decision. The
council's decision must be in writing.
(4) If the council makes a finding of a violation, it may impose a civil penalty not
exceeding $2000.00 per violation, and may consider any or all of the factors contained
in section 1-14(e)4. The council may also modify, stay, or waive a fine unconditionally
or based on reasonable and appropriate conditions.
(5) In addition to imposing a civil penalty, the council may suspend or revoke a city-issued
license, permit, or other approval associated with the violation, if the procedure in the
city code for suspension or revocation has been followed.
(g) Judicial review. An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of the
hearing officer or the city council in accordance with state law.
(h) Recovery of civil penalties.
(1) If a civil penalty is not paid within the time specified, it constitutes:
a. A personal obligation of the violator;
b. An obligation of a business or person(s) that is conducting an activity licensed by
the City if the violation relates to the maintenance of the property or to an activity,
use or delivery of services associated with the business or activity; and
c. A lien upon the real property upon which the violation occurred if the violation
relates to the maintenance of the property or to an activity, use or delivery of City
services associated with the property.
(2) A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as
taxes. The lien may include the administrative and legal costs incurred by the city in
connection with collecting the unpaid administrative penalty. Prior to assessing the lien
against the property, the city must attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the
administrative penalty and provide the property owner listed on the tax record with
notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(3) A personal obligation may be collected by any appropriate legal means.
(4) A late payment fee of 10% of the fine will be assessed for each 30-day period, or part
thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date.
(5) During the time that a civil penalty remains unpaid, no city approval will be granted for
a license, permit, or other city approval sought by the violator or for property under the
violator’s ownership or control.
(6) Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending, revoking, denying, or not renewing a
license or permit associated with the violation.
(i) Applicable laws. Where differences occur between provisions of this chapter and other
applicable code sections, this chapter applies.
***
Sec. 36-33. Application and review process for conditional use permits and variances.
(a) Application of section provisions. This section shall apply to all conditional use permits
and variances.
(b) General provisions.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 9
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
***
(13) Duration and enforcement. Conditional use permits and variances shall remain in effect
as long as the conditions stated in the permit or variance are observed. Failure to comply
with the those conditions of the conditional use permit or variance will results in either:
termination of the conditional use permit or variance.
a. A civil penalty; or
b. Termination of the conditional use permit or variance.
***
APPENDIX A – 2011 FEE SCHEDULE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 10
Subject: Administrative Penalties Next Steps
Civil Penalty Fine Schedule
Administrative citations may be issued
for violations to the following Sections of the City Code:
Chapter 4 – Animal regulations $50
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations ----
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100
Chapter 8 – Businesses and Business Licenses $100
Chapter 12 - Environment $50
Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50
Chapter 14, Section 75 - Open burning without permit $100
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50
Chapter 22 - Solid Waste Management $50
Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200
Chapter 24 - Streets, sidewalks & Public Places $50
Chapter 24, Section 24 -43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way $25
Chapter 24, Section 50 - Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150
Chapter 24, Section 51 - Sweeping leaves into street prohibited $100
Chapter 24, Section 151 - Work in public right-of-way without a permit $100
Chapter 26 - Subdivision $100
Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval. $750
Chapter 32 - Utilities $50
Chapter 36 – Zoning $50
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100
Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit
Development, or Special Permit approval $750
Repeat Violations within 24 Months.
Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example,
if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would
be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400).
Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections.
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections.
Meeting Date: May 14, 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:
Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the
Minnehaha Creek remeander project and the related Environmental Assessment Worksheet. At
the May 21, 2012 City Council meeting, the Council will be asked to authorize distribution of the
mandatory EAW starting the 30-day EAW public comment period.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The policy question for the May 21, 2012 meeting will be - is the City Council ready to release
the EAW for public distribution and comment?
BACKGROUND:
The City has been partnering with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to
complete the steps needed to allow the MCWD to move forward with the reconstruction of the
Minnehaha Creek channel between Louisiana Avenue South and Meadowbrook Road. The channel
reconstruction, also called a “remeander,” will result in ecological improvements to the creek’s
natural function, stormwater improvements that will benefit water quality and reduce potential
flooding, vegetative improvements to reduce invasive species and improve habitat for native
plants and animals, and trail improvements that will increase the creek’s accessibility by the public.
