HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/11/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOVEMBER 26, 2012
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 3 & December 10, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
3. 6:50 p.m. Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
4. 7:50 p.m. Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
8:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
8:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
5. October 2012 Monthly Financial Report
6. Prism Dial-A-Ride Program
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: November 26, 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 – December 3 and December 10, 2012
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session
scheduled for December 3 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on December 10, 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 the Special Study Session scheduled for December 3 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on December 10, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 3 and December 10, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 3 and December 10, 2012
Special Study Session, December 3, 2012 – 6:45 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Proposed Paraphernalia Ordinance – Inspections / Police (30 minutes)
Discuss amending Chapter 18 Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions making use,
possession or advertisement of drug paraphernalia prohibited.
Closed Executive Session, December 10, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.
1. City Manager’s Performance Evaluation – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Study Session, December 10, 2012 – 7:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2013 City Council Workshop – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
Discuss the proposed agenda for the City Council Workshop scheduled for February 1 - 2,
2013.
3. Sidewalk and Trail Plan Update – Public Works (30 minutes)
Provide Council an update on the public process, including a compilation of the comments
and input received over the past several weeks.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: November 26, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Further discussion on specific ordinance provisions will be conducted at this study session.
Council will then provide direction to staff for next steps on this topic.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should there be further provisions added to the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
On September 24, 2012, the City Council adopted the first reading of the Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance, and requested that it be reviewed at a Study Session prior to the second reading. The
ordinance was discussed at City Council Study Session on October 22, 2012, with the request
that it be brought back to an additional Study Session.
ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
The remaining questions from the October 22nd Study Session were:
1. Can the light shields on recreational field lighting can be painted or changed out to
reduce glare?
2. Does it work to actually control glare?
3. What would be the cost?
These questions are addressed below:
1. Shields on existing lights can be replaced or retrofitted with a new luminaire assembly.
The black shields on the lights at the Perpich Center for the Arts School field are a
specific style of luminaire assembly; they do limit the off-site glare. The manufacturer of
the lights now has a more advanced glare control package luminaire, which would require
replacing the luminaire assembly. The light shields at the BSM fields were painted black,
and this did reduce the glare.
2. New fixtures with the glare reducing features work specifically to control glare through
the overall fixture design including the shields covering the lights. They do reduce glare
and thus the off-site impacts.
3. The estimated cost for retrofitting light fixtures with new luminaire assemblies is
approximately $60,000 per athletic field, depending on the number of lights and poles.
NEXT STEPS
The next step would be to schedule the second reading of the amended ordinance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community, including having
strong neighborhoods.
Attachments: Proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance
Excerpt Unofficial City Council Minutes of October 22, 2012
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
ORDINANCE NO.____-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-363
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-363 Outdoor lighting, is hereby
replaced in its entirety as follows:
Sec. 36-363 Outdoor lighting.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to minimize the adverse effect of light and glare on
operators of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and on residential and other land uses in the vicinity of
a light source in order to promote traffic safety and to prevent the nuisances associated with the
intrusion of spill light and glare.
(b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to all outdoor lighting, except lighting
for signs which are covered under section 36-362, and for street lighting within public rights-of-
way.
(c) Definitions. The following words; terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning.
Cutoff or Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a manner that no
more than 2.5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture, and no more
than 10 percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Direct Light – Light emitted directly from the lamp, off of the reflector or reflector diffuser,
or through the refractor or other diffuser lens, of a luminaire.
Footcandle – The basic unit of illuminance or the amount of light falling on a surface. One
footcandle is approximately equal to the illuminance produced by a light source of one candle in
intensity, measured on a surface at a distance of one foot above grade. Footcandles can be
measured both horizontally and vertically by a footcandle or light meter.
Full Cutoff or Fully Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a
manner that no light occurs above the horizontal plane and no more than 10 percent of its light
occurs above 80 degrees.
Glare – The sensation produced directly by a light source or indirectly from reflective
surfaces within the visual field that is sufficiently brighter than the level to which the eyes are
adapted, which can cause annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
The magnitude of glare depends on such factors as the size, position, brightness of the source,
and on the brightness level to which the eyes are adapted.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Illuminance – The amount of light falling on any point of a surface, typically measured in
footcandles (or lux in the metric system).
Indirect Light – Direct light that has been reflected or scattered off of other surfaces.
Lamp – The component of the luminaire that actually produces the light, more commonly
known as a bulb.
Light Spill – Light that falls beyond the boundaries of the property on which the lighting
installation is located and because of quantitative, directional or spectral content causes
annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
Lumen – A unit used to measure the actual amount of light that is produced by a light source.
The lumen quantifies the amount of light energy produced by a lamp at the lamp, not by the
energy input, which is indicated by the wattage. For example, a 75-watt incandescent lamp can
produce 1,000 lumens while a 70-watt high-pressure sodium lamp can produce 6,000 lumens.
Luminaire or Fixture – The complete lighting assembly or fixture (including but not limited
to the lamps, housing, ballasts, photocells, reflectors, lenses, shields, visors, louvers) but not the
support assembly (poles or mounting brackets).
Mounting Height – The vertical distance as measured from the ground directly below the
centerline of the luminaire to the lowest light-emitting part of the luminaire.
Ornamental Lighting – Lighting that is installed mainly or entirely for its decorative effect
rather than as an aid to visibility.
Semi Cutoff or Partially Shielded – An outdoor light fixture constructed or shielded in such a
manner that no more than 5 percent of its light occurs above the horizontal plane of the fixture,
and no more than 20 percent of its light occurs above 80 degrees.
Shielded – A luminaire from which no direct glare is visible at normal viewing angles by
virtue of its being properly located, aimed, oriented, and properly fitted with spill and glare
control devices, such as shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts, inserts, visors and reflectors.
(d) General provisions.
(1) Lighting plan. Submittal of a lighting plan shall be required to ensure compliance with
this section for all new development, redevelopment, and additions other than single-
family and two-family dwelling units. The city may also require a lighting plan for any
proposed new light source. This lighting plan shall include the following:
a. A site plan showing locations of buildings, parking areas, landscaping, and all
proposed outdoor lighting fixtures;
b. Proposed mounting height of each outdoor lighting fixture;
c. Descriptions of each proposed outdoor lighting fixture including but not limited to
manufacturers catalog specifications sheets, photometric data, IESNA “cutoff” fixture
designation, glare control package, type of lamp (e.g. high pressure sodium, metal
halide, mercury vapor, fluorescent induction), lamp color temperature, and on/off
control devices.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
d. An illuminance grid (point-by-point) plot of footcandles overlaid on the site plan,
plotted out to 0.0 footcandles, indicating the location and aiming of outdoor lighting
fixtures in compliance with the regulations of this section.
(2) Maximum illuminance levels. Outdoor lighting shall not exceed the maximum maintained
illuminance levels as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA).
(3) Measurement. Post-installation lighting levels shall be measured after dark at the
property line of the adjacent property by facing a light meter directly at the light source at
3 feet above grade.
(4) Spill light and glare. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and arranged to limit spill light
and glare on adjacent properties. Reflected glare or spill light shall not exceed five-tenths
(0.5) footcandle when the source of light abuts any residential property or one (1.0)
footcandles when the source of light abuts any commercial or industrial property, as
measured at the property line of the adjoining use.
(5) Hours of operation. The city may limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting
equipment if the city believes it necessary to reduce the impact of light on the
surrounding neighborhood.
(6) Prohibited lighting. No flickering or flashing lights shall be permitted.
(7) Luminaire design.
a. For the lighting of predominantly horizontal surfaces, luminaires shall be aimed
straight down and shall meet full cutoff criteria unless ornamental light fixtures are
installed in the manner provided in a site and building plan approved by the city.
Ornamental fixtures may be approved when the developer can demonstrate that
undesirable off-site impacts stemming from direct or reflected views of the light
source are eliminated by the fixture design or location of the lighting fixture.
b. For the lighting of predominantly non-horizontal surfaces, such as building facades,
landscaping, fountains, displays and statuary, luminaires shall be located, aimed and
shielded so as to not project their beam onto abutting properties, past the object being
illuminated, skyward or onto a public roadway. The lighting shall be fitted with such
devices as shields, barn doors, baffles, louvers, skirts or visors to minimize spill light
and glare impacts.
(8) Maximum mounting height. Light poles or standards for exterior lighting shall not exceed
a height of 45 feet, except that poles or standards on the top level of parking structures
shall not exceed 25 feet.
