HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/06/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
JUNE 6, 2011
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Westwood Hills Nature Center 30th Anniversary Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes April 25, 2011
3b. Study Session Minutes May 9, 2011
3c. City Council Meeting May 16, 2011
3d. Special Study Session Minutes May 16, 2011
3e. Study Session Minutes May 23, 2011
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar
to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portion of Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake Rd.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt First Reading
of an ordinance vacating a portion of a Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake Road, and
to set the second reading for June 20, 2011.
6b. First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street West and Natchez Ave. S.
Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to Approve the First
Reading of an ordinance vacating the 42½ St. W. and Natchez Ave. S. Right-of-way
adjacent to 4253 Ottawa Ave S, and to set the second reading for June 20, 2011.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
Meeting of June 6, 2011
Special Study Session and City Council Agenda
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures.
Recommended Action: Authorize the submission of comments for the MNS EAW along
with recommended mitigation measures.
9. Communication
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Continued – Council Chambers
Immediately Following the City Council Meeting
Discussion Items
2. Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation
Written Reports
3. Fuel Costs and Budget 2011
4. Cavalia – The West End
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of June 6, 2011
Special Study Session and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Designate Northwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $191,480.23 for the 2011 MSA
Street Improvement Project, Project No. 2010-1100
4b. Approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $549,500 for Parcel 2 (the Apex
Realty/SPS Companies Property), and authorize the City Attorney to execute stipulation
of settlement
4c. Designate Northwest Asphalt the lowest responsible bidder and authorize the City of
Edina to execute a contract with the firm in the amount of $2,322,814 for the W. 44th
Street Reconstruction Project (France Avenue to Brookside Avenue)
4d. Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement Project No.
2011-1401, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for
Improvement Project No. 2011-1401
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3361 Xenwood Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0063
4f. Cooperative Agreement for Bicycle Parking Project
4g. Accept Donation from Jeffrey N. Fine in the amount of $1,000 for restoration of the 1928
American LaFrance fire truck
4h. Approve for Filing Telecommunications Commission Minutes February 10, 2011
4i. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4j. Approve for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes January 18, 2011
4k. Approve for Filing Human Rights commission Minutes March 15, 2011
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV
cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed
live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays
on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17.
The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
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:
Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Discuss suggested mitigation measures for MNS EAW and other EAW comments.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this study session agenda item is to provide the City Council with an opportunity
to further review, discuss and modify as necessary the MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation
Measures identified thus far.
BACKGROUND:
On May 16, 2011 MN&S Freight Rail Study EAW was released for public review. The 30-day
official comment period extends through June 15, 2011. The City Council has expressed
concerns in relation to mitigation measures, and has discussed providing comments on the EAW
to address in particular the inadequacy of the proposed mitigation in the EAW and identify
additional mitigation measures the City believes are necessary.
Mitigation
At the May 16 and May 31, 2011 Study Sessions the City Council discussed mitigation for both
potential rail routes; and, other potential comments on the MN&S EAW. Attached is an updated
list of proposed mitigation items for the MN&S route; and, a list of comments on the EAW in
general. Please note that the proposed comments on the EAW are still a work in progress and
will likely evolve over the coming days. The intent is to discuss the final set of comments at the
June 13 Study Session as noted in the schedule below.
June 6th Special Study Session discussion of proposed comments on the MN&S EAW
Regular City Council agenda consideration of approval of EAW comments
June 8th MN&S EAW Open House at the Rec Center
June 13th Finalize EAW comments
June 15th Deadline for submittal of comments on the MN&S EAW
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
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. It is also related to the broader Vision elements
about the variety of transportation modes, sidewalk & trails and environmental stewardship.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No.1) Page 2
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures
Attachments: Draft MNS Mitigation Measures List (clean)
Draft MNS Mitigation Measures List (redline)
Draft EAW Comments (clean)
Draft EAW Comments (redline)
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and,
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor.
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
MNS Mitigation Measures
Track improvements
• Replace and upgrade the MN&S track with 136# seamless tracks reducing noise and
vibrations
• Install rail lubricators
• Concrete ties to reduce the vibration
Mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland, floodplain, hazardous materials
handling, wildlife habitat, etc.
Whistle Quiet Zones to upgrade rail crossings safety measures to eliminate the need to blow
whistles or horns as trains approach intersections.
Provide fencing and signing along the length of the railroad r-o-w to discourage people
intruding unsafely on the MN&S tracks.
Create grade separated frontage road on north side of Hwy 7 by lengthening the MN&S
bridge over Hwy 7 to provide space to create a frontage road on the north side.
Build a pedestrian overpass near High School and Dakota Avenue to connect the High
School to the Lake Street area and football field.
Create pedestrian and non-vehicle access under MN&S tracks at Dakota Park by building an
under pass at 27th St. to connect to the N. Cedar Lake regional trail from the east.
Expansion of MN&S r-o-w in residential area by acquiring homes immediately east of MN&S
tracks north of approximately the intersection of MN&S tracks with Brunswick Avenue to 27th
Street on the north.
Reroute coal trains west of metro area.
Elimination of sidings as well as through tracks east of Wooddale on Bass Lake spur to
eliminate the possibility of cars being stored in this area or trains blocking Wooddale or
Beltline.
Completely remove the Oxford industrial area switching wye tracks, abandon the rail r-o-w,
and build a southern connection to MNS.
Funding and construction of Louisiana & Hwy 7 Interchange.
Structure Improvement Program – Create a grant program to provide technical assistance
and financial help for property owners to make noise and/or vibration mitigation
improvements.
Sound and vibration mitigation improvements for all schools, businesses and homes adjacent
to the MNS line.
Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 close to the MN&S bridge to provide access for pedestrians.
Eliminate blind curves in the Lake Street/High School area.
The freight rail should only be rerouted if firm commitments are in place for implementation of
SWLRT.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 3
Property owners should be compensated for loss of property value due to rerouting of TCW
trains to the MNS tracks.
Any disruption of businesses due to construction of the MNS improvements must be
appropriately mitigated.
Special care must be taken to protect and ensure no damage occurs to monitoring water
wells as a result of the MNS project.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 4
MNS Mitigation Measures
Track improvements
• Replace and upgrade the MN&S track with 136# seamless tracks reducing noise and
vibrations
• Install rail lubricators
• Concrete ties to reduce the vibration
Mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland, floodplain, hazardous materials
handling, wildlife habitat, etc.
Whistle Quiet Zones to upgrade rail crossings safety measures to eliminate the need to blow
whistles or horns as trains approach intersections.
Provide fencing and signing along the length of the railroad r-o-w to discourage people
intruding unsafely on the MN&S tracks.
Create grade separated frontage road on north side of Hwy 7 by lengthening the MN&S
bridge over Hwy 7 to provide space to create a frontage road on the north side.
Build a pedestrian overpass near High School and Dakota Avenue to connect the High
School to the Lake Street area and football field.
Create pedestrian and non-vehicle access under MN&S tracks at Dakota Park by building an
under pass at 27th St. to connect to the N. Cedar Lake regional trail from the east.
Expansion of MN&S r-o-w in residential area by acquiring homes immediately east of MN&S
tracks north of approximately the intersection of MN&S tracks with Brunswick Avenue to 27th
Street on the north.
Reroute coal trains west of metro area.
Elimination of sidings as well as through tracks east of Wooddale on Bass Lake spur to
eliminate the possibility of cars being stored in this area or trains blocking Wooddale or
Beltline.
Completely remove the Oxford industrial area switching wye tracks, abandon the rail r-o-w,
and build a southern connection to MNS.
Funding and construction of Louisiana & Hwy 7 Interchange.
Structure Improvement Program – Create a grant program to provide technical assistance
and financial help for property owners to make noise and/or vibration mitigation
improvements.
Sound and vibration mitigation improvements for all schools, businesses and homes adjacent
to the MNS line.
Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 close to the MN&S bridge to provide access for pedestrians.
Eliminate blind curves in the Lake Street/High School area.
The freight rail should only be rerouted if firm commitments are in place for implementation of
SWLRT.
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Indent: Left: 16.75 pt,
Hanging: 1.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 18.25 pt,
Hanging: 1.25 pt
Deleted: Better
Deleted: of
Deleted: to ensure it is in place
where appropriate
Deleted: Switching Wye – r
Deleted:
Deleted: loan and/or
Deleted: at the High School.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 5
Property owners should be compensated for loss of property value due to rerouting of TCW
trains to the MNS tracks.
Any disruption of businesses due to construction of the MNS improvements must be
appropriately mitigated.
Special care must be taken to protect and ensure no damage occurs to monitoring water
wells as a result of the MNS project.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 16.75 pt,
Hanging: 1.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 18.25 pt,
First line: 0 pt
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 pt
Deleted: Other Potential Mitigation
Measures ... [1]
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 6
Page
2: [1]
Delete
d Meg
McMon
igal
06/01
/2011
3:55:0
0 PM
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
Removal of north arm of the switching wye so CP trains could continue to serve the existing
customer by using the south arm of the switching wye.
Housing Buyout program - Create a program to purchase homes on the west side of the
MN&S tracks from willing sellers and remove, remodel or resell them.
Place MN&S tracks on overhead structure from Walker to Brunswick.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 7
Draft Comments on MN&S EAW from
St Louis Park
General Comments:
1) The original goal for the City was to minimize the time, noise and disruption that freight trains
have in the City of St Louis Park. The stated purpose of the proposed action is inconsistent with
the City’s goals as stated in Resolution 10-070 (see attached); and, the purpose of the proposed
action ignores the fact that a key purpose for the reroute of freight rail trains off of the
Kenilworth alignment is to accommodate SW LRT.
2) Page 15 details that the elimination of the Skunk Hollow track is not part of the proposal even
though it is was a major goal of the City. The idea of rerouting coal trains west of the metro area
is also not a part of the proposed action.
3) There is reference to meeting with the three affected railroads but there is no documentation on
those meetings or the official position of the railroad on the design assumptions.
4) There are no track profiles shown in the EAW. There are three major concerns about the lack of
information about the profiles:
a) The City is concerned that the track profiles match the existing road crossings to minimize
roadway work or the project would be required to pay for the extensive street work. The
Lake/Library area drainage is very sensitive to any grade changes.
b) The analysis assumes 25 mph for the trains. The profile is a critical component of speed and
noise. The grades will not allow a consistent 25 mph speed, so how does affect the analysis.
c) The grades exceed mainline standards, and the EAW states that the grades over 1 percent are
relatively short and match the current track profile. The longer trains may have difficulty
with these grades. The City had requested earlier in the study for a speed profile analysis on
how the longer trains will be affected by these grades. No speed profile analysis has been
provided.
5) The EAW states that the track design will meet current CP standards, but the typical cross
sections do not reflect the wider sub grade standard.
6) There is no discussion on how this EAW meshes with the DEIS being conducted for the SW
LRT. The primary purpose of any MN&S reroute project is to gain space in the Kenilworth
Corridor for the SW LRT tracks.
7) There is not discussion about ownership and maintenance of the track and other improvements.
The CP and TC&W railroads have indicated to the City that they do not want to own the new
structures.
8) The traffic analysis uses inadequate assumptions:
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 8
a) Railroad crossing signals are activated before the train arrives at the crossing and remain
down after the train exits the crossing. The time is normally about 30 seconds before the
train enters plus 5 seconds after the train exits the crossings. There is no reference in the
blockage computations that this time has been accounted for, and it appears this has not
been included.
b) The length of the rail car varies by the type and commodity. The EAW used 85 foot length
for all cars. Coal cars are 55 to 60 feet long. Ethanol cars are about 60 feet. Grain cars are
65 to 70 feet long. Generally the length of trains is overstated.
c) The peak hour traffic near the high school is not the normal peak hour. Bus schedules are
sensitive to time and a train at the school’s peak hour would be a major disruption to the bus
system.
9) There is no discussion about potential derailments and how emergency personnel would develop
an evacuation plan.
10) There is only a 20’6” clearance between the bottom of the new bridge over the Bass Lake Spur
track and the Bass Lake Spur tracks; this does not meet the minimum State requirements.
11) Pages 19-21: Remediation of the Golden Auto National Lead site involved extensive processing
of a large volume of lead contaminated soils and concrete, much of which has been safely
contained on the site. A 10-18 inch impervious cap covers the bulk of the site. Excavation on
this site has the potential to encounter areas of contaminated soils and areas of crushed concrete.
The construction proposes to pierce the cap. Great care will need to be taken to ensure the
integrity of the impervious cap is maintained and any contaminated soils that must be removed
are handled properly. Geo-technical challenges may also be encountered due to the significant
deposits of crushed concrete on the site. The distribution of contained contaminated soils and
crushed concrete is not evenly distributed nor is it of a uniform thickness throughout the site.
Further analysis is needed to establish the extent of capped contaminated soils and crushed
concrete that will be encountered for construction of footings and foundations, or other
earthwork on the Golden Auto National Lead site. The EAW minimizes and does not fully
address these potential construction issues.
12) Page 77: In the Louisiana SW LRT station area it is noted the SW DEIS plans a facility for 250
cars – this is not the amount in the DEIS. It also states that this project will provide “optimal
developable land” for development in the station area, however there will be property taken
property off the tax rolls, and impacted greatly by the proposed rail bridge, leaving land
remnants that are not “optimal.” There would also be impact on the local road system.
13) Specific Comments:
14) Page 2: The proposed action statement makes no reference to the SW LRT project.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 9
15) Page 8: Closure of 29th Street is a City decision. The closure is proposed because the proposed
track profile would be about 4 feet higher than the existing crossing making it difficult to
construct a roadway approach that works. There are no details on how much of 29th Street is
proposed to be removed or how the dead end streets resulting from closure of 29th Street’s rail
crossing will be handled. No cul de sacs or other means for vehicles, including street
maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles, to turn around is provided.
16) Page 16: The list of permits is incomplete. There needs to be a series of agreements with the
three railroads and Hennepin County as well as between the railroads; these may not easily be
achieved. Approvals are also needed from Three Rivers Park District for the trail revisions.
17) Page 40: 28th and 29th Streets are classified as local streets. The 2011 traffic count for 29th is 190
ADT.
18) Page 64: There were two field locations for the vibration. The nearest site was 60 feet, yet the
analysis assumes that there is no impact past 40 feet from the track. The City has heard from the
High School and the businesses that they have vibration disruptions now, without the reroute.
The vibration analysis does not accurately reflect the existing and proposed rail operations.
19) Page 71: The proposed Cedar Lake Trail bridge over the new Iron triangle track will also be 30
feet above the surrounding ground surface and will have a significant visual impact.
20) Page 77: It is stated that the SWLRT DEIS is “currently being prepared” whereas it is under
review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) at this time.
21) Page 81: Section 30b deals with right of way and relocations. The EAW comments that only
one parcel is required and 13 partial takings. Table 19 understates the impacts.
a) There are two residential units that have been proposed to be taken that are not listed in
Table 19.
b) There is extensive construction work in the iron triangle area but there is not access into the
construction site. The area is surrounded by wetlands, flood plains, parks, railroads and
private developed property. The EAW should provide a construction access plan to this area
and provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of this access.
c) Parcels 108,109 and 110 will have a bridge within 25 feet of their building edges and for
parcels 108 and 109 their parking lots and driveways will be impacted.
d) Parcels 97, 98, 100 and 101 are underdeveloped lots used primarily for outdoor storage of
construction materials. Table 19 has inaccurate areas of impact.