The collaborative process between the City and MCWD started in 2009. A brief chronology of
the work completed to date includes:
• December 2010: The City, with assistance from MCWD, is awarded a $300,000 grant
from the state Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to help fund the remeander.
The funds are available as part of the Clean Water Legacy Amendment passed in 2008.
• February 2011: The City Council authorizes a grant agreement between the City and
BWSR to allow for the funds to be used by MCWD to pay for engineering and
construction.
• February 2011: The MCWD hired Interfluve and HR Green to prepare design the
meander and prepare the EAW.
• May 2011: The City Council reviews a Study Session report with an update on the
project status.
• July 2011: The City Council reviews the project at a Study Session, with information
provided by City Staff and MCWD Staff.
• August 2011: The City and MCWD hold a public open house for community review of
the project at the Municipal Service Center. Approximately 15 business owners and
residents attend the meeting.
• November 2011: The MCWD Board holds a public hearing on the remeander project at
their offices in Deephaven, and orders that the project move forward.
Following the MCWD Board action in November, the project consultants began work on the
mandatory EAW regarding the remeander project. An excerpt of the EAW is attached to the report.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Under the MN Environmental rules modifying a creek channel requires a ‘mandatory’ EAW,
meaning an EAW must be completed to allow the Minnehaha project to move forward.
Although the project’s intent is to restore the creek channel to a more natural location, state
statutes require environmental review any time a major change to a creek channel is proposed.
The purpose of the EAW is to provide the factual basis for determining whether an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary.
Preparation and review of the EAW is the responsibility of the designated Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU). Because the project occurs fully within St. Louis Park boundaries,
the City will serve as the RGU for the EAW project. As the RGU, the City must approve the
EAW for public distribution, oversee the commenting process, and collaborate with the MCWD
to ensure that all comments are adequately addressed. This work will be completed by the
MCWD and its consultants.
When the comment period is completed, 30 days after distribution, the City must determine
whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary, prepare findings of fact, and
approve a resolution making a finding of fact supporting the final determination as to whether an
EIS is necessary.
The first step is to approve the EAW for distribution. The EAW was prepared by the MCWD’s
consultant, and has been carefully reviewed by City Staff from various departments. Staff will
prepare a resolution for the City Council to approve distribution of the EAW at its May 21st meeting.
Future Actions:
Following the conclusion of the EAW process, the remaining steps to complete the project are:
• Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Excavation and Fill in excess of 400 cubic
yards of material.
• Authorizing the final design of the remeander project.
At the present time, the project schedule calls for construction to begin in late October or early
November of 2012. To meet this schedule, the Conditional Use Permit and final design
approvals are expected to come before the City Council in late June or early July.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
A grant of $300,000 was awarded by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for this
project from the Clean Water Legacy Amendment passed in 2008; the MCWD is providing the
balance of the funds. Currently no city funds are proposed for the project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed re-meander, its associated environmental attributes, and the potential for trail
construction along the creek meet various Vision goals. The project would enhance the City’s
environmental stewardship of Minnehaha Creek, and, by bringing residents closer to the creek,
increase environmental consciousness within the community. The project would also help
develop the city’s network of trails.
Attachments: Excerpt – Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Remeander Plans and Graphics Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project
that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the City of St.
Louis Park (City) acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the City during the
30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further
investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the City by calling
(952) 924-2574. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the City Web site
http://www.stlouispark.org.