(e) Recreational lighting provisions. Because of its unique requirements for nighttime visibility
of recreational activities and limited days/hours of operation, outdoor recreational facility
lighting is exempt from the outdoor lighting standards of section (d) (2) through (8) above. An
outdoor recreational facility that has illuminated playing fields, courts or performance spaces
shall be subject to the following standards:
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
(1) Luminaire design. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be directionally
shielded. Lighting fixtures shall also be aimed to ensure that their beams fall within the
primary playing area of the fields/courts/tracks or primary performance space and
immediate surroundings so that spill light and glare on adjacent properties are minimized.
(2) Glare control. All outdoor recreational lighting fixtures shall be from a manufacturer that
offers a glare control package and it shall be fitted with the manufacturer’s glare control
package.
(3) Maximum illuminance levels. All outdoor recreational lighting installations shall be
designed to achieve no greater than the maximum illuminance levels for the proposed
recreational activity as recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America (IESNA).
(4) Maximum spill light levels. Spill light shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible
given the unique illumination constraints of the outdoor recreational facility. Since
outdoor recreational facilities require much higher lighting levels than other outdoor
lighting uses and are in operation for limited periods of time, the maximum spill light
level allowed is also higher. When an outdoor recreational facility abuts a residential
dwelling unit, it shall be designed so that the illumination at the residential property
boundary line that is attributable to the recreational lighting does not exceed 1.5
maximum vertical footcandles.
(5) Maximum mounting height. The mounting height of outdoor recreational lighting fixtures
shall not exceed a maximum height of eighty (80) feet. The City Council may approve
additional height if it is shown as necessary to reduce spill and glare and has no
additional adverse impacts.
(6) Hours of operation. The use of outdoor recreational lighting shall not be permitted
between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The main lighting shall be turned off no
later than one hour after an event ends. Where technically feasible, a low level lighting
system shall be installed to be used for patrons leaving the facility, cleanup, nighttime
maintenance and other closing activities.
(7) Visual impact plan. To assist the City in determining whether the potential impacts of
proposed outdoor recreational lighting have been suitably managed, applications for
illuminating outdoor recreational facilities shall be accompanied not only with the
information required under section (d) (1) above but also by a visual impact plan that
contains the following:
a. Plan views containing a layout of the outdoor recreational facility, showing light pole
locations, and showing the location of abutting residential properties and structures.
b. Elevations containing pole and luminaire mounting heights, and luminaire arrays for
each pole location.
c. Light scans in the maximum vertical plane containing illuminance plots at the
boundary of the adjacent property, taken at a height of three (3) feet.
d. Proposed frequency of use of the outdoor recreational facility during hours of darkness
on a month-by-month basis and proposed time when the recreational lighting will be
switched off.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
e. A narrative describing the measures proposed to achieve minimum off-site
disturbance, including landscape screening.
(8) Subsections (e)(5) and (6) shall apply to all outdoor recreational facilities existing as of
the effective date of this Ordinance. Subsection (e) shall apply in its entirety to any new
outdoor recreational facility, the expansion of an existing facility, upon replacement of
the luminaires or fixtures or upon any reconfiguration of existing lighting installations.
Outdoor recreational lighting installations existing as of the effective date of this
Ordinance may continue to be operated in their existing configuration, including repair
and maintenance, so long as there is no increase in maximum illuminance levels, light
spill or glare.
Sec. 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 12-19-ZA).
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-19-ZA are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. Section 1 of this Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Section 2 of this Ordinance shall take effect twenty days after its publication.
Public Hearing
First Reading
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Excerpt from October 22, 2102 Unofficial City Council Study Session Minutes
5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger stated that most of Council's discussion at the first reading of the
ordinance centered on the issue of controlling glare and felt that the issue was not adequately
addressed. She indicated the ordinance deals with glare by requiring that light fixtures be
changed out to include a glare package, which has been pointed out as very expensive to replace.
She felt that other alternatives should be considered and stated other communities have required
the existing shield around the light to be painted black, which does not completely eliminate
glare but will significantly reduce glare onto neighboring properties. She requested that this
requirement be incorporated into the ordinance as a first step and to provide "x" number of
months for the fixture to be painted. She also stated there may be no need to replace lights to
control glare and it might be possible to replace or augment the shields around the lights and
proposed that the ordinance include a date certain by which the fixtures have the shields replaced
with glare packages or in the alternative to add visors onto the shields to help control the
direction so glare does not go into neighboring houses.
She stated that another provision should require the operator to replace the shields or augment
the shields by a date certain, e.g., two years if they have not already been replaced. She stated
Council also talked about the number of times per week the fields are used and suggested adding
a requirement that if shields are not installed or painted black then those fields should be
restricted to no more than two nights per week. She felt these requirements would achieve a
better balance because the proposed ordinance does not balance the rights of property owners
and added these additional requirements would be cheaper, more effective, and provide an
immediate way of dealing with the issue of glare.
Ms. McMonigal indicated staff would need to research the issue of adding visors to make sure no
weight issues are raised.
Councilmember Sanger stated she understood this has been done elsewhere and felt it was worth
researching further.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that further research to consider the addition of visors was
reasonable and asked that staff explore if there are best practices related to this adding she would
like to see evidence that it actually works to control glare; if it does and the cost is fairly minimal
she felt this would achieve a good balance.
Councilmember Sanger stated that Council might want to consider the question of distance
because lights glaring 300' from people's homes is different than lights glaring 700' from
someone's home and suggested using a tiered approach where changes are required, i.e., in those
places closest to people's homes. She stated there are people who cannot use their patios or
decks because they are most directly in the line with the lighting on the fields.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the idea of distance might not matter because they have to light the
fields for safety of the sport.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting
Mayor Jacobs expressed concern about how the City would enforce the ordinance and the burden
on staff.
Councilmember Sanger stated if there is a concern about requiring compliance for all fields at
once, the ordinance could be structured to require compliance for the closest fields first.
Councilmember Spano felt it was a good idea to look into the idea of painting the fixtures. He
agreed with Mayor Jacobs's concern about the ordinance becoming very cumbersome.
Councilmember Sanger stated the problem specific to Benilde is that they agreed to the
requirements when the City granted their permits and by staff's admission Benilde has not
complied with the glare problem. She added that regardless of what comes out of the ordinance
discussion, the City needs to be more proactive in addressing the Benilde situation and
addressing complaints.
Mr. Harmening stated that Councilmember Sanger's statements were not accurate and advised
there are provisions in the current ordinance that are not enforceable and are not reasonable. He
stated that provisions in the existing code cannot be met by Benilde or by the school district and
the City Attorney has indicated if the City wants him to go to court to enforce the ordinance, it
will not work.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to provide Council with research
regarding the question of painting the light shields including information regarding best practices
and to provide this information in a study session prior to second reading. It was also the
consensus of the majority of the City Council that the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance should not
contain a limitation on the number of evenings per week for lighted athletic fields. It was also
the consensus of the majority of the City Council that the current provision regarding hours of
operation should not be changed.
Meeting Date: November 26, 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:
Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS )
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this study session item is to continue the City Council’s review and discussion of
proposed comments on the SWLRT DEIS.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• What other written comments for the draft environmental impact statement does the
Council wish to have staff prepare?
POLICY CONSIDERATION BACKGROUND:
The City’s policy on Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) and freight rail as expressed in
resolutions 10-070 and 11-058 provide the context in which the City’s draft comments are being
prepared. Those resolutions pulled together and concisely restated policy positions and analyses
undertaken by the City stretching back more than ten years to the Railroad Task Force (RRTF)
work in the late 1990’s while also updating the City’s positions based on current conditions and
information. Much of the City’s LRT and freight rail policy stems from the 2001 City resolution
in support of the RRTF’s work including the recommendation to eliminate the switching wye in
skunk hollow. The key points of the City’s policy include:
• The City of St. Louis Park strongly supports the implementation of the Southwest
Transitway LRT project.
• The City of St. Louis Park continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the
Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met:
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable
route exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with rail
rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential negative
impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise, vibration,
odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and safety; and,
circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City of
St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis Park;
d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any
other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of any
new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-South
CP-MNS tracks;
e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and
safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;
f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis
Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
BACKGROUND:
At the November 13, 2012 City Council meeting the main themes and key messages were
discussed. The draft comments are being crafted consistent with those themes. At the meeting
on November 13th the City Council also made many specific comments on the DEIS that will
also be worked into the comments. The 60 day official comment period on the DEIS runs until
December 11, 2012. All comments must be submitted prior to midnight, December 11th.