22) Page 93: The proposed improvements will be constructed between City maintained monitoring
wells near the Golden Auto site that may be impacted by construction or vibration. There is no
reference on how the project will affect these wells and how they will be protected.
23) Page 93: Table 20 estimates that 2 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The City would prefer
that the wetland replacement be located within St Louis Park and the EAW should address
possible mitigation sites.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 10
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
24) Page 94: There is a reference to constructing 3 storm water runoff ponds. The City has had
difficulty locating drainage facilities in this area because of development and contamination. The
EAW does not describe in any detail where these ponds would be located and what properties
will be affected.
25) Page 97: Commitment to include welded rail in the project should be an Area, since the CP and
BNSF standards for mainline tracks is welded rail.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 11
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
Draft Comments on MN&S EAW from
St Louis Park
General Comments:
1) The original goal for the City was to minimize the time, noise and disruption that freight trains
have in the City of St Louis Park. The stated purpose of the proposed action is inconsistent with
the City’s goals as stated in Resolution 10-070 (see attached); and, the purpose of the proposed
action ignores the fact that a key purpose for the reroute of freight rail trains off of the
Kenilworth alignment is to accommodate SW LRT.
2) Page 15 details that the elimination of the Skunk Hollow track is not part of the proposal even
though it is was a major goal of the City. The idea of rerouting coal trains west of the metro area
is also not a part of the proposed action.
3) There is reference to meeting with the three affected railroads but there is no documentation on
those meetings or the official position of the railroad on the design assumptions.
4) There are no track profiles shown in the EAW. There are three major concerns about the lack of
information about the profiles:
a) The City is concerned that the track profiles match the existing road crossings to minimize
roadway work or the project would be required to pay for the extensive street work. The
Lake/Library area drainage is very sensitive to any grade changes.
b) The analysis assumes 25 mph for the trains. The profile is a critical component of speed and
noise. The grades will not allow a consistent 25 mph speed, so how does affect the analysis.
c) The grades exceed mainline standards, and the EAW states that the grades over 1 percent are
relatively short and match the current track profile. The longer trains may have difficulty
with these grades. The City had requested earlier in the study for a speed profile analysis on
how the longer trains will be affected by these grades. No speed profile analysis has been
provided.
5) The EAW states that the track design will meet current CP standards, but the typical cross
sections do not reflect the wider sub grade standard.
6) There is no discussion on how this EAW meshes with the DEIS being conducted for the SW
LRT. The primary purpose of any MN&S reroute project is to gain space in the Kenilworth
Corridor for the SW LRT tracks.
7) There is not discussion about ownership and maintenance of the track and other improvements.
The CP and TC&W railroads have indicated to the City that they do not want to own the new
structures.
8) The traffic analysis uses inadequate assumptions:
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Font color: Black
Deleted: the
Deleted: narrowed
Deleted: this
Deleted: goal
Deleted: to
Deleted: for
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 12
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
a) Railroad crossing signals are activated before the train arrives at the crossing and remain
down after the train exits the crossing. The time is normally about 30 seconds before the
train enters plus 5 seconds after the train exits the crossings. There is no reference in the
blockage computations that this time has been accounted for, and it appears this has not
been included.
b) The length of the rail car varies by the type and commodity. The EAW used 85 foot length
for all cars. Coal cars are 55 to 60 feet long. Ethanol cars are about 60 feet. Grain cars are
65 to 70 feet long. Generally the length of trains is overstated.
c) The peak hour traffic near the high school is not the normal peak hour. Bus schedules are
sensitive to time and a train at the school’s peak hour would be a major disruption to the bus
system.
9) There is no discussion about potential derailments and how emergency personnel would develop
an evacuation plan.
10) There is only a 20’6” clearance between the bottom of the new bridge over the Bass Lake Spur
track and the Bass Lake Spur tracks; this does not meet the minimum State requirements.
11) Pages 19-21: Remediation of the Golden Auto National Lead site involved extensive processing
of a large volume of lead contaminated soils and concrete, much of which has been safely
contained on the site. A 10-18 inch impervious cap covers the bulk of the site. Excavation on
this site has the potential to encounter areas of contaminated soils and areas of crushed concrete.
The construction proposes to pierce the cap. Great care will need to be taken to ensure the
integrity of the impervious cap is maintained and any contaminated soils that must be removed
are handled properly. Geo-technical challenges may also be encountered due to the significant
deposits of crushed concrete on the site. The distribution of contained contaminated soils and
crushed concrete is not evenly distributed nor is it of a uniform thickness throughout the site.
Further analysis is needed to establish the extent of capped contaminated soils and crushed
concrete that will be encountered for construction of footings and foundations, or other
earthwork on the Golden Auto National Lead site. The EAW minimizes and does not fully
address these potential construction issues.
12) Page 77: In the Louisiana SW LRT station area it is noted the SW DEIS plans a facility for 250
cars – this is not the amount in the DEIS. It also states that this project will provide “optimal
developable land” for development in the station area, however there will be property taken
property off the tax rolls, and impacted greatly by the proposed rail bridge, leaving land
remnants that are not “optimal.” There would also be impact on the local road system.
13) Specific Comments:
14) Page 2: The proposed action statement makes no reference to the SW LRT project.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: from
Deleted: d
Deleted: (page 77)
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 13
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
15) Page 8: Closure of 29th Street is a City decision. The closure is proposed because the proposed
track profile would be about 4 feet higher than the existing crossing making it difficult to
construct a roadway approach that works. There are no details on how much of 29th Street is
proposed to be removed or how the dead end streets resulting from closure of 29th Street’s rail
crossing will be handled. No cul de sacs or other means for vehicles, including street
maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles, to turn around is provided.
16) Page 16: The list of permits is incomplete. There needs to be a series of agreements with the
three railroads and Hennepin County as well as between the railroads; these may not easily be
achieved. Approvals are also needed from Three Rivers Park District for the trail revisions.
17) Page 40: 28th and 29th Streets are classified as local streets. The 2011 traffic count for 29th is 190
ADT.
18) Page 64: There were two field locations for the vibration. The nearest site was 60 feet, yet the
analysis assumes that there is no impact past 40 feet from the track. The City has heard from the
High School and the businesses that they have vibration disruptions now, without the reroute.
The vibration analysis does not accurately reflect the existing and proposed rail operations.
19) Page 71: The proposed Cedar Lake Trail bridge over the new Iron triangle track will also be 30
feet above the surrounding ground surface and will have a significant visual impact.
20) Page 77: It is stated that the SWLRT DEIS is “currently being prepared” whereas it is under
review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) at this time.
21) Page 81: Section 30b deals with right of way and relocations. The EAW comments that only
one parcel is required and 13 partial takings. Table 19 understates the impacts.
a) There are two residential units that have been proposed to be taken that are not listed in
Table 19.
b) There is extensive construction work in the iron triangle area but there is not access into the
construction site. The area is surrounded by wetlands, flood plains, parks, railroads and
private developed property. The EAW should provide a construction access plan to this area
and provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of this access.
c) Parcels 108,109 and 110 will have a bridge within 25 feet of their building edges and for
parcels 108 and 109 their parking lots and driveways will be impacted.
d) Parcels 97, 98, 100 and 101 are underdeveloped lots used primarily for outdoor storage of
construction materials. Table 19 has inaccurate areas of impact.
22) Page 93: The proposed improvements will be constructed between City maintained monitoring
wells near the Golden Auto site that may be impacted by construction or vibration. There is no
reference on how the project will affect these wells and how they will be protected.
23) Page 93: Table 20 estimates that 2 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The City would prefer
that the wetland replacement be located within St Louis Park and the EAW should address
possible mitigation sites.
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Outline numbered +
Level: 2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c,
… + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
Aligned at: 18 pt + Tab after: 36 pt
+ Indent at: 36 pt
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: the
Deleted: ed
Deleted: roadway
Deleted: would be closed.
Deleted: <#>¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: wetlands ,
Deleted: , railroads
Deleted: a construction
Deleted: to
Deleted: e
Deleted: .
Deleted: <#>¶
Deleted: P
Deleted: <#>There appears to be a
discontinuity from the PR-3 profile
drawing to the PR-4 drawing. ¶
<#>Are approvals needed from Three
Rivers Park District or the City of
Minneapolis?¶
Deleted: propsed
Deleted: be
Deleted: t
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 14
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
24) Page 94: There is a reference to constructing 3 storm water runoff ponds. The City has had
difficulty locating drainage facilities in this area because of development and contamination. The
EAW does not describe in any detail where these ponds would be located and what properties
will be affected.
25) Page 97: Commitment to include welded rail in the project should be an Area, since the CP and
BNSF standards for mainline tracks is welded rail.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt,
Space After: 0 pt, No bullets or
numbering, Tabs: Not at 36 pt
Deleted: ed
Deleted: strom
Deleted: dranage
Deleted: y
Deleted: ,
Deleted: devleopemtn
Deleted: contanmination
Deleted: Commintment
Deleted: w
Deleted: Area
Deleted: “A” mitigation
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Review Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 15
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Proclamation
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Westwood Hills Nature Center 30th Anniversary Proclamation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Mayor is asked to read and present a Proclamation to proclaim June 11, 2011, as the 30th
Anniversary Day for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
In 1981, Westwood Hills Nature Center was established in the City of St. Louis Park. The Nature
Center provides educational, recreational and wellness opportunities as well as habitat for native
Minnesota plants and animals.
Westwood Hills Nature Center in the City of St. Louis Park has selected June 11, 2011 as the
30th year anniversary for its nature center. The City will celebrate this occasion with an event to
include canoeing, outdoor activities, live animal presentations, crafts by Creative Kids Stuff,
puppet shows and refreshments.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This proclamation reinforces two of our City Vision areas. St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community and St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Proclamation – Westwood Hills Nature Center 30th Year Anniversary
Celebration
Prepared by: Mark Oestreich, Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager
Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Westwood Hills Nature Center 30th Year Anniversary Celebration Proclamation
PROCLAMATION
Westwood Hills Nature Center
30 Year Anniversary Celebration
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2011 the Westwood Hills Nature Center (WHNC)
will be celebrating its 30 year anniversary, and
WHEREAS, the WHNC is a 160 acre natural area and educational facility
owned and operated by the City of St. Louis Park, and
WHEREAS, the WHNC is a site for recreational and wellness opportunities
as well as important habitat for native Minnesota plants and animals, and
WHEREAS, WHNC provides environmental education and natural history
programs year-round for people of all ages and abilities, and
WHEREAS, nearly 800,000 children and adults have participated in
programming conducted by the naturalist staff or visited the Interpretive Center
building since 1981.
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of
the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim June 11, 2011 as the 30
year Anniversary Day for Westwood Hills Nature Center in the City of St. Louis
Park and ask all to join in celebrating this auspicious occasion.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause
the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park
to be affixed this 6th day of June, 2011.
__________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 25, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Director of
Community Development (Mr. Locke), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 9, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for May 9th and stated that the
study session will focus on a discussion regarding the freight rail listening sessions, including a
report containing all the questions and comments heard at the listening sessions together with
responses to those questions.
It was the consensus of the City Council to request Mr. McKenzie’s attendance at the May 9th
study session.
2. Nestlé HealthCare Nutrition Property
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and indicated that the future of the property is currently
being sorted out by Nestlé and staff has learned that further discussions would not likely begin
until mid-year. He referenced the property tax impacts, water user impacts, and land use
considerations discussed in the staff report.
Councilmember Mavity stated that it will be important for the City to remain cognizant of the
north-south connection issue and to be proactive in reviewing any opportunities presented for a
north-south connection at this location. She stated that Council has had discussions regarding this
connection in the past and encouraged the City to make sure it is ready to continue this
conversation when the opportunity presents itself and to not sit back and wait to see what
happens with this site.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the Nestlé closure appears to be an opportune time for the
City to think more strategically about the north-south connection and whether it would be best to
do this west of TH 100 or over by Hobart School. She felt that the north-south connection issue
should be considered in the context of the overall TH 100 project and the Nestlé closure. She
indicated that the City will also need to address traffic implications for other potential uses on the
property.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information regarding the FEMA floodplain map.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 25, 2011
Mr. Hunt explained that when the City went through the floodplain area map study, it was
discovered that approximately ten acres are not technically in the floodplain; if an application for
a map amendment were filed, this acreage could potentially be added back in as non-floodplain
with development potential.
Councilmember Omodt asked if the City should have any input into any floodplain map
amendment process.
Mr. Locke advised that any map amendment is a FEMA decision based on technical analysis and
the City may have an opportunity to provide input. He added that the study conducted by the
City was pointed out to Nestlé but nothing further has been done at this time.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern about any increased development on this property
because of the flooding potential on this site.
Mr. Locke stated that any redevelopment of the Nestlé land will have to go through normal
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules as it relates to managing storm water protecting
floodplain.
It was the consensus of the City Council to further discuss the Nestlé property, including
transportation issues related to TH 100, north-south connections, storm water management, and
potential land uses.
It was also the consensus of the City Council that prior to embarking on any extensive planning
efforts for the Nestlé property there should be prioritization of the Nestlé project in the context of
all the other redevelopment projects in the City. The City Council should assist staff with
prioritizing those projects.
3. Update on Freight Rail Meetings/Process
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Ms. Deno discussed the schedule for the listening sessions on April 27th and 28th and the
orchestration planned for both sessions.
Council discussed the importance of making sure that questions and comments are being
recorded.
Ms. Deno advised that the Council’s recording secretary will be taking minutes and a second
person will be taking notes at a table on the floor. She stated that Ms. Gothberg will be
facilitating the meeting and repeating questions and/or comments to assure clarity. She added
that the listening sessions will also be taped and rebroadcast.
Councilmember Omodt requested that the opening remarks include a statement that questions
and comments are being taken down for the record and recorded.
Councilmember Ross requested that the handouts include contact information for people to call
or write with questions or comments, including County, State and Federal officials.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of April 25, 2011
It was the consensus of the City Council to eliminate the 7:15-7:30 time slot to allow more time
for the consultant and the listening session.
Mr. Locke stated that the meeting schedule was developed on the assumption that the comment
period for the EAW started on May 2nd and ended on June 1st; however, staff has been advised
that the EAW will not be published on May 2nd and the next possible publication date would be
two weeks later, on May 16th, thus extending the comment period to mid-June. He noted that the
County has not provided a precise date for publication of the EAW.
It was the consensus of the City Council to retain the current schedule of meetings through May
31st and to revise the schedule as needed pending publication of the EAW.
Council discussed the guidelines for the listening sessions and the process for people who are
yielding their allotted time to someone else.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he has been pleased with the way people have conducted themselves at
previous meetings, and the listening sessions provide an opportunity for the entire community to
listen respectfully to one another. He stated that these meetings will serve to send a message to
the decision-makers at the County, State, and Federal level that the City is interested in having a
serious discussion regarding this emotional issue.
4. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening stated that the Vision Check-in meeting will be rescheduled for later this fall due
to the low turnout rate for the May meeting.
Mr. Harmening presented Council with a draft of SEH’s Technical Memorandum and indicated
that the Memorandum will be posted on the City’s website this evening. He stated that questions
may be directed to Mr. Locke or Ms. McMonigal.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
5. March 2011 Monthly Financial Report
6. First Quarter Investment Report (January - March, 2011)
7. 2011 Community Open House
8. Update on Pending Westwood Villa Condominium Association Housing
Improvement Area (HIA)
9. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2011
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 9, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr.
Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Dave McKenzie (SEH, Inc.)
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – May 16 and May 23, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for May 16th and the study
session agenda for May 23rd.
2. Review Input from Freight Rail Listening Sessions
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and reviewed the schedule of meetings for the
remainder of May as it relates to the freight rail discussion. He stated that the community
comments contained in the staff report will be posted on the City’s website tomorrow.
Mr. Locke presented the key findings and themes based on the recent listening sessions and Mr.
McKenzie’s analysis. He noted that the SEH Technical Memorandum #4 is still in draft form
and will continue to be updated. He indicated that if trains are moved from Kenilworth to MNS,
the MNS corridor is intensified while relieving the Kenilworth corridor; if freight rail stays in
Kenilworth, there will be two major rail functions, all of which results in difficult choices to be
made with no perfect solution. He noted that safety is one of the biggest issues that have been
raised throughout the process, with the high school being a significant concern on the MNS and
the at-grade crossings at Beltline and Wooddale in Kenilworth. He discussed the wye and
switching of TCW trains in the area south of Highway 7, noting that neither route as proposed
for TCW addresses that issue. He stated that vibration impacts will require additional review,
particularly due to the conflicting expertise and analysis on this issue. He stated that the light rail
stations, development around those stations, and access to light rail will continue to be a major
issue for all cities in the SWLRT. He discussed traffic implications of trains and the idea of
creating a grade separated north frontage road on Highway 7. He also discussed a potential
Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue interchange project that includes a grade separation to
improve capacity in this area and would close the Lake Street/Highway 7 access thereby
eliminating the potential for traffic backing up onto Highway 7 due to trains blocking Lake
Street. He stated that one of the most challenging issues related to using MNS is the high school
and the vibration issue which still needs more work. He stated that other key themes include
property values, livability, and mitigation. He advised that while there are many entities involved
in this decision, there is no clear, simple process in place as to who is making the decisions. He
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 9, 2011
noted that with respect to the Kenilworth route, there are some major players not yet at the table,
most notably the City of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park Board, the neighborhood
organizations in Kenilworth, and representatives involved in the regional trail. He added that if
freight rail is permanently in Kenilworth, it raises questions about the 4(f) impact analysis for
SWLRT DEIS.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he felt the listening sessions were a great reflection of the community’s
values; and residents provided well thought out and astute comments.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information related to the comments that light rail
and freight rail next to each other would hurt development.
Mr. McKenzie stated that this is primarily a safety issue because if a freight train derails, it is
close to light rail and light rail trains are not considered crashworthy. He noted that is why the
railroads are so insistent that they get adequate space between the freight rail tracks and the light
rail tracks, adding that BNSF prefers 50’ or more or a crash wall. He indicated that a lot of the
same issues that have been raised regarding freight rail on MN&S tracks near residential areas
would also be concerns for residential redevelopment around the light rail stations if freight rail
is there. The goal is to try to get appropriate spacing between residential and freight traffic.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she has been very impressed by the amazing neighborhood
organizing around this issue and how the residents conducted themselves at the listening
sessions. She indicated that no matter where freight rail ends up, St. Louis Park will be a strong,
thriving city. She noted that throughout this process there has been a significant
misunderstanding that St. Louis Park is going to get additional freight traffic. Freight traffic has
been going through the St. Louis Park neighborhoods for a number of years, the impacts are
huge, and part of this process is about making sure to reduce the amount of time trains spend in
St. Louis Park and also getting rid of the switching and blocking.
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding the crashworthy standards for light
rail and how it was determined that a crash with a light rail train is less concern than a crash with
a house.
Mr. McKenzie advised that the City has raised a number of questions regarding the 25’ spacing,
which is the minimum distance between freight rail and light rail. He also stated that the goal
should be at least a 50’ buffer between the train and a structure, but there is no national standard.
Councilmember Santa stated that the earlier Council resolutions talked about Beltline and
Wooddale. She asked about the impacts on Blake Road, which is a major thoroughfare. She
added that two or more stations are going to have a conflict between light rail, freight rail, and
automobile traffic.
Mr. Locke stated he was not sure what Hopkins is doing related to Blake Road since Hopkins has
not been faced with the issue of potential rerouting of freight trains. He indicated that separation
is one key factor in creating safety and the City has asked the SRF consulting firm to think about
what it would take to create grade separation at the Beltline and Wooddale stations; and what
would be needed to get people to where they need to go if a train is blocking these streets. He
agreed that if Kenilworth is chosen, not only St. Louis Park LRT stations would be affected;
there will be a total of five SWLRT stations that would be affected by freight trains.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 9, 2011
Councilmember Sanger stated that it is not the addition of freight rail that contributes to access
issues; rather, it is the addition of light rail because the freight rail is already there. She indicated
there needs to be mitigation for the light rail addition to that corridor and the mitigation must be
paid for from the light rail project. She advised Council that she sent a three page memo to staff
last week outlining her concerns and that memo has been updated and copies provided to
Council. She stated that one issue includes appropriate right-of-way if the trains go through
MNS. She noted that Mr. McKenzie earlier talked about how freight rail might be
accommodated in Kenilworth and the nearest townhomes were 25’ away which is uncomfortably
close. She felt that that same standard should be applied to MNS in that a 25’ right-of-way
between the tracks and someone’s home is not adequate. She requested clarification in the draft
report on how wide the right-of-way would be if the townhomes in Kenilworth were removed,
and what it would take to get that same corridor width in MNS. She asked for data indicating
how wide the corridor would be if all the homes were removed on both sides in order to provide
an apples-to-apples comparison. She indicated that there is nothing in the report about the impact
of the siding by the BNSF tracks, including issues of elevation, noise, and derailment.
Councilmember Omodt stated that he felt the listening sessions were great and represented a
great moment for the community. He indicated he was still troubled about the overall process
and wished that the City had a clear sense of where the process was going and who was in
charge. He stated he was struck to hear from the PMT members about how screwed up the PMT
process is and how they are providing their input but that it would be foolish to assume that they
are going to be listened to. He expressed concern that the City has not been heard with respect to
mitigation and it has become clear to him that the City is going to be left on the hook as it relates
to mitigation costs.
Mayor Jacobs stated that from the County and State’s perspective, it appears this project is about
money, which is an unfortunate focus when traffic and safety should be paramount. He indicated
that there may be some disagreement in the community about where freight rail goes, but he
heard on a unified basis that the City needs to push this process hard, the City should not be
paying for this project, the City should not be paying for mitigation, this whole issue is being
driven by light rail, the City is fairly unified that this problem came about because of light rail,
and the City would not be talking about this except for light rail. He requested further
information regarding the easements owned by the City and suggested that a formal opinion be
obtained from the City Attorney regarding this issue.
It was the consensus of the City Council to request a legal opinion, protected by attorney-client
privilege, regarding the easement issue.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about mitigation versus betterment and stated it
appears that mitigation only consists of the minimum, e.g., providing whistle quiet zones, buying
two homes, or welding the rails which will allow longer trains. He asked how many homes could
be purchased if a 50’ easement were created on the east side of the MN&S tracks. He also
requested an update on the publication date of the EAW.
Mr. McKenzie stated that in order to create the right-of-way, 42 homes were identified in the
preliminary report and there are likely two or three more homes that should be taken.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 9, 2011
Ms. McMonigal stated that one mitigation measure that could be employed involves an optional
buyout/selling program where people could choose to sell their property. She added this would
not involve a taking of the property.
Mr. Locke stated that staff was informed today that the MNS EAW was submitted to the
Environmental Quality Board with the idea that it would be released for public comment on May
16th and the thirty day comment period would end on June 15th. He added that a possible date for
the MNS study EAW open house public meeting is June 8th.
Councilmember Mavity advised that she sent a memo to staff with her questions and agreed to
provide a copy of that memo to Council via email. She stated that it would be helpful to have a
menu of all requested mitigation items with associated costs and potential funding sources. She
stated that she would like to see the removal of coal trains entirely in the City and asked what it
would take to make that happen. She stated that she would also like to see the removal of the
wye and asked whether one part of the wye could be removed in such a way that there is still
access to the current rail customer in the area, but it does not get used for dangerous switching
and blocking activities. She also asked what would happen if property owners do not want to
sell their home under a voluntary buyout/selling program.
Mr. Locke stated that the City could use its eminent domain power for public safety purposes.
Mr. McKenzie stated that the issue with the coal trains is that some of the track needs
rehabilitation around Appleton and TCW has mentioned 15,000 ties over 10-15 miles at a cost of
approximately $2 million would need to be replaced. He indicated that a logical step would be to
apply for a Mn/DOT or FRA grant and do this project as a state project. He discussed the south
wye and options for possible removal and associated costs.
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding eminent domain from the
County’s perspective as it relates to the City’s easement.
Councilmember Santa requested further information regarding the City’s authority as it relates to
right-of-way and who makes the decision.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that one of the previous Council resolutions stated that in order
for the City to consider accepting freight rail, it had to be convinced that light rail and freight rail
could not co-exist in the Kenilworth corridor and that this criteria has not been satisfied. She
indicated that the second condition in the Council resolution stated that if freight rail was not to
be remain in the Kenilworth corridor, the City would only accept the re-route if a laundry list of
mitigation criteria were addressed. She stated that the City now knows that none of the
requirements contained in the resolution have been satisfied. She suggested that the City draft an
additional resolution restating its firm position, as well as an additional resolution that contains
issues that need to be addressed, specifically including the wye issue, economic compensation
related to property value reductions, and mitigation at Beltline and Wooddale due to the
additional traffic caused by light rail. She noted that it strikes her as an obvious omission that
mitigation is not addressed as part of the light rail budget and it will be important for the City to
learn what the County’s proposal is in this regard. She added that she felt the light rail budget
ought to be tapped for mitigation for the Oak Hill neighborhood against train-related noise and in
other neighborhoods where the light rail tracks are located.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 5
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 9, 2011
Mayor Jacobs agreed with Councilmember Sanger’s suggestions and requested that staff provide
information on what it would take to get trains out of St. Louis Park completely.
Mr. Locke stated that the question of removing trains entirely has come up in the past and the
question can only be answered by the railroads and the railroads are not interested in trying to
answer that question. He added that it would take a significant amount of money just to figure
out what the removal costs would be.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested further information on funding sources, e.g., the
Environmental Response Fund, Federal Real Authority, Hennepin County, Met Council, and
others, for different mitigation projects. He also asked what is meant by welded tracks on the
MNS line and whether that will allow longer trains and/or the commuter Dan Patch line.
Mr. McKenzie explained that a proposal has been made to replace the rail with a 136 pound rail,
will not increase the weight per car but would allow for faster trains. Vibration and noise will
increase with speed and length of trains. Welded rail reduces the noise and vibration, but the
increased speed will off set the decrease.
Mr. Locke stated that the improvements being proposed would not in and of themselves make
commuter rail possible and the current design is still 25 mph.
Councilmember Santa stated that residents have expressed concern that those items identified as
mitigation have been classified as betterments by the County. She requested that the list of
mitigation include all items identified by residents, by the City, and through the PMT process,
including those items identified as betterments.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she felt the first priority for the Council has to be that the City
wants the trains in the Kenilworth corridor, and that mitigation only comes into play if there is no
way the trains can stay in Kenilworth. She indicated that this will put the ball back in the
County’s and Mn/DOT’s court to address the City’s concerns. She expressed concern that at the
end of the day, the City will be told by the County that if the City wants to fix all the livability
issues, the City has to pay for it. She also urged the City to put some pressure on the County to
address the question of the bike trail. She requested clarification regarding the EAW comment
period and asked who reads and responds to the comments.
Mr. Locke stated that Mn/DOT, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), will respond to
all comments made on the EAW.
Mr. Harmening explained that the primary purpose of an EAW is to document environmental
impacts and the RGU will then determine whether an environmental impact statement (EIS)
needs to be done.
3. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
Councilmember Mavity noted that the 2010 solid waste annual report showed a participation rate
at 90% but total tonnage is down and the City did not meet the goals of the grant from the
County on recycling. She requested that staff look into the issue and provide suggestions on
increasing recycling in the City.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 6
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 9, 2011
The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report
5. Minnehaha Creek Re-Meander Project
6. Community Days of Service 2011
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 16, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms.
Stroth), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Engineer (Mr.
Brink), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes April 25, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Listening Session Minutes April 27, 2011
Councilmember Sanger requested that the eighth sentence on page 2 be clarified to
indicate that the $76,672,000 figure represents the County’s estimate for the MNS
corridor.
Councilmember Sanger also requested that the ninth line of the second full paragraph on
page 3 be revised to state “…reason they believe this is that all those things are written
out in the 2010 2030 Minnesota State Rail…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. Listening Session Minutes April 28, 2011
Councilmember Sanger requested that the second sentence of the second full paragraph
on page 6 be revised to state “She stated it will be important to work to find a win-win
situation and right now, there is a lose-lose happening.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2011
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes May 2, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2399-11 vacating a utility
easement at 3601 Wooddale Avenue and at 5810 37th Street West contained in the
agenda materials, and approve the summary ordinance also contained in the
agenda materials for publication.
4b. Approve an extension until May 31, 2012 for Duke Realty to file the final plat and
final planned unit development (PUD) applications for The Towers at West End.
4c. Approve Resolution No. 11-055 authorizing Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes to
provide alcohol during the hours of 5:30 to 11 p.m. at the Parktacular Block Party
to be held on June 18, 2011.
4d. Approve Resolution No. 11-056 for the 2011 Intoxicating On-sale and Sunday
Liquor License Renewal for Taher Restaurant Acquisition LLC dba Timber
Lodge Steakhouse located at 6501 Wayzata Boulevard for the license year term
through March 1, 2012.
4e. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes April 13, 2011.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – On-Sale Wine and 3.2 Malt Liquor License – Little
Szechuan
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and stated that Eat Art LLC, dba Little Szechuan,
has made application for a wine and 3.2 malt liquor license to be located at 5377 W. 16th
Street at West End next to Cooper. She indicated that the premises will occupy 3,920
square feet with seating for 130 inside and future outdoor seating. She stated that the
restaurant plans to open in the next few weeks with hours of operation Sunday through
Thursday 11:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday until midnight. She then
introduced owners Ms. Rong Bai and Mr. Jin Zhu, adding that they also own Little
Szechuan in St. Paul.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2011
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
approve application from Eat Art LLC, dba Little Szechuan, for an on-sale wine and 3.2
malt liquor license to be located at 5377 W. 16th Street with the license term through
March 1, 2012.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Park Summit Apartments – Major Amendment to the PUD
Resolution No. 11-057
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report and explained that amendments to the PUD for the
Park Summit development site include an increase from 145 to 192 residential units and
reducing the building’s overall height from 14 stories to 10. He discussed the residential
density analysis for the project which was approved as part of the 1999 Comprehensive
Plan, as well as the traffic study conducted by SRF Consulting which recommended
consolidating the access between the overall SilverCrest campus and Target. He reviewed
the parking and shared parking agreement within the PUD, landscaping and tree
replacement, sidewalk and trail connections, and Designed Outdoor Recreation Area
(DORA). He stated that pedestrian access was highlighted by the Planning Commission
and improvements have been made to the pedestrian connections from the main entrance
providing access out of the building and to the west. He then reviewed the shading study
conducted by the architects which found that the revised plans exceed the code
requirements. He then introduced Mr. David Gevers from E.J. Plesko and Associates and
Mr. Robert Bistry of HOK Architects.