1. Project Title: Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration
2. Proposer: Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD)
3. RGU: City of St. Louis Park
Contact Person James Wisker Contact Person Adam Fulton, AICP
and Title Director of Planning and Title Planner
Address 18202 Minnetonka Blvd. Address 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391 St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Phone (952) 641-4509 Phone (952)-924-2574
Fax (952) 471-0682 Fax (952) 924-2663
4. Reason for EAW Preparation:
EIS
Scoping
Mandatory
EAW
X
Citizen
Petition
RGU
Discretion
Proposer
Volunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart
number and name:
4410.4300, subp. 26 Streams and
Ditches
5. Project Location: County Hennepin City/Twp St. Louis Park
E ½ NE ¼ Section 20 Township 117N Range 21W
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 3
Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Environmental Assessment
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2 Worksheet
Figures for the EAW:
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
Figure 2 – USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Figure 3 – Areas of Environmental Concern
Figure 4 – National Wetlands Inventory/FEMA Floodplains
Figure 5 – Public Waters Inventory
Figure 6 – Project Area Soils
Figure 7 – Concept Design Plans
Appendices for the EAW:
Appendix A – Historical Topographic Maps
Appendix B – Historical Aerial Photographs
6. Description:
a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is proposing a restoration of 3,557 linear feet of
straightened channel of Minnehaha Creek by restoring former channel sinuosity, improving stormwater
filtration, updating canoe access, developing recreational trails and maximizing restored stream, wetland
and riparian habitats along the creek within St. Louis Park (See Figures 1 & 2).
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional
sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or
industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate
the timing and duration of construction activities.
This project involves adding natural sinuosity, re-shaping the cross-sectional geometry, and adding
large wood to the channel (See Figure 7), thereby restoring some of the normal geomorphic functions of
the stream. Currently, the channel is wide and featureless, with aggradation of fine sediment degrading
potential fish and wildlife habitat. Restoring sinuosity will add habitat area and encourage natural
channel scour and depositional areas at bends, which will increase the complexity of the stream channel
and provide more niches for aquatic habitat.
The new channel will be roughly excavated. Soil excavated from the new channel will be stockpiled
onsite and used to partially fill in the old channel and construct banks. Channel banks will be
constructed on the outside of meanders using fabric encapsulation and soil bioengineering techniques.
This is accomplished by confining soil with a combined layer of both woven and non-woven
biodegradable coir fiber blankets. Large woody debris will be secured and incorporated into banks to
provide unobtrusive fish and macroinvertebrate cover, to help define banks and also allow the natural
maintenance of pool habitat. Protection against buoyant and tractive forces will be provided by soil
ballast and possibly by anchored buried logs. The inside of meander bends will be stabilized by simple
grading and shaping of banks and trenching in of biodegradable erosion control fabrics. Between
meander bends, Small gravel will be incorporated into riffles to provide suitable substrate for fish
spawning. Previously completed sediment transport analysis will ensure proper sizing of riffle material.
Although during winter and dry summer, the channel has historically gone dry due to closing of the
Grey’s Bay dam outlet structure, it is likely that some dewatering or diversion of the creek flow will be
needed. This can be accomplished through coffer dam construction and pumping, or through the
construction of diversion channels or water diverting barriers. Groundwater in the project area, if a
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 4
Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Environmental Assessment
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 3 Worksheet
significant issue during winter construction, will be pumped out of the constructed channel into
temporary infiltration basins established onsite in accordance with guidelines set forth in the Minnesota
DNR’s water appropriation permit conditions for stream construction dewatering.
Soils in the project area are soft and will require special construction techniques for wetland stream
channels. The channel will be constructed by building a temporary haul road over the proposed channel
alignment. This temporary road will be composed of wood or plastic mats, or could be lined with
geotextile fabric and a layer of gravel or wood chips. Construction equipment will travel up and down
the temporary road, thus minimizing impacts to the surrounding wetland surface. Channel construction
will begin at either end of the haul road which will be removed as construction proceeds. This basic plan
may have some variation in methodology depending on the contractor used.
The project will be constructed in short segments between 500 and 1,000 feet in length. The lower end of
the new constructed channel segments will be connected to the existing ditch when the new constructed
channel segments are established with all erosion control measures in place. Once this temporary
connection is made, the Minnehaha Creek flow will be diverted on the upstream end into the new channel.
The old channel segments will be partially filled with onsite soils, creating depressional wetlands.