On September 2, 2011, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) required that the freight rail
location be considered as a part of the SWDEIS. The FTA letter states that the project scope for
the DEIS must address key items including: “the impacts of relocating the Twin Cities &
Western freight line…in the project’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).”
The purpose of a DEIS is to provide information and analysis needed to plan actions and make
decisions. It is expected to explore alternatives and identify one or more preferred alternatives.
In the case of the Southwest Transitway DEIS, five alternative combination LRT/freight rail
routes were evaluated along with an enhanced bus service and a no-build alternative.
The DEIS concluded that LRT alternative 3A, the alternative that located LRT in the Kenilworth
corridor and re-located TC&W freight train traffic to the MN&S/BNSF tracks, was the
“Environmentally Preferred Alternative.”
Response to Legal Questions Raised by City Council
At the November 13th Meeting the City Attorney was asked a couple specific questions. One
was what liability might the City incur from the implementation of a whistle quiet zone; and the
second was regarding the use of the vacated 2011 MN&S EAW in the SWDEIS.
The City Attorney responded that establishment of a quiet zone would not alter or increase the
potential for city liability for an accident that might occur at a crossing.
He also concluded that there is nothing in the rules that precludes the use in the DEIS of data and
analysis developed as part of the EAW process so long as it is accurate and up to date. Whether
the depth of particular EAW data and/or analysis is sufficient for purposes of the EIS is always
subject to challenge, just like any data or analysis regardless of its origins. The City challenged
the sufficiency of the analysis in the original EAW that was vacated in 2011; and the expectation
is that the City will challenge the adequacy of the EAW information now re-purposed and used
in the SWLRT DEIS.
NEXT STEPS:
The tentative schedule for finalizing comments on the SW DEIS is as follows:
December 3rd Finalize comments for submittal by December 11, 2012
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has engaged several consultants to aid in review of the Southwest Transitway DEIS; the
costs will be paid for through the Development Fund.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to
being a connected and engaged community, including SW LRT.
Attachments: EIS Process Information from City Attorney
Draft Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comments
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and,
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor.
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
EIS PROCESS
• December 11, 2012 – deadline for written comments on DEIS
• Review of DEIS comments by Metropolitan Council as lead agency for development of
the final EIS
• Preparation of final EIS by Metropolitan Council
• Preliminary engineering continues during preparation of final EIS. (Final Design
activities, property acquisition and contracting cannot occur until the completion of the
EIS process)
• Final EIS shall respond to DEIS comments. Responses may include the following:
1. Modify alternatives including the proposed action.
2. Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious
consideration by the agency.
3. Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses.
4. Make factual corrections.
5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response.
• FTA approval and publication of final EIS
• Minimum 30 day final EIS comment period
• FTA completes and signs a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after
publication of the final EIS. The ROD will present the basis for the decision, summarize
any required mitigation measures and document any 4(f) approval relating to park land
impacts.
• Six month time period to initiate any court action challenging EIS
Attachment:
Note to readers: This is an initial and very rough unedited draft for discussion purposes only.
Please excuse its rough condition. Thank you!
Draft
Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) Comments
Hennepin County
Housing, Community Works & Transit
701 Fourth Avenue South, Ste 400
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Summary of Comments:
The Southwest Transitway DEIS is inadequate. The alternatives evaluated are not evenly treated
with comparative data to provide a fair and honest evaluation. In particular, the comparison
between rerouting freight rail traffic to the MN&S corridor and the co-locating of freight rail
traffic in the Kenilworth corridor does not exhibit enough information to provide a fair basis for
making a routing decision. Although the DEIS states that rerouting freight traffic to the MN&S
is preferable, this conclusion is unsupported in the data provided. St. Louis Park requests that
Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Council supplement the DEIS to provide a much more
fair and even evaluation of the two freight rail alternatives in order to make a responsible routing
decision.
Overview and Attached City Resolutions regarding LRT & Freight Policy:
The City of St. Louis Park’s comments on the Southwest Transitway DEIS are guided by the
City’s policies as stated in City Resolutions 10-70 and 11-58 attached to these comments and
summarized below. These policies are based on extensive technical analysis and public process
carried out over more than a decade. The most critical elements of these policies including the
elimination of the Skunk Hollow switching wye have been consistently pursued by the City since
the work in the late 1990’s Railroad Task Force. The City’s support for LRT, the conditions
under which rerouting freight rail to the MN&S tracks would be acceptable, the need for robust
mitigation and the need to eliminate the switching wye in St. Louis Park are elements of the
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 5
City’s policy that have been established since 2001. The key elements from the city’s LRT and
freight rail policies are listed below and show the context in which the City’s evaluation of the
SWLRT DEIS was conducted.
• The City of St. Louis Park strongly supports the implementation of the Southwest
Transitway LRT project.
• The City of St. Louis Park continues to oppose the rerouting of freight rail traffic from
the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis Park unless the following conditions are clearly met:
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable
route exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with
rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential
negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise,
vibration, odors, traffic congestion and safety, school use and safety, park use and
safety; and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit
and bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the City
of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St. Louis
Park;
d. Removal of the existing “wye” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any
other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of
any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the North-
South CP-MNS tracks;
e. Creation of a freight rail single track corridor with significant right-of-way and
safety measures incorporated between the track and adjacent properties;
f. Creation of a whistle-quiet zone funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis
Park throughout the entire north-south MNS corridor.
Conclusion of DEIS is Insufficiently Supported by Data and Documentation:
The DEIS concludes that alternative 3A (LRT in Kenilworth corridor and freight rail re-located
to the MN&S/BNSF) should be considered the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. The
authors of the DEIS base this conclusion on their judgments for how well each of the alternatives
meets six project goals. Five of these goals were identified during the multi-year public process
that led to the adoption of the LPA into the TPP in 2010. The sixth goal is new, and was not part
of the public process. It is “Support economically competitive freight rail system.” It includes
two objectives, one, “safe, efficient and effective movement of freight through the region, state
and nation;” and two, “continuous flow of freight rail throughout the study area.”
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 6
The DEIS shows alternatives 3A and 3A-1 to be equal in many regards. Both achieve the basic
purposes of constructing a LRT project well; ridership projections are equal, operating costs are
estimated to be equal (although it is unclear if there are any freight rail operating cost
differences), improvements of regional mobility, access to jobs, and improvements to air quality
for instance. However, alternative 3A (relocation) was judged to be superior to alternative 3A-1
(colocation), and only alternative 3A is judged to be the Environmentally Preferred Alternative.
Many reasons for this conclusion are listed in Chapter 11 and the Executive Summary sections of
the DEIS, but the key reason relates to the need to acquire a portion of Cedar Lake Park for right-
of-way to accommodate LRT, freight rail and the regional trail in the Kenilworth corridor.
The DEIS concludes that acquisition of an estimated .81 acres of Cedar Lake Park disqualifies
alternative 3A-1 from consideration as an environmentally preferred alternative, yet the DEIS
does not show where the 4f impacts are. The authors of the DEIS believe this acquisition could
not comply with the requirements of Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of
1966 protecting parkland. That law says that the US Secretary of Transportation cannot approve
a project requiring the acquisition of park land unless he can conclude that there is no feasible
and prudent alternative to the use of the land, and, the action includes all possible planning to
minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. The DEIS does not believe that standard
can be met for the 3A-1 alternative, however it appears that there are several other pieces of park
property which are included in either or both alternatives that do not achieve this status but are
considered “de minimus” – even though there is not an explanation of why or a map showing
where.
Other reasons why alternative 3A-1 is deemed inferior are provided in the DEIS and include:
1. Lengthy queues at several at-grade intersections of roadways with freight rail tracks
somewhat off-set the benefits of increased transit ridership for the 3A-1 alternative.
2. Local development may be diminished at stations where freight operations are present for
the 3A-1 alternative.
3. Alternative 3A-1 does not provide a direct connection to the MN&S from the Bass Lake
Spur meaning noisy switching activity on the wye in the Skunk Hollow area of St. Louis
Park would continue.
4. “High construction related impacts because of the complex construction staging required
to rebuild the freight rail tracks”.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 7
5. Economic development and potential for transit oriented development will be diminished
because of the close proximity of freight rail operations to station locations.
6. Pedestrian safety at the Wooddale, Beltline, and 21st Street LRT station would be affected
by the need to cross the freight rail track between the LRT station and park and ride
facilities.