Mr. Robert Bistry reviewed the process undertaken to date and stated that they reviewed
the physical environment of the 2003 design of the Park Summit campus, Wolfe Park and
the trail system, as well as sustainable design strategies. He indicated they reviewed these
findings to enhance the architecture as part of the arts corridor, to understand traffic
impacts and improve safety, to promote the arts corridor concept with pedestrian
engagement, to promote the gateway to Wolfe Park and the trail system, to understand
the impact of building shadows on adjacent sites, to incorporate sustainable design
concepts, to create accessible routes from the building to Park Center Boulevard, and to
confirm the DORA requirements. He then reviewed the land use plan in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map, overall landscape plan including the arts corridor,
berming of the site to create buffer zones, and building materials.
Councilmember Ross expressed concern regarding traffic flow and pedestrian safety.
Mr. Fulton stated that there are four access points onto Park Center Boulevard and the
consolidated access will serve to increase the safety levels for drivers and pedestrians.
Mr. Brink explained that following the traffic study, SRF Consulting recommended that
the driveways be lined up and a signal installed which will improve access for the
properties, improve pedestrian safety, and improve traffic flow in the area.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2011
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City has confidence that the consolidated driveway
will manage the back-ups that can occur in this area. She also asked if the pedestrian
crossing in the driveway will be raised or include something to highlight that pedestrians
are crossing in the area.
Mr. Brink stated that according to SRF Consulting, the traffic will work adequately on
Park Center Boulevard, the consolidated access will mitigate the back-ups that occur
now, and the addition of the signal will help cars entering and exiting the property and
improve pedestrian access. He also stated that the developer will be asked to look at
enhancing the pedestrian crossing to ensure safety.
Councilmember Ross asked if fiber optic cables will be laid as part of the utility work on
the project.
Mr. Harmening stated that fiber optic cable currently runs on the east side of the property
in a north-south direction so if there is a need for connection, arrangements could be
made for access to the existing fiber network.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that the pedestrian walkway in the consolidated
driveway include a longer walk signal to allow extra time to cross the street.
Councilmember Santa expressed concern regarding the shared parking arrangements and
suggested that adequate signage and a well-lit walkway be added so people feel safe.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the City’s rationale for
approving a plan that exceeds the City’s standards for number of housing units allowed
per acre.
Mr. Fulton explained that the density was approved based on the provision adopted into
the zoning ordinance that allows high density multi-family residential in the R-C Zoning
District subject to special provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the
Comprehensive Plan amendment adopted for the SilverCrest PUD set design standards of
density at or near 75 units per acre; this project is just over 77 units per acre. He
indicated the Code also states this project shall not exceed 2.3 FAR and this requirement
has been met.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that the Council is being asked to approve an
amount that exceeds the City’s standards without citing any particular criteria.
Ms. McMonigal stated that the FAR standards adopted by the City are very specific to the
Park Commons site.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 11-057 Amending and Restating Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-189,
03-139, 04-024, and 05-167 Adopted on October 7, 1996, December 2, 1996, October 7,
2003, February 4, 2004, and December 5, 2005 Approving a Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Under Section 36,367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and
Consolidating Conditions from an Existing Special Permit and PUD for Property Zoned
R-C, Multi-Family Residential, Granting Final PUD Approval for a Senior Housing
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of May 16, 2011
Condominium Development at 3601 Park Center Boulevard and Combining Proposed
and Existing Development of the Parkshore Campus as a Planned Unit Development
3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard, Major Amendment to PUD for Multi-
Family Apartments and Increasing Density, Park Summit Apartments, 3601 Park Center
Boulevard.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents of the Community Open House on Wednesday, May
18th, at the Municipal Service Center from 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Councilmember Santa expressed thanks to Children First and all of the volunteers who
participated in the ice cream social yesterday. Mayor Jacobs also expressed thanks to
Sebastian Joe’s for providing the ice cream.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she is involved with a group of residents looking at
homeless youth issues in St. Louis Park. She stated there are 40-50 homeless teens that
attend high school in the City and the residents are working with the faith community and
other nonprofits to address the situation. She announced there will be an informational
meeting tomorrow evening, May 17th, to talk about creating host homes for these youth
and further information is available at www.suburbanhosthome.org.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that Parktacular buttons are now on sale for $5 or 4 for
$15 and can be purchased at City Hall, the Rec Center, and Citizens Bank.
Councilmember Finkelstein announced that he would not be running for re-election and
encouraged anyone interested in running for Council to file with the City Clerk’s office
beginning tomorrow. He stated it has been an honor and a privilege to serve and he
thanked the Council, staff, and residents of St. Louis Park for the opportunity.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 16, 2011
The meeting convened at 8:29 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Dave McKenzie (SEH, Inc.)
1. Possible Updates to City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and advised that the City is on schedule to adopt an
updated freight rail policy on May 31st as directed by Council.
Mr. McKenzie advised that the MN&S Freight Rail Study Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) was officially published today resulting in the commencement of the 30-day comment
period. He reviewed the current and proposed MNS freight rail alignments as well as the track
plan drawings contained in the EAW. He discussed the County’s proposed closure of 29th at the
railroad crossing in order to soften the grade coming up to the Minnetonka Boulevard bridge,
noting that 28th Street would stay open with a new crossing and new signals. He also discussed
the right-of-way and environmental issues associated with the proposed reroute. He added that
the Technical Memorandum #4 is still in draft form as comments and questions continue to be
addressed.
Mr. Locke presented an updated draft of Table 9 depicting freight rail options in St. Louis Park
only. He stated that one of the mitigation measures heard throughout the process and during the
listening sessions was that if freight rail is rerouted to MNS, it should have a wider right-of-way,
more typical of a rail corridor, and the most efficient way to obtain that right-of-way is to acquire
approximately 40-45 homes. He indicated if this land is acquired, it could make the buffer zones
around the tracks much wider and would provide room for a trail which could serve to create a
north-south connection in the community.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the width would be from the centerline of the tracks on each
side to the boundaries of the closest homes.
Mr. McKenzie replied that the closest distance to the property line would be 50’ on the west and
depending on what is done with the additional right-of-way, the distance on the east could be
upwards of 150’. He then discussed the Kenilworth corridor as currently proposed, as well as the
Cedar Lakeshore townhomes, commonly referred to as the “pinch point”, which would need to
be acquired to provide additional ROW if freight rail and LRT were to co-locate in the
Kenilworth corridor. The regional trail would also need to relocate.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of May 16, 2011
Mr. Locke discussed the EAW process and stated that Mr. McKenzie and staff will begin its
review of the complete document with a goal of preparing a comprehensive review for Council
consideration at its first meeting in June. He added that the EAW is available as a link on the
City’s website and hard copies will be provided to Council.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested information regarding the distinction between betterment
and mitigation as used by the County.
Mr. Locke stated that there is some language specifically included the EAW and the County has
one category of mitigation that includes those items which are required by State or Federal
regulations and a second category of items the County has willingly said it will commit to do.
He noted there are no rules that limit the County from adding more items to mitigation. He
explained that the language in the EAW law is not precise in terms of saying what exactly must
be done because the circumstances differ in any given project. He added that the City has
referred to all items as mitigation and not used the term “betterments.”
Councilmember Ross urged the City to focus on the environmental impact of trains potentially
going through an area of floodplain or wetland.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she previously inquired about the potential removal of all
coal trains and questioned whether funds might be available from the State legislature toward the
removal of all coal trains from the City and whether the railroads would be compelled to use
those funds toward exiting the City entirely. She also asked if there is a natural capacity ceiling
that will limit traffic on MNS.
Mr. McKenzie stated that an alternative route for coal through Appleton would represent a
shorter run and result in significant savings for the railroad. He indicated that in terms of
capacity, the primary concern is not necessarily in St. Louis Park but near Target Center and
going across the river.
Councilmember Omodt felt that a significant question to be considered is how much discomfort
the Council is willing to live with on this difficult issue. He stated that the County has not been a
good partner and the process has been flawed. He urged the Council to review its resolution
regarding the preferred route and seriously consider how much discomfort it can live with.
Mayor Jacobs stated that it would be wonderful to find a way to have all the decision-makers
together at the same time in order to discuss this. He indicated that the City previously offered to
facilitate this type of meeting and the County did not respond to the offer.
Mr. McKenzie agreed and indicated that now that the EAW has been published, there may be an
opportunity to meet with Mn/DOT, the Met Council, the County, the FTA and the railroads all at
the same time.
Councilmember Santa expressed concern regarding the availability of an apples to apples
comparison. She also expressed concern regarding mitigation versus betterment. She stated that
there may also have to be some mitigation for the railroad for the MNS route because the grade
is steeper, therefore costing the railroad more dollars, and she asked how that will be factored in.
She indicated that she has not yet seen enough information to say that Kenilworth is not a viable
option.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3d) Page 3
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of May 16, 2011
Mr. Locke presented another draft of the mitigation list prepared by Mr. McKenzie that includes
items contained in the EAW as well as the items mentioned during the listening sessions. He also
presented an updated Table 5 comparing the existing conditions in the Kenilworth and MNS
routes for both St. Louis Park and Minneapolis.
Council discussed right-of-way and acquisition of properties, as well as outdoor living space vis-
à-vis DORA requirements.
Councilmember Mavity stated there are certain aspects of rerouting that have been documented
to show there will be a benefit to certain members of the community, e.g., safety issues related to
traffic at Wooddale and Beltline. She added that this is not intended to diminish the concerns
raised with respect to MNS, but some neighborhoods are already taking the impact of freight and
will take the impact of light rail. She stated that it will be important to make sure the City has
some kind of a win-win scenario and that any potential reroute works well and is an asset to the
overall community.
Mr. Harmening discussed the staff report suggestion that from a policy perspective, Council
consider the fundamental question of whether all the conditions under which rerouting to MNS
would be acceptable are still applicable: and whether those conditions have been met, based on
all the studies, analysis, and process to date. He stated that from a physical engineering
perspective, there appears to be another viable route. He added that after a quick review of the
EAW, the mitigation measures identified do not meet the conditions contained in Council’s
resolution.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he was troubled that it does not appear there has been a full
and robust discussion as to appropriate mitigation measures.
Councilmember Mavity stated it will be important to make clear that the City supports light rail
and to draft a resolution that includes more detail related to mitigation.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that Council adopt a resolution that opposes relocation of
freight rail into St. Louis Park based on the earlier resolution and because the conditions have not
been met with regard to another viable option. She stated that she would rather separate the list
of mitigation measures in response to the EAW, including noise walls, whistle quiet zones,
traffic issues, safety issues, acquisition of homes, and issues related to the wye.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will prepare a draft resolution for Council consideration at its
study session on May 23rd; following that discussion, further detail regarding the EAW will be
provided. He advised that Mn/DOT will be holding an open house regarding the EAW on
Wednesday, June 8th, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. at the Rec Center.
The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
MAY 23, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Coordinator (Mr.
Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: Dave McKenzie (SEH, Inc.)
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 6 and June 13, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for June 6th and the study
session agenda for June 13th. He stated that the June 13th agenda includes a discussion regarding
Eliot School and noted that the School District has a potential buyer for the site. He added that
the potential developer has inquired about tax increment assistance.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the June 13th discussion regarding storm/surface water
management include a discussion regarding how this system ties into the overall recreational
environment aspect.
Mr. Harmening stated that the focus of this discussion is related more to water quality and what
the City is and is not doing, as well as options related to the storm/surface water management
system.
Councilmember Sanger requested that Council be provided with information regarding what the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is or is not doing to address these issues.
2. Draft City of St. Louis Park Freight Rail Policy Resolution
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and reviewed the background materials included in the staff
report. He discussed the updated list of mitigation items for both MNS and Kenilworth and the
cost comparison table, noting that the difference in cost is significant when comparing the base
plans and robust mitigation for both MNS and Kenilworth. He indicated that the SWLRT cost
adjustments need to be determined and included as part of the ultimate solution. He also
presented draft concept plans for the Wooddale, Beltline, and Louisiana station areas and the
impact of freight rail. He then reviewed a drawing prepared by Mr. McKenzie that provides an
option for removing the existing wye track.
Council discussed with staff the grade separation crossings and current/projected traffic
congestion in these areas.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3e) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 23, 2011
Mr. Locke then presented the draft freight rail policy resolution for Council consideration.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding Council’s previous discussions
with respect to coal trains and the possibility of removing coal trains entirely from St. Louis
Park.
Mr. Locke advised that TC&W representatives were supportive of the idea of making the
improvements necessary to reroute coal trains. He stated that there is reason to believe that this
is doable and should be pursued.
Councilmember Mavity stated that both the Kenilworth and MNS options require changes to the
status quo and both have costs to the City. She indicated that she is not entirely opposed to the
reroute for reasons she provided in earlier discussions. She stated that the most important piece
is to make sure the City continues to emphasize the robust mitigation that needs to happen and to
make sure the language contained in the resolution is as strong as possible.
Councilmember Santa respectfully disagreed and stated that there is not only a viable alternative,
but there is a reasonable route and there is a cheaper route. She expressed concern that the City
appears to be recreating a miniature Kenilworth in the middle of St. Louis Park and a barrier will
be created across the City, dividing the east side and the west side. She also expressed concern
about the lack of mitigation in South Oak Hill. She stated that the City needs to be very certain
that it is maintaining those connections in the community and that the neighborhoods are not
destroyed.
Councilmember Ross agreed with Councilmember Santa and stated that she felt this project has
become a huge waste of money and it is incumbent upon the Council to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars. She stated that she did not feel there was any way to justify this, as a citizen of
Hennepin County, as a resident of St. Louis Park, and as a City Councilmember. She indicated
that safety is an issue for freight rail and light rail, and it makes sense to keep these contained in
one area. She added that she is comfortable with the proposed resolution in general.
Councilmember Finkelstein reiterated his support for light rail and acknowledged that no matter
where freight rail goes, it will cause pain to the City and its residents. He stated that while the
intentions of the County may have been good, there is an overall lack of belief in the process by
the people of St. Louis Park, including the County’s lack of reviewing robust mitigation,
analyzing other options, moving the trail, and mistakes made on measurements. He indicated
that when the County agreed in 2009 to redo the study, he was prepared to support it if the
County could convince him that no other viable alternative exists; however, the County has not
met the conditions contained in the Council’s resolution and has not shown that the Kenilworth
corridor is not a viable alternative. He expressed his appreciation to staff for all the work done
on this project and stated he would support the proposed resolution.