Old channels are susceptible to being recaptured by the stream during flood flows in channel restoration
projects such as this one. Thus, partial filling is required to raise the old channel bed. The need for partial
filling of the old channel will allow for a balance of cut and fill material during construction and eliminates
the need for off-site disposal of excavated soils. This fill area will also provide a base for roughness
elements such as large woody debris to help prevent channel avulsion (stream recapture) during flood
events and will also provide reptile and amphibian habitat. The channel ends will be secured and
stabilized with the same bioengineering techniques used in the channel construction. Flow will be diverted
from active construction areas using sediment booms and other pre-approved methods for in-stream
construction if there is significant flow during the winter construction period.
An important aspect of the design of Reach 20 is integration of stormwater best management practices
(BMPs), the location of which is determined in this case by the existing outfalls at Excelsior Boulevard,
Powell Road, and Meadowbrook Lane (See Figure 7). Each of the listed BMPs will control stormwater
drainage from significant acreages; 74.1 acres, 236.3 acres, and 5.1 acres, respectively. The National
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) TR-20/TR-55 methodology was adopted when determining
hydrologic properties for each of the three BMP subwatersheds and examination of the existing
topography, land uses, storm sewer network and soil types was used to identify drainage patterns within
each subwatershed. Hydrologic properties of each subwatershed were then incorporated into a water
quality and hydrology and hydraulic (H&H) model to both correctly size BMPs and assess their future
performance.
Following stream and BMP construction, a boardwalk will be constructed to allow public access into or
adjacent to the wetland area (See Figure 7). This boardwalk will be a compacted gravel trail in upland
areas or either a standard piling mounted boardwalk or floating boardwalk in wetland areas. The final
configuration will depend upon final hydrologic modeling results. The boardwalk will be constructed to
allow handicapped access for both the general public and Methodist Hospital users; this trail will
ultimately connect to the SW LRT trail between the Louisiana Ave. and Blake Rd. Stations.
The reach currently has two canoe launch locations, and both are maintained in this restoration design. The
Creekside Park canoe launch will be rebuilt into a tiered step design that will allow for easy parallel
launching over a range of water levels and will give a variety of boaters an easier launching experience.
No changes will be made to the parking area, but a spur off of the main trail will provide a 100 ft portage
to the launch. The canoe launch on the downstream end of the project reach, near Louisiana Avenue, will
either not be impacted or will be rebuilt if disturbed.
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 5
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 6
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 7
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
MINNEHAHA CREEK
PLAN VIEW TRAILS AND LRT CONNECTION
COTTAGEVILLE PARK
EXPANSION
APPROXIMATE
LONG-TERM
CORRIDOR TRAIL PLAN
EXISTING MAIN
SIDEWALK
CONNECTOR
POTENTIAL LRT
CONNECTION
EDGEBROOK
PARK
PROPOSED LOOP
TRAIL
PROPOSED REACH 20
RESTORATION AREA
EXISTING METHODIST
HOSPITAL WETLAND AND
BOARDWALK TRAIL
OPTIONAL LOOP
OPTION #2
OPTION #1
SOUTH OAK
POND AREA
OAKS PARK
CONNECTION
Healthy and vibrant communities link people with the environment. Communities along the Minnehaha Creek
corridor, including Hopkins and St. Louis Park, are connected by roads, sidewalks, trails, rails and the
creek itself. The long term vision presented here features new trails that connect to existing walk
paths and bring people from multiple communities into close contact with the natural amenities of the
Minnehaha Creek corridor.
u$0LQQHKDKD&UHHNFRUULGRUWUDLOV\VWHPZRXOGDOORZYLVXDOO\SOHDVLQJ
connections between neighborhoods, and would connect several parks. Cottageville Park, Oakes Park,
Edgewood Park and the natural areas at South Oak Pond and Methodist Hospital would all be joined by a
river corridor trail that could be used for biking, hiking and canoe access.
u$UDLOFRUULGRUGLVVHFWV0LQQHKDKD&UHHNEHWZHHQ%ODNH5RDGDQG/RXLVLDQD
Avenue. A light rail transit (LRT) stop in this area could service the surrounding neighborhoods while
giving residents the opportunity to walk along the creek path in either direction. The exact location of
the LRT stop is not known, but multiple opportunities exist for a stop along this segment of channel.
u&URVVLQJEXV\URDGVFDQEHGDQJHURXVDQGWDNHVDZD\IURPD
positive trail experience. By installing crossings under new bridges or in elevated
walkways, residents and commuters could have safer and more efficient access to the
Knollwood Mall/Target area, Blake Road businesses, parks and light rail connections.