7. “The economic impact of acquiring over 60 units of primarily high quality, high income
multi-family housing by the West Lake Street station makes this alternative [3A-1]
inconsistent with state, regional, and local policies and adopted plans.”
8. Retention of freight rail operation in the Kenilworth Corridor will continue to divide
neighborhoods while its removal will allow the Southwest Transitway project to bring the
areas together and improve community cohesion.
In contrast, the DEIS states while the impact of co-locating freight trains with LRT in
Kenilworth (alternative 3A-1) are judged to be severe impacts, the impacts of re-locating freight
trains to the MN&S/BNSF is judged to be “slight.” A “slight” increase in freight rail traffic on
the MN&S is anticipated resulting in only “sporadic” traffic queues at at-grade crossings. All
severe noise impacts would be mitigated by a whistle quiet zone. Any negative impacts on water
resources in the area of the connection between the MN&S to the BNSF tracks; or encountering
hazardous materials along the MN&S route would be outweighed by the benefits of the LRT
project.
There are reasons to question these conclusions and the data on which they are based. In many
cases there is information contradicting these conclusions even within the DEIS itself. One
glaring omission in the conclusions shown in “Evaluation of Alternatives” (page ES-23) is any
discussion of the relative cost of construction. The cost information in the DEIS is contradictory
and documented so poorly that it is impossible to evaluate its accuracy. Table 8.1-1 in Chapter 8
shows Alternative 3A to cost $122 million more than alternative 3A-1. Table 5.1-1 in Chapter 5
shows Alternative 3A to cost only $6 million more than alternative 3A-1 and the detail is not
provided to understand where these numbers come from or why they are different.
The following comments question the specific rationale used in the DEIS in reaching its
conclusion that alternative 3A is the environmentally preferred alternative.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 8
A. New goal and the State Rail Plan Rationale inappropriate for LRT DEIS.
The SWDEIS introduces in Chapter 1 Purpose and Need, a new goal - Goal 6 – Support
economically competitive freight rail system, which relates to freight rail and the State Rail Plan.
This is inappropriate because:
• This goal was not adopted through any public process.
• The rationale and description for constructing connections to the MN&S tracks and re-
locating freight rail to the MN&S has been broadened to be consistent with the new Goal
6. It essentially states that one of the reasons for choosing alternative 3A is that it helps
implement the state rail plan, provides opportunities for TC&W trains and possibly other
railroads to reach places other than where TC&W trains are going today; yet the DEIS
does not anticipate any increase in train traffic on the MN&S or evaluate the impact of
trains going north of the BNSF tracks. The potential impact from possible additional
train traffic is reason for more robust mitigation along the MN&S route.
• All of the alternatives in the DEIS would need additional evaluation with this new goal;
previously action was only take on the LRT routes, not freight rail routes.
• This DEIS is supposed to be about the SWLRT project not the State Rail Plan;
introducing this element is inappropriate for this plan and the DEIS.
• The new goal introduces many questions and complications about the impacts of the
State Rail Plan;
• Several other communities are impacted by the introduction of the State Rail Plan and
suggestion that TC&W trains will use the Humboldt Yard; those cities that the MNS
travels through include: Golden Valley, Crystal, Edina, and Bloomington.
• Passenger rail along the MNS is discussed in the State Rail Plan and therefore would
need to be addressed in relation to rerouting freight trains on the MNS.
B. Comparison of Freight Routing Alternatives is Incomplete.
The DEIS does not evenly evaluate and compare the two LPA alternatives of co-location and re-
route for freight rail. Conclusions drawn in the document are not supported by the data in the
DEIS. For example there is lack of supporting detailed information for conclusions reached on
such items as wetlands, floodplains, acquisition of properties, capital costs, and economic
impacts among others. In addition, the potential impacts of increased freight rail traffic along the
MN&S are minimized, such as the community cohesion impacts. In the 3A alternative, it is
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 9
indicated that there are more impacts on “primarily high quality, high income multi-family housing by
the West Lake Street station,” however there is no indication of similar impacts on St. Louis Park
neighborhoods.
C. 4f Considerations are Inadequate.
4f considerations are noted as the reason 3A (reroute) is a better alternative, however this
conclusion misses several items:
Freight rail is now running on park property at this time; it is not included as a current
situation.
City park property in St. Louis Park needs to be considered under 4f impacts under
the relocation alternative; it was not addressed. Trail on RR property, impact of new
MN&S tracks?
There is not a map showing where 4f properties are, and which ones cannot be
overcome, even though this seems to be an argument for the 3A alternative over the
3A-1 alternative.
D. Freight rail routing impacts are not adequately addressed in the reroute alternative.
Noise analysis states implementation of whistle quiet zones would eliminate all
severe impacts, without further explanation. Inadequate evaluation of steep grades
and tight curves effect on noise impacts
Construction impacts are shown as “medium” even though it is a major construction
project to connect the two freight rail lines.
E. Cost Comparison
The total cost in 2012 dollars for relocation to the MNS/BNSF is shown to be $122,866,000
more than co-locating freight trains in the Kenilworth corridor in Table 8.1-1. ($1,194,636,000
for relocation vs. $1,071,770,000 for co-location). However in Table 5.1-1 different and cost
estimates are shown with much less difference in cost between the two alternatives. Insufficient
detail and supporting information is provided to evaluate these numbers and the inconsistency
raises questions regarding the reliability of all the information provided in the DEIS.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 10
F. Construction impact variances appear arbitrary and are not explained.
The evaluation table in Chapter 11 shows construction impacts as “medium” in the relocation
alternative (3A) versus being shown as “high” in the co-location alternative, even though
relocation of freight would have more construction complexity and cost than co-location.
G. Community Cohesion inaccurately portrayed.
“Community Cohesion”, the evaluation of how freight rail and LRT lines will split
neighborhoods is shown as “no impact” for the relocation alternative versus being shown as
“slight adverse impact” in the co-location alternative, even though both the MN&S and the
Kenilworth corridors experience freight rail traffic today and the Kenilworth traffic today is the
train traffic that would be rerouted to the MN&S tracks. The same train traffic in the Kenilworth
corridor has been judged as having a negative impact and as having no impact in the MN&S
corridor. This despite the fact that rerouting to the MN&S corridor will involve closing of at
least one local street, reduce access to neighborhood parks, increase train traffic near public
elementary schools, pass between the Communities sole high school and its athletic field,
separate the high school from the adjacent neighborhood commercial area, and route trains
awkwardly through street intersections and over sidewalks. Virtually none of these conditions
are present in the Kenilworth corridor.
In addition the MN&S corridor is narrow (60 feet) and abuts numerous modest single family
homes mostly on 50 ft lots. This is in stark contrast to the Kenilworth corridor which even today
is generally wider than the MN&S corridor, with widths up to 160 ft. and as noted in the DEIS
itself, is characterized by “high income” housing often on relatively large lots. While the MN&S
corridor includes several scattered site public housing units for low-income residents, the
Kenilworth corridor includes high income housing and in some cases high rise housing. The
modest income residents of the MN&S corridor are being asked to shoulder the responsibility to
accommodate freight traffic without any significant mitigation while the high income Kenilworth
residents are not only relieved of the burden of negative impacts associated with freight rail, they
given the benefit of having light rail service. The bulk of the homes along the MN&S route will
be more than ½ mile from the nearest LRT station. The Kenilworth residents will see the
negative impacts of freight rail replaced by the positive benefits of convenient light rail service.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 11
H. Conclusion regarding continuous flow of freight rail is inaccurate.
The DEIS concludes that the relocation alternative achieves “continuous flow of freight rail
throughout the study area” and that the co-location alternative does not. This is not true. Both
routes for freight trains are continuous to the current destinations and neither route allows
“continuous flow” to the destinations that TC&W railroad hopes to reach in the future. The
DEIS presumes that the TC&W would benefit from being able to access the MN&S and use it as
a means to reach places it does not seek to go now. The DEIS presents no evidence that the
TC&W has any interest in reaching the places that the MN&S tracks connect despite the fact that
there is clear evidence that TC&W use of the MN&S tracks to reach its desired locations would
be circuitous and time consuming with potential negative (at grade crossing of major streets)
consequences for local communities. Only adding a direct connection to MN&S southbound
from the Bass Lake Spur and elimination of the Skunk Hollow wye would be an improvement in
the continuous flow of freight rail traffic, and that is not part of any of the build alternatives
considered in the DEIS.