Councilmember Sanger expressed her support for the proposed resolution. She stated that it was
clear to her that a viable alternative exists in the Kenilworth corridor and the Kenilworth is
shorter, cheaper, does not have big inclines for the trains, and does not have blind and tight
curves. She suggested adding a sentence to paragraph 1 of the ninth “whereas” clause that states
“In comparison to the proposed route, the route through the Kenilworth Corridor is shorter, has
no blind curves, lacks significant elevation changes, and is significantly less expensive to
construct.” She also suggested adding “diminished property valuations” to the potential negative
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3e) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 23, 2011
impacts listed in paragraph 2 of the ninth “whereas” clause. She also suggested that paragraph 5
under “now, therefore” be revised to state “Supports all measures to eliminate the switching wye
provided that a southern interconnect is constructed and that southbound rail traffic is not routed
northbound onto MNS prior to reversing to go southbound, and vice versa.” She also suggested
that an additional “whereas” clause be added that states “WHEREAS, the proposed reroute
increases the potential for additional future rail traffic through St. Louis Park per Mn/DOT’s
2030 Rail Plan with associated negative impacts in St. Louis Park.” She stated that it has become
clear to her in reviewing the EAW that Mn/DOT is tying the proposed reroute not to light rail but
to the potential implementation of the 2030 Rail Plan which includes a significant potential
increase in rail traffic on MNS of both freight rail and high speed passenger service.
Councilmember Omodt agreed with Councilmember Sanger and stated that if this is about light
rail, perhaps part of the resolution should state that the City does not support light rail until this is
done right. He expressed frustration with the political gamesmanship and felt that the
assumptions used by the County were flawed and the County took none of the City’s heed on the
matter. He reiterated his previous suggestion to get all the regional parties together to discuss
this issue and to stop pointing fingers.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he could not go along with opposing light rail and felt that the City
would be able to figure out how to do freight rail and to do it right. He stated that he was okay
with the proposed resolution and acknowledged the concerns regarding traffic and grade
separated crossings. He suggested Council consider adding a strong reference to mitigation in
the resolution itself because he did not want to see that get lost in the shuffle and to give the
County some sense of how expensive this is going to be.
Councilmember Sanger noted that paragraph 2 of the resolution makes reference to mitigation
requirements and suggested adding another sentence that states St. Louis Park estimates the
minimum cost of these necessary improvements to be in the range of “x” million dollars.
Councilmember Mavity pointed out that the City’s comments to the EAW have not yet been
submitted and suggested the City make reference to the EAW document as containing its
mitigation requirements and that this represents the threshold of what is required by the City for
mitigation.
It was the consensus of the City Council to state in its updated resolution that mitigation, in the
context of the EAW, is insufficient.
Councilmember Mavity stated that there will be foreseeable problems associated with co-
locating freight rail and light rail and asked that cost estimates related to this be included in the
City’s calculations, e.g., grade separated crossings at Wooddale and Beltline.
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed that the EAW should take into account the foreseeable
mitigation needed now because no matter where freight rail goes, there will be harmful effects to
St. Louis Park.
Mr. Harmening agreed to review this issue to make sure the City’s position relative to
foreseeable mitigation is placed into the record.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 3e) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of May 23, 2011
Councilmember Sanger requested that Council be provided with further information regarding
the mitigation process and dollars associated with SWLRT mitigation. She also requested
additional information regarding the 2030 Rail Plan and requested further Council discussion
regarding the Rail Plan.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to support the proposed resolution with
the additions as noted by Councilmember Sanger.
Council discussed the EAW process and submission of Councilmember comments to Mr. Locke.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there is any likelihood that a combined meeting with key
stakeholders can be arranged.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested sending a notice inviting key stakeholders to a meeting in
St. Louis Park. He added this should be done after the City submits its comments on the EAW.
Mr. Harmening stated that the Council’s adoption of the updated freight rail policy resolution
could serve as a platform for convening a meeting with the various stakeholders.
3. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
None.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4. Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
5. April 2011 Monthly Financial Report
6. Responsibility for Right of Way Maintenance
7. Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4a
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:
Bid Tabulation: Park Center Boulevard - 2011 MSA Street Improvement Project, Project No.
2010-1100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Northwest Asphalt Corporation the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $191,480.23 for the 2011 MSA Street
Improvement Project, Project No. 2010-1100.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take the final step to allow this project to move forward?
BACKGROUND:
Bid Information:
Bids were received on May 25, 2011 for the 2011 MSA Street Improvement Project. The project
includes work on Park Center Blvd from 300 feet north of Excelsior Blvd to 500 feet south of W.
36th Street. The project involves pavement resurfacing by a mill and overlay process in which
the top 2 inches of pavement is ground off and replaced with new asphalt. The project also
includes minor repairs to the concrete curb, sidewalk, storm sewer, and pedestrian curb ramps to
meet current ADA standards. The project will be constructed under traffic (no detours);
motorists will be guided through the work zone during periods of temporary lane closures.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 5, and 12,
2011 and in the Construction Bulletin on May 9, and 16, 2011. In addition, plans and
specifications were noticed on the City Website and were made available electronically via the
internet by our vendor Quest CDN.com. Final printed plans were also available for viewing at
the AGC of Minnesota Planroom and at City Hall. Twenty contractors purchased plan sets with
two Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) identifying themselves as subcontractors.
A total of five (5) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
* Bid corrected upon extension
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Northwest Asphalt Corporation $191,480.23
Bituminous Roadways $192,287.30
Valley Paving, Inc. * $193,877.78
Midwest Asphalt Corporation $197,977.00
Hardrives, Inc. $214,216.40
Engineer’s Estimate $229,920.50
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: Park Center Blvd - 2011 MSA Street Improvement Project, Proj. No. 2010-1100
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff
recommends Northwest Asphalt Corp. as the lowest responsible bidder. Northwest Asphalt is an
experienced contractor that has worked for the City before and has successfully completed
previous contracts.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is tentatively planned to begin in early July and should be completed by mid-
August.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project has been programmed in the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) for construction
in 2011. This project will be funded by State Aid funds (gas tax monies).
Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows:
Expenditures
Construction Cost $191,480.23
Contingencies (10%) $ 19,148.00
Engineering & Administration (12%) $ 22,977.00
Total $233,605.23
Revenues
Municipal State Aid Funds $233,605.23
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Date: June 06, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Approve Right of Way Purchase – Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No.
2004-1700.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $549,500 for Parcel 2 (the Apex
Realty/SPS Companies Property), and authorize the City Attorney to execute stipulation of
settlement.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This action is consistent with previous direction given by the Council as a part of the Hwy
7/Wooddale project.
BACKGROUND:
At the February 2, 2009 City Council meeting, Council approved a resolution Authorizing
Condemnation of Land for Public Purposes for the Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project.
Prior to that action, specific right of way needs were determined and appraisals for five identified
properties were conducted.
As a result, the City Attorney commenced eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire the necessary land over the five properties identified. Pursuant
to the “quick take” provisions of Minnesota Statutes, the City Attorney has since negotiated a
settlement with the legal representatives of Parcel 2 in the total amount of $549,000. The City’s
initial appraisal was in the amount of $537,000. The City Attorney recommends approval of this
settlement. The Parcel 2 property is located along the south frontage road of Highway 7 and
west of Wooddale Avenue (6363 State Highway 7). This acquisition provided additional space
for the re-alignment of the south frontage road.
In addition to Parcel 2, settlements and approvals by the Council have been completed for three
other properties. Only one property remains to be settled, the Restaurant Brokers Building
located at the northeast corner of the Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange. As negotiations are
finalized on this remaining property, a similar purchase authorization will be presented to
Council.
FINANCIAL AND BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project budget as previously presented anticipates right of way acquisition costs, and is
being funded through the City’s share of the project costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Approve Right of Way Purchase – Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Proj. No. 2004-1700
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.
Attachments: Exhibit A - Parcel 2 Location
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Approve Right of Way Purchase – Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Proj. No. 2004-1700
EXHIBIT A
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Bid Tabulation: W. 44th Street Reconstruction (France Avenue to Brookside Avenue) - MSA
Street Improvement Project – Project No. 2005-0500.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Northwest Asphalt the lowest responsible bidder and authorize the City of
Edina to execute a contract with the firm in the amount of $2,322,814 for the W. 44th Street
Reconstruction Project (France Avenue to Brookside Avenue).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish staff to continue with necessary steps to deliver this project in 2011?
BACKGROUND:
History
Bids were received by the City of Edina on May 25, 2011 for the reconstruction of W. 44th Street
from France Avenue to Brookside Avenue. Of the total project length of 1.25 miles,
approximately 700 feet is located within the City of St. Louis Park.
The project essentially consists of removal and replacement of the existing asphalt surface, new
curb and gutter, drainage and storm sewer improvements, utility replacements as needed, and
replacement of portions of the existing sidewalk as needed.
A total of three (3) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as
follows:
Evaluation of Bids
Staff from both cities have reviewed the bids and recommend awarding a contract to Northwest
Asphalt. Northwest Asphalt is a reputable contractor that has successfully completed similar
projects in many Twin Cities metro communities, including the cities of Edina and St. Louis
Park.
Construction Timeline
Construction is tentatively planned to begin within the next 2-3 weeks and is expected to be
completed by mid-October.
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Northwest Asphalt $2,322,814.00
Palda and Sons $2,454,879.70
Geislinger and Sons $2,497,415.50
Engineer’s Estimate $2,346,531.50
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011(Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tab: W. 44th St. Reconstruction (France to Brookside) - MSA St. Imp. Proj. No. 2005-0500
Project Execution and Future Maintenance (Joint Powers Agreement)
As stated in previous reports, delivery of the project is being administered by the City of Edina
with the concurrence and participation of the City of St. Louis Park. A joint powers agreement
previously approved by both City Councils provides the framework and details for
administration of the project, as well as assigning long-term maintenance and ownership
responsibilities. As part of the agreement, the City of Edina must receive concurrence from the
City of St. Louis Park before proceeding with awarding a contract. The City Council of the City
of Edina is currently planning to award a contract to Northwest Asphalt on June 7, 2011,
assuming concurrence from the City of St. Louis Park is obtained by then.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City of St. Louis Park’s contribution or share of the cost has been considered in the Capital
Improvement Plan (C.I.P.) for several years. Based on the bid results and cost share assignments
as spelled out in the joint powers agreement, the City of St. Louis Park’s share of the project
costs are as follows:
Estimated Costs
Street $202,110.56
Storm Sewer $105,786.91
Utilities (Sewer and Water) $ 26,005.00
Engineering, Admin, Contingencies (18%) $ 60,102.44
Total $394,005.00
Funding Sources
Municipal State Aid $326,315.90
Utility Funds $ 67,689.10
Total $394,005.00
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4d
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 Report: Water Project - Well Redevelopment (SLP 14) - Project No. 2011-1401.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Accepting the Project Report, Establishing Improvement Project
No. 2011-1401, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for
Improvement Project No. 2011-1401.
BACKGROUND:
History
Municipal well SLP 14 (Prairie du-Chein aquifer), located at Water Treatment Plant 10 on Cedar
Lake Road, was originally drilled in 1965. The well was developed to a depth of 485’. A 1970
inspection revealed the walls of the well hole experienced a cave in partially filling the well hole
with sand. The sand was removed and a well screen and gravel pack was installed to restore
adequate pumping. Since then, approximately every seven years the well motor and pump have
been pulled to be inspected and necessary repairs or replacements have been made. Recent
inspections of the well hole indicate sand has again filled the well hole to a depth of over 20 feet
and the screen is not allowing enough water to flow through to meet our pumping needs. The
City hired AE2S Engineering to assist in the evaluation of the well and to develop plans and
specifications for the required work.
This well is currently not operating efficiently and requires rehabilitation prior to resuming
normal pumping operations.
Proposed Work
The redevelopment of Municipal Well SLP14 includes the removal of the screen and gravel
pack, removal and disposal of sand material in the well hole, redevelopment of the well hole, and
installation of pump and pump appurtenances. The project will also include the purchase and
installation of a new high efficiency motor. The project is required to restore the well to proper
operation to meet the City’s water needs.
Project Timeline:
Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule
could be met:
Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council June 6, 2011
Advertise for bids Construction Bulletin June 20, 2011
Advertise for bids Sun-Sailor June 16, 2011
Bid Opening July 8, 2011
Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract July 18, 2011
Construction September 2011
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Project Report: Water Project - Well Redevelopment (SLP 14) - Project No. 2011-1401.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
The Water Utility Fund will be the source of revenue for this project. The annual operations
budget designates $85,000 per year for routine well maintenance and repair. This unanticipated
project was not included in the operations budget or the CIP budget for 2011. Routine
maintenance will be deferred one year to accommodate for the unplanned expenditure associated
with this project.
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $120,000
Contingencies (10%) $ 12,000
Consulting Design, Engineering & Inspection $ 16,600
Administrative Cost (3%) $ 3,600
Total $152,200
Funding Sources Amount
Water Utility Fund $152,200
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Project Report: Water Project - Well Redevelopment (SLP 14) - Project No. 2011-1401.
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-1401
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-1401
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Superintendent of Utilities related to the needed repair of Well SLP 14.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2011-1401 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in
the Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2011-1401, is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted once in the official newspaper and
in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said
improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall
appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the
City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk
and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of
the bid.
6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly
after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a
recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 6, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3361 Xenwood Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3361 Xenwood Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0063.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Bach Parker, owner of the single family residence at 3361 Xenwood Avenue South has requested the
City to authorize the repair of the water service line for his home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s
special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service
line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been
determined to be $2,667.74.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3361 Xenwood Ave So
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
3361 XENWOOD AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0063
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3361 Xenwood Avenue South has petitioned the
City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for
the single family residence located at 3361 Xenwood Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,667.74.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 6, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Cooperative Agreement for Bicycle Parking Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve a cooperative agreement with the City of Minneapolis for a Bicycle Parking
Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to enroll in the program and enter into a cooperative agreement with
City of Minneapolis for a federal grant program to purchase bicycle parking racks?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park is eligible to access up to 86 bicycle parking racks through the Bike
Walk Twin Cities Bicycle Parking Program.
The Bike Parking Program covers 100% of purchase cost and delivery of bike parking racks
through a contract between City of Minneapolis and the vendor, Dero Bike Rack Company.
Communities receiving parking racks through this program will not incur expenses or
reimbursements for these costs.
Participating communities would have to apply for the racks, and have the proposed locations
approved in advance. The City, or its partner(s), would be responsible to install and maintain the
bike parking racks for a period of time. Any costs including planning, application preparation,
site preparation, installation, maintenance or additional amenities beyond the approved parking
racks will not be reimbursed.
City staff has not yet identified how many locations or bike racks to request. Staff approached
St. Louis Park Junior High School, and Principal Les Bork has expressed interest in 16-18 bike
racks. Staff will seek other partners such as major employers. Staff will also review bike
parking needs at City parks and facilities. Another option that may be considered is to provide
bike racks at select bus stops.
The purpose of the cooperative agreement is to reduce the burden of paperwork the City of St.
Louis Park and other participating agencies must complete to access the bike parking racks.
More Information about the Program and Funding
Funded through the Non-motorized Transportation Pilot program and administered by Transit for
Livable Communities (TLC), Bike Walk Twin Cities works to increase bicycling and walking,
and decrease driving in Minneapolis and surrounding communities. The project has helped fund
many innovative projects, including planning and infrastructure grants, start up money for the
Nice Ride bike sharing program, Sibley Bike Depot’s Community Bike Library, online web
resources, training, events, and more. You may visit www.bikewalktwincities.org for more
information and to access some of those resources.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Cooperative Agreement for Bicycle Parking Project
The Bicycle Parking Program is one small component of the Bike Walk Twin Cities work, with a
total award of up to $75,000 for all the participating communities. TLC has worked with the
City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration to develop a streamlined federal funding process with much of the administrative
work being completed by TLC in advance of program enrollment. The City of Minneapolis will
play a central fiscal role for the program that enables significant efficiencies for all participating
jurisdictions, i.e., contracting directly with the approved vendor for purchase and delivery of bike
parking to each community.