The exact nature and location of such crossings is a consideration for the long-term
connectivity of the trail system.
EXISTING REGIONAL
TRAIL
In association with:
POTENTIAL LRT
CONNECTION
MEADOWBROOK ROADOXFOR
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
W
EXCELSIOR BLV
D
.LOUISIANA AVE SBLAKE ROAD NTEXAS AVENUE SLAKE S
T
R
E
E
T
N
E
HIGHWAY 7
EDGEB
R
O
O
K
D
RI
V
E
POTENTIAL TRAIL
CONNECTION
POTENTIAL TRAIL
CONNECTOR
3
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 8
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 9
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
MINNEHAHA CREEK
SHEET 7
SHEET 8FLOW LOUISIANA AVE SEXCELSIOR BL
V
D
.
MINNEHAHA CREEK
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
OXFOR
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
PROPOSED
WETLAND AREA
PLAN VIEW PROPOSED CONDITIONS
RETAIN OR REBUILD EXISTING
CANOE LAUNCH AS NEEDED
LEGEND
PROPOSED WETLAND
AREA
PROPOSED CREEK
CHANNEL
PARCEL LINES
PROPOSED POOLS
PROPOSED SPAWNING
RIFFLE
FABRIC ENCAPSULATED SOIL
LIFTS
EXISTING
SIDEWALKS
EXISTING STORM SEWER
LINE AND MANHOLES
PROPOSED PIPE
CONNECTION
PROPOSED 36"
PIPE CONNECTION
PRETREATED
SETTLEMENT
POOL
F
L
OW
PROPOSED
BRIDGE
CROSSING
LOUISIANA CIRCLE
FILTRATION BERM
PROPOSED PIPE
CONNECTION
PROPOSED 12" RCP
STORM SEWER
FILTRATION
BERM
EXISTING 54"
STORM SEWER
EXISTING 36"
STORM SEWER
EXISTING 15"
POND OUTLET
EXISTING 15"
POND OUTLET
EXISTING 42" DIA. PIPE
ALTERNATIVE TRAIL
LOOP SEGMENT
PROPOSED
TRAIL
In association with:
WOODY DEBRIS
(TYP.)
RETAIN OR REBUILD EXISTING
CANOE LAUNCH AS NEEDED
PROPOSED
STORMWATER
TREATMENT AREA
PROPOSED
STORMWATER
TREATMENT AREA
PROPOSED
STORMWATER
TREATMENT AREA
PROPOSED OPTIONAL
TRAIL SEGMENT
PROPOSED TRAIL
7
PROPOSED TRAIL
CONNECTION
POTENTIAL LRT
CONNECTION
PROPOSED TRAIL
CONNECTION
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 10
FLOWEXCELSI
O
R
B
L
V
D.
MINNEHAHA CREEK
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
MINNEHAHA CREEK
SUBREACH 1
PLAN VIEW PROPOSED CONDITIONS
FILL EXISTING
CANNEL
PROPOSED VERNAL
POOL
PROPOSED WETLAND
AREA
PROPOSED CREEK
CHANNEL
PARCEL LINES
PROPOSED POOLS
PROPOSED SPAWNING
RIFFLE
EXISTING PIPES
PROPOSED PIPES
FABRIC ENCAPSULATED SOIL
LIFTSNATURAL LEVEE CONSTRUCTED WITH
COTTONWOOD, WILLOW & SILVER MAPLE
PLANTINGS
SIMPLE GRADING AND
FABRIC PLACEMENT,
NATIVE PLANTINGS
RELOCATE
EXISTING CANOE
LAUNCH
PROPOSED PIPE
CONNECTION
PROPOSED 36"
PIPE CONNECTION
PROPOSED
BRIDGE
CROSSING
EXISTING 15"
POND OUTLET
ALTERNATIVE TRAIL
LOOP SEGMENT
PROPOSED
ALTERNATE
TRAIL LOOP
NATURAL LEVEE
PROPOSED
WETLAND AREA
PROPOSED RIPARIAN
VEGETATION
SECONDARY
STAGING
PROPOSED STAGING AREA
LEGEND
In association with:
WOODY DEBRIS
(TYP.)