I. Improve mobility goal evaluation inaccurate.
The alternative 3A, relocating freight trains is shown to “support” the goal of improved mobility
while alternative 3A-1 is shown as only “somewhat supports” this goal. This is not true. Both
alternatives support mobility. There is no difference in ridership, user benefits, travel times
or cost per passenger mile between the alternatives 3A and 3A-1. Both should be judged as
supporting mobility.
J. Protect the environment goal conclusion incorrect.
This goal is shown as “somewhat supports goal” in the relocation alternative vs. being shown as
“does not support goal” in co-location alternative even though the data shows more wetland and
floodplain impacts, among others for the relocation alternative.
K. Preserve and protect the quality of life goal inaccurately judged.
This goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as “does not
support goal” in co-location alternative; it is stated that co-location would “divide
neighborhoods”. Equal train traffic will have similar impacts on adjoining neighborhoods no
matter which neighborhood it passes through. One neighborhood’s loss is another’s gain.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 12
L. Support economic development goal incomplete analysis.
This goal is shown to “support goal” in relocation alternative vs. being shown as “somewhat
support goal” in co-location alternative, without explanation. Five LRT stations would be
affected by the presence of freight trains if the co-location alternative were implemented.
Freight train traffic has the potential for negative impacts on the development opportunities near
the stations. However two of the five stations have limited development opportunity already.
The Penn station is difficult to access and already has the presence of freight rail (BNSF) on a
much grander scale complicating development options. The 21st street station is in a fully
developed single family neighborhood with limited development opportunities and a ridership
shed that is almost completely to the east of the LRT tracks which would not be hindered by the
presence of freight trains on the west side of the LRT tracks. The other three stations are also
stations with one dominant side to the stations development opportunities. West Lake, Beltline
and Wooddale all have the greatest opportunities for new development on the south and east side
of the LRT station. Freight trains passing on the north and west side of these stations will have
less impact on the development potential of these areas. The evaluation of this goal did not
consider what impacts increased train traffic on the MN&S on development opportunities in
those areas.
M. Support economically competitive freight rail system.
This was not an adopted goal of the light rail project. It is shown as “supports goal” in relocation
alternative vs. being shown as “does not support goal” in co-location alternative, even though it
begs many more questions about achieving other state rail goals contained in the plan.
Operational functionality for the RRs
- The DEIS uses the Hennepin County’s EAW on the freight railroad reroute and the City’s
previous work on the co- location. There was no attempt to advance engineering on
either option to resolve identify issues or impacts. These are left for the Preliminary
Engineering contractor. Both options will be study during the PE phase.
- There is no train operational analysis to show that the reroute is a workable alternative.
A train operation model would show if the longer trains can navigate the curves and
grades or will additional locomotives be required, possible using distributive power.
(TC&W’s locomotives are not setup to operate as DPU).
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 13
- There are tight curves and steep grade not usually associated with mainline operations.
There are grades well in excess of 1 percent. There are no track profiles included in the
DEIS to understand the impacts.
- The Canadian Pacific Railroad (CP) and the Twin Cities & Western Railroad (TC&W)
both submitted comments during the EAW process that show major issues with the
reroute design. The DEIS does not address any of those concerns.
- The CP and TC&W have indicated that they would not accept ownership of the new
structures.
- The EAW and DEIS anticipates that the MN&S track would be out of service for up to 1
month during construction, which is unacceptable to the CP and its customers.
- The EAW showed a vertical clearance of 20’ 6” over the track, when Minnesota statutory
clearance is 22’.
- The DEIS did not provide an additional noise and vibration field data that would help
calibrate the noise and vibration models. As you recall during the EAW process, the
models were based on limited data on current MN&S trains and no long, heavy train data.
- The LRT drawings in the DEIS show that freight tracks will terminate at Wooddale
Avenue. The TC&W have indicated that they will need track east of the Skunk Hollow
wye to switch about 60 cars trains from the south. The DEIS must include elimination of
the skunk hollow switching wye and provision of a south connection to the MN&S for
this to happen. It is not shown.
- The “improved” route for the TC&W trains works only for north or east bound trains.
The movement to the south towards Savage is still inefficient. The Railroads would be
required to maintain the Skunk Hollow wye or use the new siding along the BNSF to run
around the train to access the MN&S south. The second movement described would
require the southbound trains to pass through the MN&S track twice. If the Skunk
Hollow wye is eliminated, there is a customer west of Louisiana that would have its rail
access severed.
- If the reroute alternative is chosen, there should be several modifications to the grades,
curves and right of way to improve safety and operations.
o The minimum right of way should be 100 feet wide.
o The curves and grades need smooth out to minimize the roller coaster affect.
o The area near around Louisiana Avenue should be rethought. Assuming that
there are no freight tracks east of the existing MN&S bridge, the LRT and reroute
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 14
grades could be adjusted to lower the overall height. The depth of structure
should also be review to lower the height.
o There should be a circulation study in the area north of Highway 10 to minimize
the impacts of the proposed closing of 29th Street. Option should include new
bridges, pedestrian trails and noise buffers.
- The improve access north of the BNSF is outside of the study area and no impacts have
been addresses for the additional trains. TC&W have indicated that they do not have any
interested in going to the Humboldt Yard to interchange their normal trains.
Elimination of the “skunk hollow” switching wye, Bass Lake siding and provide connection
to MN&S South are not included in the DEIS but should be.
Elimination of the siding and switching wye south of the Bass Lake Spur in the Oxford Street
industrial area needs to be included in the SWLRT project. Without creation of a direct
connection between the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S southbound and removal of the switching
wye, a rail siding stretching from the MN&S tracks to Minneapolis will be needed to
accommodate 50 to 75 rail cars. This siding means freight rail cars will interfere with both the
Wooddale and Beltline LRT stations and the noise from switching will affect the nearby
Louisiana Station area as well. This will be the case no matter which freight rail route (MN&S or
Kenilworth) is chosen. The negative impacts will be more significant on the station areas and
surrounding area from the siding track than from the through train track. The reason is use of the
siding track will involve storage of cars for long periods of time, idling of stationary locomotives
and the noisy, time consuming process of maneuvering trains from the Bass Lake Spur to the
MN&S or vice versa. While a freight train passing through a station area may interrupt transit
activity for a few minutes at a time as a train passes, a switching procedure could take hours and
stored cars may be in place for days to weeks. The noise associated with switching is
significantly greater and more disruptive to the surrounding area. It will be detrimental to the
development potential of station areas. Switching involves repeated train starts and stops; and the
accompanying crashing of cars coupling and roar of locomotives accelerating. This will limit the
development potential of the station areas nearby and decrease the potential ridership on the SWLRT.
Eliminating the switching wye and the siding on the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the
Louisiana Station also has the benefit of making any connection from the Bass Lake Spur to the
MN&S Northbound easier and less impactful. The proposed connection from the Bass Lake
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 15
Spur to the MN&S used in the DEIS bridges up and over the Bass Lake Spur siding track and the
proposed SWLRT tracks. This results in the connection being higher and steeper than would be
necessary if the siding was not present. The clearance over freight rail tracks is greater than what
is required for LRT tracks. Eliminating the siding means the structure for the freight rail
connection to the MN&S tracks could be lowered reducing the steepness of the grade which in
turn would reduce the noise associated with locomotives pulling trains up this steep grade.
Elimination of the Bass Lake Spur in the vicinity of the Louisiana station would benefit the
station as well. With the siding in place, access to the LRT station platform is potentially more
complicated. The presence of rail cars stored or being maneuvered on the siding limit visibility
of the station and make the LRT passenger’s experience less pleasant.
LRT mitigation and impact needs
Mitigation specifically for the LRT itself is needed. Including:
1. Grade separated crossings.
2. Trails along both sides of the LRT line for access to Beehive Park, stations.
3. Noise controls from crossing signals.
4. Development potential of station areas with and without trains including the character of
the Louisiana Avenue Station with elevated freight trains.
Freight Rail Re-route Primary Concern
A primary concern for the City of St. Louis Park is the potential rerouting of freight rail trains
from Kenilworth corridor in Minneapolis to the MN&S tracks in St. Louis Park. Four of the five
build alternatives evaluated in the SWLRT DEIS included relocating trains from Kenilworth to
MN&S. The reroute to the MN&S was inexplicably included in all four of these alternatives
whether LRT was routed through Kenilworth or not. Two of the build alternatives, 3c-1 and 3c-2
do not use the Kenilworth corridor for LRT and do not need to have trains re-routed to the
MN&S. This faulty train re-routing is an inadequacy of the SWLRT DEIS which makes the
evaluation of these alternatives inherently inaccurate and that inaccuracy makes the relative
evaluation of the build options also inaccurate.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 16
Vacated EAW Basis for DEIS
The re-routing of trains from Kenilworth to the MN&S tracks is not a new idea. It is a concept
that was the focus of an EAW that was prepared in submitted in 2011 and later that year vacated.