To enroll in the program, eligible communities must enter into a community agreement with
Minneapolis. The agreement specifies the participating jurisdiction's responsibility for meeting
program guidelines including all relevant state and federal requirements for use of federal aid
highway funds.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Enrolling in the program will not have fiscal impacts to the City. The City may choose to apply
for bike parking for City parks or other facilities, which would include costs to install and
maintain the bike racks. Otherwise, a limited amount of staff time will be involved in identifying
interested partners and assisting with the approval process for each location.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community with an organized and expanded network
of sidewalks and trails. Providing bike parking at key destinations is one component of an
effective bicycle system.
Attachments: Cooperative Agreement
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Cooperative Agreement for Bicycle Parking Project
May 10, 2011
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
REGARDING BICYCLE PARKING PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of this 6th day of June, 2011 by and
between the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, a Minnesota home rule charter city (“Minneapolis”),
and the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City of St. Louis Park”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park desires to locate and construct new bicycle
parking facilities pursuant to State Project 141-091-028 (“Project”) within its boundaries and has
been determined to be eligible for Federal Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Project funds
(hereby known as the “NTP”); and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes and is relying on the CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS to act as the financial agent for the receipt of NTP federal grant funds for this
Project to streamline the reporting requirements on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is aware of and understands MnDOT Agreement
No. 97553, the Project Memorandum originally dated August 16, 2010 and that City of
Minneapolis is also eligible participant for this Project and shall follow its provisions;
WHEREAS, the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS has agreed to act as the financial agent to
receive approximately $75,000 in NTP federal grant funds (MnDOT Agreement No. 97553) to
procure and furnish bike parking facilities on behalf of cities and counties that are eligible to
receive NTP grant funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park understands that the NTP federal grant funds will
be used to the procure and furnish the bicycle parking facilities but will not be used for the
installation, operation or maintenance of said facilities;
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park shall install and assume ownership, operation and
maintenance of the bike parking facilities at its own cost according to the federal NTP grant
provisions and this Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and mutual obligations of
the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Louis Park each of them represents, covenants and
agrees with the other as follows.
1. Minneapolis Obligations.
Minneapolis through its Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall carry out its fiscal
agent and Agreement responsibilities for the Project.
Minneapolis will advertise for bids to contract with a vendor to furnish (purchase and delivery)
of specified bicycle parking facilities for each participating City/County.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Cooperative Agreement for Bicycle Parking Project
Minneapolis will be responsible for maintaining financial records consistent with federal grant
requirements to keep track of all federal expenses related to these funds.
Minneapolis shall reimburse the approved vendor in a timely manner for any and all eligible
federal costs, and submit documentation for reimbursement to MnDOT when project
documentation is completed.
2. City/County Eligibility.
Each City/County agrees to perform the following at their own cost prior to becoming eligible:
a. Submit candidate locations for possible placement of bike parking facilities to Transit for
Livable Communities (TLC).
b. Provide the proper Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Certificate No. 1-
A for installation locations, or obtain necessary easements to use private property to locate
and grant public access to the respective bike parking facilities.
c. Provide any environmental information on all proposed locations for a possible bike parking
facility required by the Cultural Resources Unit of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to assure compliance with all applicable State and Federal environmental
requirements.
d. Agree to provide suitable locations and install the bike parking facilities including but not
limited to, the construction of a bike parking foundation.
e. Agree to operate and maintain the bike parking facility for its useful life which for purposes
of this Agreement is five (5) years. The end date shall be December 31 following the fifth
year anniversary of the installation. Given a 2011 installation, the end date of the useful life
shall be December 31, 2016; for a 2012 installation the end date is December 31, 2017; etc.
Said operation and maintenance includes, but is not limited to, repair or replacement of the
bicycle parking facilities due to graffiti or damage by others.
3. City/County Obligations.
Subject to the provisions of this Agreement and in conformance with the NTP federal grant and
appropriate provisions of MnDOT Agreement 97553, each participating City/County after
approval of eligibility agrees to perform the following activities at their own cost:
a. Submit a site plan for each site(s) providing detailed information identified by the NTP Bike
Parking Request template provided by TLC.
b. Obtain written approval of the bike parking facilities site plan(s) by TLC and MnDOT Office
of Cultural Resources and State Aid prior to Minneapolis furnishing the bike parking
facilities.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: Cooperative Agreement for Bicycle Parking Project
c. Request bike parking facilities to be furnished through the bid process administered by
Minneapolis. The costs to furnish the bike parking facilities will be funded by a Federal grant
awarded to Minneapolis. Minneapolis will furnish the bike parking facilities to each
City/County upon the following conditions:
i. Use its own local resources (staff and funds) to identify, prepare and install one or
more sites for the placement of bike parking facilities within its boundaries. The
federal NTP grant funds will not be used to reimburse the local resources.
ii. Install all bike parking facilities no later than 30 days from receipt of bike parking
facilities delivered from the vendor.
iii. Provide to TLC and Minneapolis proper documentation of the installation of bike
parking facilities in accordance with the approved site plan(s). Each City/County will
submit to TLC proper written and photo documentation after the bike parking facility
has been purchased, delivered and installed. The installation and its financial
documentation must be retained at each participating City/County for a length of time
to allow for proper audit and close out of the Project.
4. Removal of Bike Parking Facilities by City/County.
If a City/County elects to move or remove a bike parking facility prior to the end of its useful
life, the following procedures shall be followed.
A City/County may elect to move or remove the bike parking facility by declaring a greater
public purpose for the property or for reasons related to protecting the public health, safety and
welfare. This removal will not be granted based on lack of proper operation and maintenance
duties required by each City/County.
If the move or removal is for temporary purposes related to adjacent construction or development
purposes, defined as a period of time of less than one year, and the facility will be reinstalled at
the same location, then no further action is needed.
If the move or removal of the bike parking facility will be for a period of time greater than one
year, then thirty (30) days prior to its removal, the City/County must notify Minneapolis of its
intent to remove the bike parking facility.
If the bike parking facility will be moved to another location, then a relocation request and site
plan shall be submitted to Minneapolis. Minneapolis will coordinate with TLC, if the NTP
program still exists. Minneapolis shall either approve a new location within the City/County for
the bike parking facility or request that the bike parking facility be returned to Minneapolis for
installation elsewhere in the Twin Cities eligible NTP area.
Minneapolis will respond to the removal notification within the thirty (30) day notification
period and notify the participating City/County in writing of its decision.
Each City/County will be responsible for the removal and delivery cost of the bike parking
facility to Minneapolis, but will not be responsible for repayment of any NTP federal grant due
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 6
Subject: Cooperative Agreement for Bicycle Parking Project
to the removal of the bike parking facility. Each City/County will relinquish all ownership and
other rights for the removed bicycle facility related to this Agreement and this Bicycle Parking
Project.
The above removal provisions will no longer be in effect after the five (5) year useful life as
described in Section 2e.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the day and year first
above written.
City of St. Louis Park
By: __________________________________
Its Mayor
By: __________________________________
Its City Manager
Reviewed and approved
By: __________________________________
City Attorney
For the City of Minneapolis
Approved:
By: ___________________________________
Public Works Department
Approved as to Form
By: ___________________________________
Assistant City Attorney
Countersigned: __________________________
Finance Officer or Designee
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept Donation from Jeffrey N. Fine in the amount of $1,000 for restoration of the
1928 American LaFrance fire truck.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on the use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in
order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each
donation prior to it being expended.
Jeffrey N. Fine is graciously donating to the Fire Department an amount of $1,000. The
donation is given with restrictions that it be used to help restore the 1928 fire truck the City
owns.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
These donations will assist us in restoring the antique fire engine that is currently unusable
without mechanical improvements.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department
RESOLUTION NO. 11-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM JEFFREY N. FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,000
FOR USE BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR RESTORATION OF THE 1928
AMERICAN LAFRANCE FIRE TRUCK
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, Jeffrey N. Fine’s desire is to assist the Fire Department in restoring its
antique fire truck with a donation of $1,000;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council June 6, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4h
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF February 10, 2011
ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Toby Keeler (teleconference), Mike
Mulligan, Rolf Peterson and Jenna Sheldon (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Browning and Bill Theobald
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community
TV Coordinator
1. Call to Order
Chair Mulligan called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Dworsky, Hartman, Keeler, Mulligan and
Sheldon. Commissioner Peterson arrived at 7:02 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes for December 9, 2010
It was moved by Commissioner Hartman, seconded by Commissioner Sheldon, to
approve the minutes of December 9, 2010, without changes.
The motion passed 4-0-1 (Dworsky abstained).
4. Adoption of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Dworsky, seconded by Commissioner Sheldon, to
approve the agenda.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. Public Comment - None
6. New Business
A. Grand Stadium Agreement for High School Sports Sectionals coverage
Mr. Dunlap suggested this item be moved to the next meeting because the Grand Stadium
representative was out of town and we already have Commissioner Keeler on speaker
phone so it wasn’t feasible to have two call ins for this meeting.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 4h) Page 2
Subject: Telecommunications Commission Minutes of February 10, 2011
B. Consider Periodic Review as described in Comcast/City cable franchise
Mr. Dunlap stated this franchise option calls for a five-year review for state of the art and
maintenance purposes to make sure the City doesn’t fall behind compared to other cities
that are nearby. Comcast is an industry leader and keeps services similar throughout the
Metro area. The only service not offered by Comcast that is offered in a few cities
elsewhere is wireless telephone; Cox Cable introduced this in a few cities in November to
offer a bundled “quadruple play” of services. Comcast does have a partnership with
Clear to cover wireless service. The language in the franchise specifically excludes
equipment used for local programming, and there are a few unresolved technical issues
that relate to that equipment, so it would be a stretch to discuss them because of that
specific franchise language.
Mr. Dunlap said that unless there are other issues that the Commission would like to
raise, he doesn’t think a review is necessary.
Commissioner Dworsky asked about the public hearing involved in the state of the art
review and Mr. Dunlap explained that process. Commissioner Keeler said that based on
the background memo, and the services that Comcast provides, that it’s a moot point and
there’s nothing to make us want to go forward with the state of the art review.
It was moved by Commissioner Keeler, seconded by Commissioner Hartman, not to move
forward with a periodic review.
The motion passed 6-0.
C. Consider franchise fee audit notice by June 30, 2011 if Commission chooses to
recommend an audit for: July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011
Mr. Dunlap indicated a Time Warner and Comcast audit was completed last year at a cost
of about $11,000. About $4,500 was recovered in underpayments that were missed.
Commissioner Dworsky asked what the Commission’s obligations were to do an audit
under bylaws, for example, and if there was a less expensive route? Mr. Dunlap replied
that audits weren’t required, and that a franchise fee review is less detailed and takes less
time and money, but doesn’t pull as much weight with the cable company.
Commissioner Dworsky asked if he could get cost comparison for a review and audit
before the next meeting, and Mr. Dunlap said that would be possible.
Commissioner Keeler said that if there was a significant difference in audited subscribers
as compared to what Comcast said we had, that might be grounds for an audit versus if
the numbers were fairly close then we wouldn’t gain much by doing an audit and
spending a lot of money.
Commissioner Dworsky said the numbers recovered by the audit were $3,338 from Time
Warner and $1,542 from Comcast, and that the audit cost $11,875.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 4h) Page 3
Subject: Telecommunications Commission Minutes of February 10, 2011
D. Discuss goals of “future of cable TV” subcommittee
Mr. Dunlap indicated this sub committee hadn’t met since the last commission meeting,
but that the fiber optic sub committee has a meeting scheduled for next week.
Commissioner Keeler added the specific objectives for the subcommittee haven’t been
outlined yet. For example, instead of paying for 300 cable channels, people may switch
to the Internet in the future and just pay for what they watch. This may impact the
number of cable TV subscribers in the future. The trend could be moving toward Google
TV or Apple TV.
Chair Mulligan said that there is much more TV available on Google TV, Apple TV and
Hulu. He said it would be worth considering the “quadruple play” of services to see how
communications companies might partner more together.
Mr. Dunlap said the “TV Everywhere” concept is what Comcast calls it, so that a
customer can watch something from their DVR elsewhere.
7. Unfinished Business - None
8. Reports
A. Complaints
Chair Mulligan noted the complaints had been trending down over the last four years,
which was encouraging.
9. Communication from the Chair - None
10. Communications from City Staff
Mr. Dunlap noted MACTA “Day at the Capitol” is February 24, 2011 from 10 a.m. to
noon, with an opportunity to meet with Representatives Simon or Winkler or Senator
Latz afterwards.
11. Adjournment
Commissioner Dworsky made a motion, Commission Peterson seconded to adjourn at
7:25. The motion passed 6-0.