PROPOSED
STORMWATER
TREATMENT AREA
PROPOSED OPTIONAL
TRAIL SEGMENT
PROPOSED TRAIL
8
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 11
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 12
FLOWMINNEHAHA CREEK
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
MINNEHAHA CREEKPLAN VIEW PROPOSED CONDITIONS
PROPOSED VERNAL
POOL
RELOCATE
EXISTING CANOE
LAUNCH
PROPOSED
BRIDGE
CROSSING
SECONDARY
STAGING
Recreational Boating Opportunities
Threading through the heart of the west
metro area, Minnehaha Creek offers a
unique experience for recreational boaters.
Making the creek more accessible to
canoeing and kayaking is a long-term
maintenance goal of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District and surrounding
communities.
The plan for Reach 20 includes
replacement of an existing canoe launch
with one specifically designed for easy
access. The stepped design shown here
allows for low water boat entry over a
range of water levels, and will be more
convenient for people with limited mobility
or small children. A trail will extend from
the existing canoe launch parking lot,
through the floodplain wetland and down to
the streambank launch.
This plan preserves the existing canoe
launch locations in Reach 20, with some
slight modifications. The Creekside Park
trail connection will connect the parking lot
with the stream, and may run along the main
trail for a short distance. We anticipate a
portage of no more than 150 feet.
In association with:
EXISTING
PARKING LOT
CREEKSIDE PARK
12
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 13
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
MINNEHAHA CREEK
PLAN VIEW PROPOSED CONDITIONS
In-stream Habitat Features
PROPOSED
BRIDGE
CROSSING
PROPOSED FES
LIFTS
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
NATURAL LEVEE CONSTRUCTED WITH
COTTONWOOD, WILLOW & SILVER MAPLE
PLANTINGSFLOW - Logs and fallen wood
make up an important part of the woodland stream
ecosystem. Wood offers hiding cover for fish,
nesting opportunities for waterfowl, perches for
wading birds, and resting or hiding places for
amphibians and reptiles. The Reach 20 design
features low profile wood installation underneath
banks on the outside of meander bends. In addition
to providing valuable habitat, wood provides long
term (10-20 years) stability of the bank, protecting
the stream from immediate erosion. The wood will
be placed low to the streambed, so that during
boatable flows, canoes and kayaks will float over
the top of the installed wood. Similar installations
can be found just downstream of Louisiana Avenue in
the restored section of the Methodist Hospital
wetland.
- Reach 20 is currently an important
spawning reach for fish using Lake Minnetonka and
Minnehaha Creek. These fish include sunfish, bass,
suckers and various minnow species. Included in the
design are riffles that provide spawning gravel of
the size used regularly by these fish.
- Streams that transport fine
sediment and sand downstream often deposit this
material on banks during floods. These deposits
take the form of natural levees that might be a
foot or two higher than the adjacent floodplain
surface. Our design for Reach 20 repeats the work
done in Reach 19 of the Methodist Hospital area
project, where we included levee features to
provide topographic variability. Levees offer slightly
dryer wetland surfaces that promote the
establishment of planted cottonwood, silver maple
and black willow trees common to the riparian
corridor.
Typical Natural Levee
Typical LWD
during installation at
Methodist Hospital
Typical Riffle
during installation at
Methodist Hospital
In association with:
13
Study Session Meeting of May 14, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Minnehaha Creek Remeander – Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)Page 14