While that process is not acknowledged in the DEIS it appears that the design for the re-route
proposed in the DEIS and the evaluation of that design is identical to the work done for the
vacated 2011 EAW. There appears to be virtually no new analyses. In 2011 the City carefully
reviewed the EAW and found it to be inadequate. The City hired its own independent consultant
(SEH) to help review the EAW, identify potential alternative routes for freight rail and analyze
the potential of freight rail in both the MN&S and the Kenilworth routes. One of those
alternative Kenilworth routes formed the basis for the DEIS Co-location alternative (Alternative
3A-1). Since the DEIS essentially incorporates the 2011 EAW and SEH concept plan, the City is
submitting as part of its comments on the DEIS, its comments on the 2011 EAW and the four
technical memos prepared by SEH regarding freight rail and the freight rail alternative routes.
All of the materials St. Louis Park previously submitted are attached.
Better Freight Rail Mitigation Needed
One of the key components of the City’s comments on the EAW which is relevant to the DEIS as
well is the list of mitigation needed to adequately address the negative impacts of re-routing
trains to the MN&S and also co-locating trains and LRT in Kenilworth. Attached is the list of
needed mitigation including estimated costs as of 2011.
Few or no mitigation options are considered for most of the problems identified in the DEIS.
The only mitigation indicated for the MN&S route in the DEIS is a whistle quiet zone (WQZ).
However implementation of the WQZ could also include pedestrian crossing improvements
since part of the process of implementing a WQZ is making other safety improvements
equivalent to trains blowing whistles. To improve safety sufficiently to eliminate the need to
sound train whistles, other pedestrian safety systems may be installed. This is wholly
insufficient.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 17
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND THEMES:
The conclusions for rerouting freight rail traffic to the MNS corridor appear to be unsupported in
the data provided. It is recommended that the City request in its comments that the responsible
agencies:
• Fairly and evenly evaluate the two freight rail alternatives in order to make a responsible
routing decision;
• Truly consider the impacts and costs to make the right decision for the community at-
large.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Southwest Transitway Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)Page 18
Meeting Date: November 26, 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:
Project Update - Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this discussion is to update the Council on recent activities related to R/W
acquisition, Staging and Traffic Detour Plans, Business Owner Outreach, November 15th Project
Open House, Project schedule and costs related to this project – Project No. 2012-0100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions, concerns or feedback about:
1. Right of Way Acquisition
2. Construction staging or detours
3. Business owner outreach
4. November 15th Project Open House Meeting
5. MCES Regional Sewer Work
6. Project schedule and costs
7. Other
Staff has tentatively scheduled approval and authorization of this project at the December 3,
2012 City Council meeting. Does Council have concerns with authorizing and approving the
project on December 3rd?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) identifies 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 MnDOT and the City as well as quality of life and redevelopment needs
in this area of the city.
Phase 4 Activities (underway)
Phase 4 activities, described as Final Design and Plan Preparation, include detailed engineering
work needed to complete plans and specifications to obtain final MnDOT project approvals and
authorization for bidding. Final plans were submitted to MnDOT in late October for agency
review. MnDOT plan review will take about 6 weeks. Final plan revisions, specification writing,
final approval signatures and bidding authorization will completed by early February, 2013.
Advertising for bids is tentatively scheduled to begin in mid-February with a bid opening occurring
in mid-March 2012. Contract award is anticipated on April, 15, 2013 with construction starting in
late April, 2013.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Right of Way Acquisition and Billboard Relocation
The right of way acquisition activities are progressing slowly. The City is nearing a settlement
with the Sam’s Club property and the Newport on 7 Apartment property. Negotiations continue
with the remaining parcel owners.
The City met with Clear Channel representatives to view possible areas for relocating the
billboards on their remnant parcels. The city identified possible relocation areas near the existing
sign locations and Clear Channel seemed agreeable to the proposed locations (see Attachment 1).
Clear Channel is performing further investigation of the proposed locations to determine the
visibility from the roadway. It is their desire to maintain similar visibility of the signs. Once the
relocation areas have been finalized, visual renderings will be created and provided to Council to
determine sight impacts, if any, to adjacent local properties.
Staging and Detour Plans
MnDOT has been reviewing the staging and detour plans and has identified areas where
significant changes can be made to improve traffic flow, provide better access, improve the
construction schedule and reduce the potential for delays and extra work claims. MnDOT is
trying to achieve this goal with the following revised staging plans: For the first year of
construction, maintain 4 lanes of traffic on Highway 7 and restore Highway 7 left turning
movements at the Louisiana intersection; and, maintain 4 traffic lanes on Louisiana with left
turning movements provided at Highway 7. This would essentially eliminate detours during
the first year of construction and maintain existing access in the area.
After the first year of construction, the new Highway 7 Bridge will be built and traffic will shift
from the temporary bypass onto the new Highway 7 mainline in early summer 2014. Louisiana
Avenue can then be constructed one half at a time while maintaining thru-traffic at all times.
During this time, some of the new ramps of the interchange will be available for use but not at all
times as they will also be under construction in conjunction with Louisiana Ave. Access at
Walker Street and Lake Street will also be limited during the construction of Louisiana Avenue.
Therefore, various detour routes will be required for periods of time during the summer of
2014.
Completion of the project will be advanced under these revised staging plans and cost savings
are also expected to be realized. As result, the anticipated substantial completion of the project
can also be revised from June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2014.
Staff will provide additional information to Council as the revised staging plans are further
evaluated and become finalized.
Business Area Outreach
Twin West Chamber of Commerce hosted a business area informational meeting for the project
on August 29th at the Park Tavern. At that initial meeting, the business owners expressed their
concern about potential impacts to their businesses during the construction process. There was a
general feeling among the owners that their businesses will suffer monetarily due to difficulty of
access and travel within the area during construction.
A follow up meeting for the area business owners was held on October 29th at the Municipal
Service Center (MSC). Nineteen area business owners attended (Attachment 2, sign-in sheet).
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
The purpose of the meeting was to: follow up on a list of project related questions developed by
the Highway 7 Louisiana Avenue Business Coalition, review staging and detour plans based on
questions heard at the first meeting, present resources and support services available to the
businesses from City and MnDOT staff (communication and public affairs support, marketing
support, business counseling) and present support services available from Discover St. Louis
Park (visitors bureau). MnDOT staff also presented examples of business outreach efforts used
on previous MnDOT projects.
The business owners again expressed their concern about the access to the area during
construction and the proposed detour routes. It was the consensus of the group to schedule
another meeting to focus discussions on the construction staging, detour routes and overall
access during construction.
A third area business meeting was held Tuesday, November 20, 2012. Thirteen business owners
attended (Attachment 3, sign-in sheet). At the meeting, City and MnDOT staff presented
information on the revised staging plans being developed to improve access in the area and
reduce the detours needed during construction. The information was well received by the
owners and they seem appreciative of the efforts being made to minimize the construction
impacts. Once the revised staging plans can be finalized, communications and/or a follow up
meeting will be provide for the area businesses.
During these past meetings several business owners have questioned the need for the project and
expressed their feeling the project was not needed.
Public Open House Meeting
On Thursday, November 15, 2012, the City hosted a Project Open House at the Municipal
Service Center, (MSC). Approximately 3,000 notices were sent out to area residents, property
owners, business owners and apartment units. The meeting was lightly attended by 12 people
(Attachment 4, sign-in sheet). The purpose of the meeting was to provide an update on the final
plans, anticipated construction sequencing, and overall project schedule. The general impression
for those who attended was one of support of the project. Questions were mainly focused on the
construction schedule, access during construction, and detour routes. Comment cards were
provided to those in attendance and solicitation for final comments related to the project was
made on the 3,000 mailing notices and on the City and Project website. Receipt of final
comments was requested by November 22, 2012. No written comments have been received to
date.
Metropolitan Council (MCES) Regional Sewer Line Relocation Work
It was recently determined that the relocation of the MCES regional sewer line in advance of the
interchange project is not feasible. SEH engineers working for both the City and MCES feel it is
necessary to coordinate the needed utility replacement and relocation work under one contract.