Respectfully submitted by:
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4i
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period April 30, 2011 through May 27, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
170.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING10,000 LAKES CHAPTER
170.00
182.49WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSA&D HOLDINGS LLC
182.49
55.34WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESA&K EQUIPMENT CO INC
55.34
20.87ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
107.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
128.67
96.68WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
96.68
236.22WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSABERCROMBIE, JOSHUA
236.22
5.30PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
5.30
1,063.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
1,063.42
312.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAMSON, FRANK
312.50
2,563.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACZ LABORATORIES INC
2,563.00
960.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES
960.00
1,149.60WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADVANCED ENGINEERING & ENVIRON
1,149.60
18,543.44REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAECOM INC
2,030.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
20,573.44
193.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAFFILIATED EMERGENCY VET SERVI
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
193.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE
225.00
26,344.77PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYALL LINES LEASING
26,344.77
996.50H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
996.50
72.13POLICE G & A TELEPHONEAMERICAN MESSAGING
72.13
111.16GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
275.12PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
191.71PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
234.16ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
219.68VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
152.67WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
152.65SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
26.15STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,363.30
1,455.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL MAINTENANCEANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
203.19GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,658.19
271.46FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL
271.46
819.58AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESAQUATIC RECREATION CO
819.58
268.46HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
268.46
322.26GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
228.30ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
550.56
1,177.32GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,177.32
770.70OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
770.70
295.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSASSOCIATION OF EQUIPMENT MGMT
295.00
400.00POLICE G & A TRAININGATOM
400.00
275.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAUER, RAYMOND
275.00
1,078.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,078.50
197.37GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
197.37
62,179.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAUTOMOTIVE RESOURCES INC
3,999.85-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
58,179.68
80.46ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTAVEX LLC
80.46
130.00CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTAVI SYSTEMS INC
120.00TV PRODUCTION REPAIRS
250.00
15,465.88TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTBAILEY NURSERIES INC
15,465.88
1,684.66HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
1,684.66
269.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBARR ENGINEERING CO
269.00
24.58HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBARTL, VALERIE
24.58
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,400.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A RENTAL BUILDINGSBELT LINE PROPERTIES INC
1,400.00
8,850.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEBERGERSON CASWELL INC
8,850.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN
225.00
416.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBG AUTOMOTIVE OF MINNESOTA
416.53
1,848.47HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
500.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE
2,348.47
168.75ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
168.75
140.63WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBLANCHETT, VALERIE
140.63
84.60INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBOETTCHER, ANN
84.60
2,254.23PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
2,254.23
14,501.04GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBRAKEMEIER PROPERTIES INC
14,501.04
60.00SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBRANDT, RICK
60.00
1,282.70GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
1,282.70
3,800.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESBREDEMUS HARDWARE COMPANY INC
3,800.00
25.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATBRINK, SCOTT
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.00
379.09HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
379.09
188.62HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEBROWNDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA
15.81NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.43
40.61POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBURR, SUSAN
40.61
37.37WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBUSINESS CENTERS
37.37
7,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBYSTROM, MICHAEL
7,500.00
15,810.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCALGON CARBON CORP
15,810.00
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCAMERON, DENNY
162.50
4,658.36ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
60.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION LEGAL SERVICES
1,930.98GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
630.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
247.50WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
142.50SEWER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
187.50SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
187.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
150.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
8,194.34
62.03WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCAMPBELL, BRIAN
62.03
45.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSESCARMICHAEL, CANDICE
45.00
556.81IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
556.81
4,800.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESCDC SYSTEMS
4,800.00
16,589.70TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
16,589.70
2,160.77DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
2,632.50MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,900.00LIVE WHERE YOU WORK PRGM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,693.27
2,653.80FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
34.40INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
749.35PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
95.14WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
144.48NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
4,777.30WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
203.11REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
180.27SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
17.40SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
8,855.25
4,826.83FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
5,093.88ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
9,920.71
830.07SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESCENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION
830.07
10,000.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,000.00
38.34FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
38.34
45.18-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
17.60ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
853.22ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
360.71ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
2.37ADMINISTRATION G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
65.88HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.47HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
700.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
195.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
505.38HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
807.10COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONE
145.28FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
11.39COMM DEV G & A TRAINING
557.89POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
193.49POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
419.56POLICE G & A TRAINING
137.69DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
4.88NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
24.99SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,187.49ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
34.19COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL COMPUTER SERVICES
506.97OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
50.85OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
750.67OPERATIONSTRAINING
337.24PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
199.56-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
25.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
11.38ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
1,005.68OAK HILL SPLASH PAD GENERAL SUPPLIES
70.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
489.22SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
100.00SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS TRAINING
920.19PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES
4.60T-BALL/BASEBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.00TENNISTRAINING
646.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.23PARK MAINTENANCE G & A POSTAGE
203.06PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
188.95ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
200.91ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
103.64ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
53.62VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
45.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
176.20OUTREACH & PROGRAMMING GENERAL SUPPLIES
11,904.22
897.55CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
897.55
203.80INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLBORN, CHRISTINE
203.80
15,326.35ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
15,326.35
436.60EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSCOLLECTION SERVICES CENTER
436.60
7,893.74EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S
7,893.74
4,300.00COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY MEDIATION SERVICES I
4,300.00
216.68BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
216.68
3,779.71OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSCORIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES INC
3,779.71
8,158.89POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE
8,158.89
11.91-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
185.16DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
173.25
172.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCECRNALIC, ASIM
172.00
1,984.35BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCRYSTAL, CITY OF
1,984.35
126.71WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCSM LODGING #16-0507
126.71
52.23POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
52.23
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
88.85SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
88.85
5,932.10SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
4,788.53SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,399.34SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,199.67SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
658.75SSD #5 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,898.11SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,569.99SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
18,446.49
11,754.92WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
11,754.92
160.69PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIDART PORTABLE STORAGE INC
160.69
420.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIDART TRANSIT COMPANY
420.00
50.90HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEDEANE, BETTY
50.90
52.50HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGDEERFIELD SEMINARS INC
52.50
6,750.43INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
6,750.43
251.48ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
251.48
222.34PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYDIESEL COMPONENTS
222.34
155.50PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC
2,379.96PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
178.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,036.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
497.52PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,534.00MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8,780.98
968.33SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
968.33
598.75WARMING HOUSES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDORGLASS INC
598.75
74.99INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESDUBE, JIM
74.99
2,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWE SQUARED BUILDERS
2,500.00
190.00ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTEEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
190.00
12,458.41WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERELECTRIC PUMP INC
12,458.41
140,325.84PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYELK RIVER FORD INC
140,325.84
1,434.60OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSEMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC
1,434.60
39.82PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
959.17GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
998.99
8,045.63TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEEMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC
8,045.63
816.58PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERV
816.58
4,410.73STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
4,410.73
308.91-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSET&T DISTRIBUTORS INC
4,802.14AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
4,493.23
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
500.18STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEEULL'S MANUFACTURING CO
500.18
34,645.16SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
34,645.16
15,000.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTEVERBRIDGE INC
15,000.00
904.34PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
380.30GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,284.64
31.36PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFASTENAL COMPANY
68.66PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
60.88PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
160.90
59.00POLICE G & A TRAININGFBI-NAA
59.00
20.69POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
20.69
660.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESFERGUSON WATERWORKS
2,240.63WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,901.13
177.28ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
177.28
137.50HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTFISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA
137.50
149.50JAIL MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
32.06ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
181.56
19.11-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSFORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC
297.05REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALS
277.94
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,635.97-PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGEFRIEDGES LANDSCAPING INC
92,719.32PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
88,083.35
135.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGFRYDACH, JILL
135.00
1,250.00FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGALLAGHER RISK MGMT SERVICES I
1,250.00PARK AND REC G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00HOUSING REHAB G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,250.00
203.96SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGENERAL REPAIR SERVICE
203.96
2,035.72GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP
2,035.72
10,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESGENEREUX FINE WOOD PRODUCTS
10,000.00
125.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INC
125.00
1,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICGEORGE, WALLACE
1,000.00
92.60PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGLASS & MIRROR OUTLET
92.60
8,743.44EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSURGLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
8,743.44
986.88VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR VEHICLE LIAB INSURANCEGOLDEN VALLEY, CITY OF
986.88
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,100.95WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
1,100.95
242.50FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSGOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS AS
242.50
735.35SOFTBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
150.78PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
466.27SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,352.40
7,822.11WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
6,401.82INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
551.63INSTALLATIONOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,900.46UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
1,050.29MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
25,726.31
13,860.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIGREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO
13,860.00
246.25WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSGROSSMAN, CHARLES
246.25
275.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
275.00
3,955.49WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
3,955.49
158.66REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAYDEN, AMY & CHRIS
158.66
938.79PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
938.79
225.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
225.00
100.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS AS
100.00
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
534.38IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
2,240.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,400.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
768.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
5,942.38
37.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
37.00
2,205.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
149.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
2,596.60SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,951.40
60.00OFFICE EQUIP MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHENRICKSEN PSG
60.00
800.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHESSIAN, WILLIAM
800.00
1,500.00IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHEYER SOLUTIONS
1,500.00
7,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICHOBBS, RANDY
7,500.00
6,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWHOGAN, BRIAN
6,000.00
335.87GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
13.30PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
82.03DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
106.07SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
495.68PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
289.08TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.17BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
232.64BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
184.32BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.61WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
39.72WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
34.30SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
9.62STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
118.77STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
1,970.18
142.43PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
31.56BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
178.34WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
32.37SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
7.26STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
391.96
32.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWARD, JENNA
32.00
706.25SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
706.25
352.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
352.50
76.98WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
46.22WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
123.20
491.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
491.62
1,570.25EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,570.25
127.60-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSI/O SOLUTIONS INC
1,983.60HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
1,856.00
445.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTIFP TEST SERVICES
445.00
18.41SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDELCO
18.41
272.53TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
272.53
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
577.43PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
388.38GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
965.81
89.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
65.96POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
155.59
66.80WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJ & F REDDY RENTS
66.80
362.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJAMISON, ROBERT
362.50
948.48EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONJASMER, JERRY
948.48
14.58SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
28.85PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
5.47PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
51.77TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.87VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
103.54
129.28IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
129.28
100.38PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYJOHN HENRY FOSTER MN
182.20WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
9,185.28WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
307.04WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
9,774.90
756.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONJOHNSON, CARRIELEA
756.00
50.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, DOUGLAS
50.00
437.09TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
437.09
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKARR, DAVID
162.50
553.84EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSKELLER, JASMINE Z
553.84
54.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
580.00ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTE
634.00
197.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKESTER, GERALDINE
197.50
500.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKILMER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
500.00
13.92ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESKLESK, JANE
13.92
329.90FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESKOVAL APPLIANCE CO
329.90
53,401.24GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESKRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO
53,401.24
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKRAVETZ, DAVID
200.00
9,968.75PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
9,968.75
255.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKUBES, JON
255.00
974.59GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
974.59
60.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNREALIZED REVENUELARSON, JOHN ROBERT
60.00
10,862.14TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTLAUREL TREE FARMS
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,862.14
2,226.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,226.00
350.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
350.00
113,707.25EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
101,584.75UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSES
8,101.23UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
223,393.23
102.16ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESLEICA GEOSYSTEMS INC
102.16
194.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLENTNER, LAURA
194.00
69.30VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICELIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING SERVICE
69.30
201.02GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLOWELL'S REFINISH MASTERS
201.02
258.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
258.05
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLUNDBERG, SCOTT
162.50
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLYON, SHARON
162.50
1,594.67PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
3,101.75SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
4,696.42
29.87FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMAPLES, JILL
148.92FINANCE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
178.79
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
700.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESMASON-CUTTERS
700.00
28.86PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
28.86
25.00POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMCGOVERN, PATRICK JOHN
25.00
308.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN
308.00
60.00NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMCPA
60.00
280.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMEDTOX LABORATORIES INC
280.00
75.99PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
75.99
223.00OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSMETRO FIRE INC
223.00
142.14PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMETRO TURF INC
142.14
8,830.80INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
1,650.00WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,025.00REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
275.00REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
298,059.29OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
309,840.09
2,085.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSMICHAEL SCOTT CONSTRUCTION INC
2,085.00
292.43PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
246.71VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
539.14
12.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGMIDWEST FENCE & MFG
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
12.00
147.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMIDWEST LUBE INC
147.10
2,350.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
2,350.00
367.20PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
367.20
145.24EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
145.24
58.78POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA CHIEFS POLICE ASSOC
58.78
215.26EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
215.26
180.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CITY/COUNTY MANAGEME
180.00
281.82PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA CONWAY
281.82
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
812.50GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESMINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG
812.50
1,873.00HUMAN RESOURCES CITEMINNESOTA TWINS
1,873.00
20.01BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
20.01
171.17AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMINVALCO INC
171.17
187.03OPERATIONSTRAININGMNFIAM BOOK SALES
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
187.03
9,020.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESMODERN HEATING & AIR CONDITION
9,020.00
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMONTRAY, DEAN
200.00
134.65REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMOORE, SANDRA
134.65
64.97-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS
1,009.97PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,750.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,695.00
450.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
450.62
453.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
453.00
12.60SWEEPINGEQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
18.72INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,282.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
157.11PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,961.62GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.42SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.78SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
5,468.35
427.50BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALSNATIVE PLANT NURSERY INC
427.50
1,748.25SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNATURAL REFLECTIONS VII LLC
402.75SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
645.75SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,796.75
5,600.25STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICENEENAH FOUNDREY
5,600.25
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
172.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCENELSON, SETH
172.00
22.85WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSNEW ORTHODOX MINYAN
22.85
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEWHALL, JACOB
162.50
119.78ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
179.44HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
516.45RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
119.57ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
178.44FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
447.14EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
1,008.14POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
459.17OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
119.57INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
346.78ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
637.01PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
86.40PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
387.29ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
427.93PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
125.63ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
270.04WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
58.87REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
122.59VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
473.11WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
256.44SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
74.11SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
6,413.90
330.00GENERAL REPAIR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNIGP
330.00
204.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTNORTH WORKS OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
204.00
400.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNORTHERN GLASS & GLAZING INC
400.00
41.37PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNORTHERN SAFETY CO INC.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
41.37
400.00TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTNORTHLAND TREE MOVING INC
3,000.00REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,400.00
20.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGNORTHSTAR CHAPTER APA
20.00
31,280.23TASK FORCE GRANTS - STATENORTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORC
31,280.23
229.70PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYNUSS TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
229.70
3,275.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESO'BRIEN ORNAMENTAL IRON INC
3,275.00
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
593.40ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESOCCUPATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTE
593.40
200.64TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
200.64
54.41ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
43.55SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
31.69GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
8.23POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