Therefore, staff has started to incorporate the portion of the MCES line lying within the
interchange project limits into the City’s plans and contract. By incorporating the work into the
City project, the risk of constructability concerns along with potential project delays and/or extra
work claims will be reduced or eliminated. Overall project staging will be better coordinated
during the early construction phases as well. This work is being incorporated into the City
contract in a similar fashion to that of the Wooddale Interchange Project. All costs related to the
regional sewer line installation will be reimbursed to the City by the Met Council.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Project Schedule
A detailed schedule of activities through the start of construction is presented below:
Activity Target Date
90% plans submitted for MnDOT agency review Friday, October 19, 2012
Business area informational meeting - Meeting No. 2 Friday, October 29, 2012
Citywide informational meeting/open house Thursday, November 15, 2012
Business area meeting (Staging/detours –Meeting No. 3) Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Business area follow-up on revised staging plans Tuesday, November 27, 2012
City Council approves project Monday, December 3, 2012
Plans revised and signed by Engineer and City
and submit 100% plans to MnDOT Metro State Aid Friday, December 14, 2012
MnDOT Authorizes Project Friday, February 8, 2013
Advertisement sent to Construction Bulletin & local papers Monday, February 11, 2013
Advertisement in Construction Bulletin (also QuestCDN) Mondays, Feb 18, 25, March 4, 11, 2013
MnDOT Cooperative Agreement executed by the City No later than March 20, 2013
Bid opening (letting) Thursday, March 21, 2013
DBE clearance through MnDOT EEO office March 15 – April 3, 2013
Cooperative Agreement fully executed by MnDOT No later than April 12, 2013
Award of Contract Monday, April 15, 2013
Start of Construction Monday, April 22, 2013
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Project Costs
Presented below are the latest estimated project costs based on current design work. All of the
funding sources are also presented below:
Current Estimated Project Costs
Construction $18,090,000
Public Art $ 428,000
Preliminary and Final Design Engineering $ 2,201,500
Construction Engineering (by MnDOT) $ 1,800,000
Remedial Action Plan Administration $ 450,000
Construction Engineering Support (SEH) $ 200,000
Undergrounding Power Lines $ 450,000
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 $26,319,500
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project
Funding Sources
Federal (STP) Funds $7,630,000
MnDOT Access Management Funds $1,000,000
MnDOT Municipal Cooperative Agreement Funds $ 594,000
MnDOT (Construction Eng’r - in lieu of funds) $1,800,000
TED Grant (MnDOT & DEED Program) $3,000,000
City Funds (20% construction grant match – source HRA Levy) $2,398,000
City Funds (Preliminary and Final Design Eng’r – source HRA Levy) $2,201,500
City Funds (Right of Way – source HRA Levy) $2,700,000
City - Water and Sewer Utility Funds $ 200,000
City Funds (Misc Const., Public Art, RAP, Eng’r Support - source HRA Levy) $4,357,000
Total Committed Funds $26,319,500
Total City Share $12,295,500
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.
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 – Billboard Relocation Graphic
Attachment 2 – October 29th Business Meeting Sign-in Sheet
Attachment 3 – November 20th Business Meeting Sign-in Sheet
Attachment 4 – November 15th Open House Sign-in Sheet
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
980+00
985+00
990+00
20+00
20+00
14+00980+00
985+00
990+00
20+0025+0020+0025+0010+0010+0015+0015+00
19+00
11+00
15+00
11+00
15+00 11+0015+007/26/20123:18:40 PMS:\PT\S\Stlou\116227\5-dsgn\51-cadd\General\116227_BILLBOARD FIGS.dgnPLANCITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MN.
T.H. 7 / LOUISIANA AVE.
S.P. NO. 2706-226 S.P. NO. 163-010-038
EB TH 7
SCALE 100’LOUI
S
I
ANA AVE.
W. LAKE ST.
WALKER ST.
WB TH 7
WB TH 7
EB TH 7
B
A EXISTING BILLBOARD A
POTENTIAL BILLBOARD LOCATION
POTENTIAL BILLBOARD LOCATION
FUTURE MNDOT R/W
FUTURE MNDOT R/W
(LOOKING WEST)
WB TH 7
PHOTO #3
(LOOKING EAST)
EB TH 7
PHOTO #1
(LOOKING EAST)
EB TH 7
PHOTO #2
1
2
3
PLAN VIEW
BILLBOARD RELOCATION
EXISTING BILLBOARD B
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 6
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 7
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 8
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Page 9
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Project Update - Hwy 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange ProjectPage 10
Meeting Date: November 26, 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:
October 2012 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information each month of the overall level of
revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These
funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent
the discretionary use of tax levy dollars.
Actual expenditures should generally run about 83% of the annual budget in October. Currently,
the General Fund has expenditures totaling 79% of the adopted budget and the Park and
Recreation Fund expenditures are at 87.7%. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this same
way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and
State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc.).
All General Fund departments are running at or under budget through October. As noted later in
the report, a portion of the current Park & Recreation Fund budget variance is due to seasonal
expenditures. It is quite common and consistent with prior years to have a temporary variance
after the summer months in the Park & Recreation Fund. In comparing both funds with October
2011, General Fund expenditures were at 78.5% and Park & Recreation expenditures were at
86.5%. Comments on a few specific revenue and expenditure variances are noted below.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues in the General Fund have been running well ahead of budget
all year, and as was anticipated, they began exceeding the total annual budget in August.
At the end of October, license and permit revenues are now exceeding budget by 25% or
$593,000. The majority of this excess or $538,000 is from permit activity. This additional
permit revenue is due to several large commercial development projects that started in
2012, which were not able to be determined at the time the budget was prepared last year.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 89.5% of budget through October. This is in
part because the full annual Community Education contribution in the amount of
$187,400 was paid to the School District earlier in the year. The timing of this large
expenditure is consistent with prior years and is only a temporary variance. Also, some
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: October 2012 Monthly Financial Report
costs in this Division are seasonal, with larger expenses occurring for recreational
activities over the summer and early fall months. When comparing 2012 to prior year
through October, the results are very consistent (89.6% in October 2011).
• The Recreation Center Division is at 90.4% of budget. Since a large portion of the
budgets for temporary employees and supplies are spent over the summer months for the
pool and concessions, it is typical for there to be a seasonal variance at this point in the
year. Building and equipment maintenance expenses have also exceeded budget due to
necessary repairs and maintenance work.
• The Park Maintenance Division is slightly exceeding budget at 84.8%. This again is due
to seasonal expenditures and is consistent with prior year (84.5% in October 2011).
• Expenditures in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are exceeding budget at 89.5%. The
variance is mainly due to overages in parts and tires, motor fuel, and outside equipment
repair services, all of which are unpredictable and difficult to budget. However, in
comparing to October 2011 (91.6%), the budget variance is less than prior year. Staff
will continue to monitor these expenditures as the year progresses. These areas were also
looked at closely for the 2013 budget and adjusted accordingly.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Oct YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,372,076$ 15,998,292$ 8,294,166$ 7,704,126$ 51.84%
Licenses and Permits 2,797,588 2,368,799 2,961,867 (593,068) 125.04%
Fines & Forfeits 281,047 328,150 268,694 59,456 81.88%
Intergovernmental 1,243,494 1,163,677 1,209,755 (46,078) 103.96%
Charges for Services 1,077,137 1,270,354 591,479 678,875 46.56%
Miscellaneous Revenue 129,142 111,650 86,345 25,305 77.34%
Transfers In 2,553,665 2,023,003 1,667,502 355,501 82.43%
Investment Earnings 203,282 125,000 - 125,000 0.00%
Other Income 22,686 3,450 5,474 (2,024) 158.66%
Total General Fund Revenues 23,680,117$ 23,392,375$ 15,085,282$ 8,307,093$ 64.49%
Park & Recreation Revenues:
General Property Taxes 4,000,561$ 4,171,506$ 2,085,753$ 2,085,753$ 50.00%
Licenses and Permits 110 6,600 275 6,325 4.17%
Intergovernmental 208,536 68,902 36,135 32,767 52.44%
Charges for Services 1,082,163 1,070,750 992,071 78,679 92.65%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,035,310 967,900 695,195 272,705 71.83%
Other Income 78,902 42,150 1,348 40,802 3.20%
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,405,582$ 6,327,808$ 3,810,778$ 2,517,030$ 60.22%
Summary of Revenues - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of October 31, 2012
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: October 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 3
2011 2012 2012 Balance Budget
Actual Budget Oct YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Government:
Administration 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 702,529$ 310,025$ 69.38%
Accounting 624,573 641,691 528,044 113,647 82.29%
Assessing 506,426 517,840 431,486 86,354 83.32%
Human Resources 629,734 667,612 535,302 132,310 80.18%
Community Development 1,082,461 1,076,376 887,940 188,436 82.49%
Facilities Maintenance 955,880 1,083,128 746,430 336,698 68.91%
Information Resources 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,097,415 410,164 72.79%
Communications & Marketing 256,558 265,426 200,502 64,924 75.54%
Community Outreach 84,300 8,185 6,153 2,032 75.17%
Total General Government 6,386,958$ 6,780,391$ 5,135,800$ 1,644,591$ 75.74%
Public Safety:
Police 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 5,957,559$ 1,316,164$ 81.91%
Fire Protection 3,061,962 3,346,931 2,660,099 686,832 79.48%
Inspectional Services 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,561,958 327,382 82.67%
Total Public Safety 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 10,179,616$ 2,330,378$ 81.37%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 803,259$ 389,783$ 305,795$ 83,988$ 78.45%
Public Works Engineering 816,280 927,337 756,205 171,132 81.55%
Public Works Operations 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,046,427 558,443 78.56%
Total Public Works 4,080,638$ 3,921,990$ 3,108,427$ 813,563$ 79.26%
Non-Departmental:
General 81,287$ -$ 56,113$ (56,113)$ 0.00%
Transfers Out 900,000 - - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions - 180,000 - 180,000 0.00%
Total Non-Departmental 981,287$ 180,000$ 56,113$ 123,887$ 31.17%
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,272,432$ 23,392,375$ 18,479,956$ 4,912,419$ 79.00%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,266,774$ 1,305,747$ 1,168,772$ 136,975$ 89.51%
Recreation Center 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,325,348 140,898 90.39%
Park Maintenance 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,240,440 221,205 84.87%
Westwood 488,579 515,456 424,253 91,203 82.31%
Environment 396,664 390,009 323,528 66,481 82.95%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,063,906 124,799 89.50%
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,339,666$ 6,327,808$ 5,546,247$ 781,561$ 87.65%
Summary of Expenditures - General Fund and Park & Recreation
As of October 31, 2012
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 5)
Subject: October 2012 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting Date: November 26, 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:
Prism Dial-A-Ride Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. The intent is to bring a motion to approve extending the City’s contract
with Prism (People Responding in Social Ministry) to provide door-to-door Dial--Ride services
to all residents of St. Louis Park through December 31, 2013, to the December 17, 2012 City
Council meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City first contracted with Prism to provide Dial-a-Ride transportation services to St. Louis
Park residents in September 2011. The initial contract was for six months and at the February 6
Council meeting, the Council extended the contract through December 31, 2012. Previous to
entering into this contract, St. Louis Park was served by several transportation programs, each
operating independently and with various limitations. The Dial-a-Ride service provides a
transportation option with greater flexibility. The policy consideration is whether or not the City
Council wants to continue to support Prism’s Dial-a-Ride program to enhance the level of
transportation services available for SLP residents.
BACKGROUND:
City s taff and Courtney Whited, Prism Transportation Coordinator, met with the Council in July
2011 to discuss Prism’s proposed plan to expand their door-to-door Dial-a-Ride program to St.
Louis Park. Council supported the proposal and the potential benefits that a flexible
transportation program would provide and directed staff to proceed with the steps necessary to
enter into a contract with Prism to provide Dial-a-Ride services to St. Louis Park residents. The
City agreed to provide a funding contribution up to $10,000 to cover program operation costs for
the initial six month period of September 1, 2011 through February 29, 2012. The contract was
subsequently extended through the end of 2012. The 2012 City budget includes $20,000 in
funding to cover the City’s financial contribution supporting the program.
Ridership Statistics: January through June 2012.
Ridership use of the program has remained relatively steady through the initial 13 months of
operation. Marketing efforts for the program have included articles in the Sun Sailor, the Park
Perspective and announcements on the City’s web site. Prism staff also did direct outreach to the
senior center, Park Nicollet, STEP, and the faith community. Ridership for the first 10 months
of 2012 is as follows:
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program
Month Rides Provided
January 152
February 159
March 144
April 133
May 174
June 113
July 121
August 148
September 91
October 127
Total 1362
A total of 40 unduplicated individuals utilized the Dial-a-Ride services for a total of 1362 rides
through the first 10 months of 2012. Prism has indicated that they have a total of 70 individuals
that are registered with the Dial-a-Ride program.
Rider
Characteristics
Number
of Riders
Female 28
Male 12
60 & Under 8
61 to 70 8
71 to 80 4
81 to 85 8
86 to 90 9
Over 90 3
White 38
Black 1
Asian 1
Ambulatory 23
Use Cane 4
Use Walker 4
Need Lift 9
Prism has indicated that the majority of the riders are seniors that are seeking a more attentive
service than what they would receive from an alternate transportation service. The door-to-door
Dial-a-Ride service is more direct than many services and provides the rider the feel of running
an errand. A ride to and from the store only takes 15 to 25 minutes each way versus 1 – 2 hours
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program
on Metro Mobility or the bus. The service is more similar to taxi cab service. The most frequent
ride destination thus far has been to medical appointments and adult day care. Other destinations
included work, shopping, and recreation and social service appointments.
Ride Destination Rides Provided
Medical 232
Adult Day Care 925
Shopping 50
Work 72
Social Service 6
Recreation 74
Visiting 3
Although Prism has indicated that ridership will typically continue to grow each month as more
residents hear about the service, the ridership thus far in St. Louis Park has remained relatively
constant. Prism has done a significant amount of outreach and will be undertaking renewed
marketing efforts over the next couple of months.
Staff Recommendation.
The Dial-A-Ride Service is showing consistent use. Seniors, the targeted ridership population, are
the primary users of the service. The program provides a flexible transportation option for St.
Louis Park residents. Prism has stated that they anticipate ridership will grow over time as word
spreads about the program. Staff is recommending that we continue funding the service through 2013.
BUDGET STATUS:
The City’s 2012 budget includes up to $20,000 in funding for a Dial-a-Ride program. The City’s
contribution for services provided from January through October totaled $6,568.34. Up to
$20,000 in funding is being proposed for the 2013 budget. The estimated amount of the City’s
contribution was determined based on community size and the anticipated number of riders
annually. The Housing Rehab Fund is the funding resource for the City’s contribution.
PRISM estimates that the full cost of a one way ride is $11.50. PRISM bills the City monthly on
a per ride basis. The City currently reimburses PRISM at a not-to-exceed rate of $5.50 per one
way ride. The additional ride expense is supplemented by contributions from a grant from the
Park Nicollet Foundation, Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging funds and the fare charged to
riders. The City’s portion per ride varies depending on the amount of fare collected. The City’s
average contribution per ride for 2012 is $4.82. The City’s proposed contribution per ride for
2013 will remain unchanged.
As of September 1st, Prism adjusted the Dial-a-Ride fare structure for riders 60 and over to a
sliding fee scale based on household income. Prism’s primary funding resource, the
Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging (MAAA), requires their funds to be used only for riders 60
years of age or older. MAAA contributes approximately $4.50 per ride for riders 60 years of age
and older. The scale is based on a household’s income as it relates to the federal poverty
guidelines and the rider fee scale will range from $3.50 per one way ride to a full fare of $11.50.
The fee is a suggested donation and riders are not turned away if they do not pay the fee.
Study Session Meeting of November 26, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Prism Dial-A-Ride Program
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The need for a variety of transportation modes allowing residents and visitors to easily and
inexpensively travel throughout the city and the entire metro region was identified through the
Visioning process as one of the City’s primary focus areas. Creation of a dial-a-ride program
that expands ridership boundaries is consistent with many of the ideas and goals proposed by the
Visioning Transportation Action Team including:
• Creating a superior transportation system,
• Alleviate barriers,
• Transportation system should strive to be simple, convenient, safe and inexpensive for
everyone,
• All the transportation system components and modes should be integrated and designed
to support one another,
• Embrace existing and future technology to make transportation more convenient and cost
effective,
• Our transportation system is an innovative model for other communities, and
• Coordinate with neighboring cities’ transit efforts.
NEXT STEPS
Extension of the contract for Dial-a-Ride services with Prism will be brought to the December 17
Council meeting for City Council consideration. Upon receiving Council approval, staff will
prepare the necessary agreement for the City to participate in Prism’s Dial-a-Ride program
through December 31, 2013. Staff will continue to review the program’s performance and
update the Council as appropriate.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director