25.44NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.97PATROLOFFICE SUPPLIES
179.05INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
373.01PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
8.46VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
36.78WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
782.59
279.78SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
279.78
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,162.99PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
45.81WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20.62PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,314.92
210.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOPTUM HEALTH FINANCIAL SERVICE
210.00
735.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC
735.00
255.75INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPAPP, MELISSA
255.75
1,512.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONPARKER, JON
1,512.00
1,000.00COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM REVENUEPARKTACULAR
6,400.00COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,400.00
96.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARR, MELISSA
96.00
215.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEPASKE, BRANDON & ANGELA
215.00
5,349.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESPAUL LINOLEUM & CARPET CO
5,349.00
6,275.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
6,275.00
24.79WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPERNSTEINER, TODD
24.79
172.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEPESCHEL, SHELLY & DAN
172.00
93.39WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPETERSEN, ALAN
93.39
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSON, GLENN
162.50
18.23COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A MEETING EXPENSEPETTY CASH
1.60POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
2,650.00PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH PETTY
2,669.83
103.48WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH - WWNC
17.29WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
120.77
250.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPFANNENSTEIN, CHARLES
250.00
480.90PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
480.90
186.41PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
186.41
58.40INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGPIPELINE INDUSTRIES INC
58.40
226.58REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALSPLANTRA INC
226.58
773.18INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOLK, MARLA
773.18
1,007.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
1,686.66GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,693.94
363.73PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
363.73
262.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPORTER, JEANETTE
262.50
547.39WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
547.39SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
547.39SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
547.39STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,189.56
40.61PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESPRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
40.61
400.78TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
262.91TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
663.69
144.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
144.00
1,626.90WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
1,626.90
1,115.85BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEPUMP & METER SERVICE
1,115.85
1,614.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQ3 CONTRACTING
1,614.50
19.81ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
68.88VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
88.69
91.57POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP
91.57
175.79IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
142.78COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
318.57
60.92WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
60.92SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
60.92SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
60.92STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
243.68
4,763.81COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREACH FOR RESOURCES INC
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4,763.81
27.61POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
310.89NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
338.50
49.40-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRETROFIT COMPANIES INC
767.95BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
718.55
63.06PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRIGID HITCH INC
63.06
130.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAININGROCHESTER ARBORIST WORKSHOP
130.00
172.00INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCEROEMAN, JOE
172.00
252.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSROTARY CLUB OF SLP
252.00
589.95STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROYAL CONCRETE PIPE INC
589.95
412.68WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSRP MANAGEMENT
412.68
162.29STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSA-AG INC
162.29
143.20FACILITIES MCTE G & A TRAININGSAFETY ON SITE
787.60TRAININGTRAINING
286.40PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
572.80WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
1,790.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSALA ARCHITECTS INC
225.00
140.29OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
343.99HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
44.40FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
52.40CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
581.08
20.00IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSANBORN, SARAH
20.00
691.48BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
691.48
270.50IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
270.50IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
66.27PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
607.27
140.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHMIDT, KELLIE
140.00
1,031.50EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONSCHNEIDER, JENNIFER
1,031.50
721.60FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHRAMM, HOLLY
721.60
5.64-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSSCHWAAB INC
87.63INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
81.99
12,233.98PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
27,247.77PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
15,298.77CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,159.25SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
56,247.77
1,452.00IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESENSUS METERING SYSTEMS
1,452.00
133.57GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESSEVERSON PRODUCTS CO
133.57
20.51HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLESHARE, JOHN
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
29Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
55.58NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
76.09
6,246.64PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISHAW/STEWART LUMBER CO
97.75-PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
6,148.89
175.17PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
175.17
189.66GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
189.66
185.96GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSIGN PRODUCERS INC
185.96
612.54BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
612.54
116.21INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSKALLET, DAVID
116.21
1,319.20EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,319.20
1,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICSMITH, WAYNE
1,000.00
5,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICSNEDE, SARA
5,000.00
350.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSORENSON, RICHARD
350.00
19.31BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSPARTAN GROUP LLC
19.31
2,885.63TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTSPECTRA LOGIC CORP
2,885.63
1,433.75HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSPRINGSTED
14,817.34FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 30
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
30Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
16,251.09
258.50PLUMBING MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
83.36PATCHING TEMPORARY GENERAL SUPPLIES
36.07PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.87PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.94PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
149.02WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
36.57REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
610.33
3,552.53ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESST CROIX REC CO
903.09PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,971.13PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,426.75
75,888.31MHFAOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORIT
75,888.31
892.22PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESST PAUL, CITY OF
892.22
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTANCHFIELD, SHERM
150.00
80.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTITCHIN POST
270.10LIFEGUARDINGOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
252.68CONCESSIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
602.78
151.30SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESTRAND MFG CO
151.30
3,475.54PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTREICHER'S
134.08PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,609.62
49.92PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
49.92
2,408.54PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
2,408.54
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 31
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
31Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
128.70ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
864.00ADMINISTRATION G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
992.70
26.29POLICE G & A TRAININGTARGET BANK
27.23NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
53.52
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTEA2
225.00
1,507.18DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEE'S PLUS
1,507.18
27.09ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
27.09
191.28BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
191.28
74.55BRICK HOUSE (1324)BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
74.56WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
149.11
1,850.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC
1,850.00
45.96ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
56.45HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.55COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
42.64IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
35.66ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
68.33FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
115.75COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
123.78POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
78.55OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
59.11INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
44.59PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
58.53ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
70.58ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 32
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
32Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
20.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.46ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.46WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.46REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.96VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.97HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.94WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,998.90EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,966.51
89.69PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTHOMAS TOOL & SUPPLY INC
89.69
160.00BASKETBALLPROGRAM REVENUETHOMAS, ANTHONY
160.00
416.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, HOLLY
416.00
1,422.63ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
1,422.63
117.76WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSTL HOLDINGS
117.76
580.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTOWMASTER
580.13
250.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAUTMANN, JOHN
250.00
13,240.12REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTREE TRUST
13,240.12
1,519.34HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLETRIANGLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
1,519.34
4,206.60PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRUCK BODIES & EQUIPMENT INTL
4,206.60
31.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO
31.26
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 33
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
33Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
219.92GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSTRUGREEN - MTKA 5640
219.92
145.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTRUSIGHT
145.00
151.53PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS
151.53
615.00DAILY ADMISSION ADVERTISINGTWIN CITIES KIDS DIRECTORY
615.00
41.15ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
41.15
164.00SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
7,890.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,778.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,832.00
16,070.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITWIN CITY WINDOW REPLACEMENT C
16,070.00
592.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
45.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
637.00
712.00POLICE G & A REPAIRSUHL CO INC
709.34POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
244.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL REPAIRS
422.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,087.34
680.69POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
171.87NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
273.03SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,446.21SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,716.59PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
697.31RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
257.52COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
7,243.22
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 34
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
34Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
658.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
658.00
81.41GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEUNITROL/STINGER SPIKE SYSTEMS
81.41
46.55HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEUNZE, EILEEN
46.55
629.96OPERATIONSTELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
31.13WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
661.09
17.22GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
17.16SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.38
1,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICVALLEY, MICHAEL & DANIELLE
1,000.00
8,037.61WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
8,037.61
799.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESVAN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES
799.00
1,259.05VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.64COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,332.69
145.65PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESVIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
145.65
201.89PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
245.81TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
577.13WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,024.83
940.82EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONVOELKER, STACY M
940.82
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 35
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
35Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
172.37SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESVOSS LIGHTING
172.37
3,000.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICWACHTER, SCOTT
3,000.00
229.33GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWALSER CHRYSLER JEEP
229.33
319.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
319.00
887.72WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
887.72
275.00WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
1,471.39WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,746.39
1,273.22EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONWEIGEL, GREG
1,273.22
1,500.00OPERATIONSTRAININGWELCH, JENNIFER
1,500.00
120.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWEST PAYMENT CENTER
120.00
150.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWHIPPS, MATTHEW
150.00
1,011.84ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWOLNEY ELECTRIC LLC
286.00SSD #5 G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
530.22MUNICIPAL BLDG BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
1,828.06
2,750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWOODBURY, DAN
2,750.00
216.70PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWOODCRAFT FRANCHISE #306
216.70
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 36
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
36Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
615.96WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWORRELL, CLAUDE
615.96
2,500.00ESCROWSDEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFICWU, ZHUO
2,500.00
13,165.49FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
22.35OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
27,064.11PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,524.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
30.72BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
54.72WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
695.49WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
5.09WESTWOOD G & A MISC EXPENSE
13,906.28ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
203.51ENTERPRISE G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
14,038.69WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
38.27OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
1,915.44REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,989.01STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
253.20OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
75,906.49
27,502.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
27,502.09
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWYOU & YAN GUO, SHAWN
1,000.00
246.50HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEZANDER, LOIS
246.50
478.80SWEEPINGEQUIPMENT PARTSZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC
478.80
88.77-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSZEBEC OF NORTH AMERICA INC
1,379.93AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,291.16
270.67BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
270.67
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 37
5/31/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:34:05R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
37Page -Council Check Summary
5/27/2011 -4/30/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
438.19PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
28.19-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
410.00
979.51SEASON PASSES PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
979.51
Report Totals 1,976,044.59
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4i)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 38
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4j
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – January 18, 2011
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Morgan called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Stuart Morgan, Jeff Mueller, Isabella Stewart and Mary
Tomback
Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson
Guests: Rashmi Seneviratne, Police Advisory Commission
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Tomback, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to
approve the minutes of December 21, 2010, as presented.
The motion passed 4-0.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Ms. Olson noted she had heard from nominees of the Human Rights Award who were very
gracious and happy with the selection. Awards were prepared to be presented at the City
Council meeting.
III. PAC Update
Ms. Seneviratne stated she was in contact with staff at the Community Center and
beginning to discuss a joint project with HRC and ELL. They hope to create a sub
committee to plan the training. Hennepin County may have a position in the City of
Hopkins that would provide a staff person to work with the immigrant community and the
Police Department to help bridge the gaps. It may be possible to have this staff person
also work in the St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Tomback agreed to work with the PAC to plan training.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 4j) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes of January 18, 2011
IV. 2011 Work Plan
Ms. Olson stated the Annual report would be presented to City Council in February and is
based on the 2010 Work Plan. The Commission also needs to do a 2011 Work Plan. After
that time, the Council may want to meet with HRC members.
Childrens First received a grant through the High School to do something similar to Faces
and Places (photography display) in the High school to showcase families in St. Louis
Park. It will be done between now and May at the ice cream social, when they will do the
showing of the art. There is a potential tie in with the Commission because of the diversity
of families in St. Louis Park. HRC could plan to have a booth in conjunction with that
showing.
Commissioner Morgan suggested considering presenting a film after the event on families
and advertising at the school.
Commissioners agree to leave the Diversity film on the work plan, but limited number of
commissioners could be an issue. Instead of the Fire Department open house this year, the
City is doing a community open house.
Commissioner Tomback brought up how the HRC responds to biased crime reports and
questioned if the commission could help more or do more education.
Lt. Dreier stated when Police take a report, they error on the side of caution and send
reports to the state if they could potentially fall under the bias crime reporting. Ms. Olson
noted there is an approved bias crime response plan. The commission could have more
discussion at the February meeting.
Commissioners agreed to remove the essay and poster contest from the work plan.
They will continue to work with the PAC and revise or expand the description of that item.
The Commission will also continue to promote the Diversity Lens and the web site.
V. New Business
Ms. Olson stated that the City is advertising vacancies on the Commission. Interested
applicants can apply online or at the City Clerk’s office.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4k
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – March 15, 2011
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Morgan called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Darla Aman, Joe Glaab, Brian Johnson, Alison Knoche Prosser,
Stuart Morgan, Mary Tomback
Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson
Guests: Rashmi Seneviratne, PAC
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Tomback, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to
approve the minutes of January 18, 2011, as presented.
The motion passed 6-0.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Ms. Olson stated the Work Plan had gone before City Council and they would like
Commission representatives (Chair and Vice Chair) to come to another meeting. They
like the community outreach (i.e. ice cream social) and would still like at least one film as
a follow up on the film series.
III. PAC Update
IV. PAC/HRC Sub Committee Update
Ms. Seneviratne stated the PAC has been working on public service announcements for
the city cable channel (dog, speeding). They were also working on domestic violence
outreach and planned to create fliers to put up including contact information for victims.
There should be a zero tolerance policy and they wanted to raise public awareness.
Chair Morgan noted they were working with Hennepin County to get funding for a
shared liaison (with nearby cities) to would work on immigrant outreach.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item 4k) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 15, 2011
Lt. Dreier added there had been a presentation that day at an ELL class as part of the
outreach efforts.
Ms. Seneviratne shared the work of the sub-committee consisting of members of the
HRC and PAC working on the ELL classes and incorporating: how to behave if stopped
by an officer, life issues and domestic violence awareness.
V. Work Plan
Ms. Olson distributed the Work Plan. Community outreach included the Children First
ice cream social on May 15th and a community open house held on May 18th. In the past
the Commission has shared a booth with the PAC and handed out brochures, talked with
residents, etc. They may have an opportunity to be part of a photo display, but that
hadn’t been finalized. The open house will be held at the Municipal Service Center and
there would be representatives from all city departments to showcase what they do and
answer questions. There will also be entertainment and food.
Chair Morgan reviewed the film series history. Last year the Commission assisted
Bookmark in the Park on a community event. He suggested if they were going to do a
film series, a sub committee be formed to review and choose films, arrange a speaker and
plan the publicity. Ms. Olson noted there are many “new” ways of advertising (Facebook,
etc.) and to connect with people. The Commission agreed to try for a fall date.
VI. Bias/Hate Crime Response Plan
Ms. Olson handed out the Bias Crime Response plan.
Lt. Dreier described how Police respond in any situation that could constitute hate/bias
crime, which gets reported to the State. The purpose of the HRC is to support and
educate the victim, only if the victim wants it. The Commission sends a letter and lets
the victim of the crime know they care and that the City is aware of the crime.
Commissioners reviewed a recently reported bias crime. There was no information on
the person who did it. It was an incident occurring while people were driving. HRC has
a resource and referral list. Commissioners suggested including the list with the letter
that is sent and reviewing the list for any additions or changes needed. The Police
Department also has a Chaplain Department for additional resources.
VII. New Business
Chair Morgan reviewed how meetings operate.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6a
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:
First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating a Portion of a Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt First Reading of an ordinance vacating a portion
of a Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake Road, and to set the second reading for June 20, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council agree with vacating this unused highway easement?
BACKGROUND:
Cedar Lake Road was previously a county highway (C.R. No. 16), but was turned back to the
City. The City Council adopted Resolution 94-148 accepting jurisdiction in 1994. The property
at 5330 Cedar Lake Road was redeveloped from an industrial use to a commercial use in 2008.
A highway easement covers 11 to 13 feet along the west side of the property. There are nineteen
parking spaces in the Cedar Point Shopping Center affected by the highway easement. The
applicant, Cedar Developers, LLC, is requesting that the portion of the highway easement that is
over the property at 5330 Cedar Lake Road be vacated.
Site Location Map
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake Rd
Analysis:
The City has a very wide platted right-of-way between Cedar Lake Road and the property at
5330 Cedar Lake Road. At the widest point, the curb of the road is approximately 100 feet from
the property line. The additional 13 feet provided by the highway easement over 5330 Cedar
Lake Road is not needed.
Utility companies, Hennepin County, and Minnesota Department of Transportation were notified
of the request to vacate the easement, and there are no objections.
This portion of highway easement is not currently being used, and staff does not foresee a future
need for it.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Ordinance
Survey Highlighting the Portion of Easement to be Vacated
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake Rd
ORDINANCE NO.____-
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A HIGHWAY EASEMENT
5330 CEDAR LAKE ROAD
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the portion of the highway easement proposed to be vacated
has been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor
on May 26, 2011, and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has
determined that a portion of the highway easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it
is for the best interest of the public that said portion of the highway easement be vacated.
Section 2. The following described portion of highway easement as now dedicated
and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That portion of Lot 1, Block 1, WATSON’S ADDITION embraced within the following
described parcel, as per Highway Easement recorded as Document No. 2826324, Hennepin
County, Minnesota:
Commencing at the North one quarter (1/4) corner of Section thirty-one (31), Township twenty-
nine(29) North, Range twenty-four (24) West; thence west along the North line thereof a
distance of seven hundred twenty-one and eight tenths (721.8) feet; thence deflecting to the left
at an angle of thirty-three degrees and thirteen minutes (33° 13’) a distance of four hundred
nineteen and seven tenths (419.7) feet; thence deflecting to the right along a seven (7) degree
curve a distance of two hundred twenty-two and six tenths (222.6) feet, with a central angle of
fifteen degrees and thirty-five minutes (15° 35’) and tangent being one hundred twelve and one
tenth (112.1) feet; thence along tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of three hundred
seventy and five tenths (370.5) feet; thence deflecting to the right along a seven degree (7°)
curve a distance of six hundred twenty-two and one tenth (622.1) feet (the central angle of the
last mentioned curve being forty-three degrees and thirty-three minutes (43° 33’) and tangent
being three hundred twenty-seven and two tenths (327.2) feet); thence along tangent to the last
mentioned curve a distance of two hundred fifty and eight tenths (250.8) feet to a point (A);
thence continuing on last mentioned tangent four hundred thirty-nine (439) feet more or less to
the intersection with the center line of Cedar Lake Road, currently known as Parkdale Drive, said
intersecting point being designated as point (b) and the point of beginning of said Parcel:
Beginning at the aforementioned Point (B); thence Southeasterly four hundred thirty-nine
(439) feet to aforementioned Point (A); thence deflecting to the left at an angle of one
hundred ten degrees and thirty-two minutes (110° 32’) to the center line of Cedar Lake
Road, currently known as Parkdale Drive; thence along center line of said road to said
Point (B) and the point of beginning.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake Rd
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading June 6, 2011
Second Reading June 20, 2011
Date of Publication June 30, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect July 15, 2011
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Portion of Highway Easement at 5330 Cedar Lake RdPage 5
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6b
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:
First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street West and Natchez Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance vacating
the 42 ½ St W and Natchez Ave S Right-of-way adjacent to 4253 Ottawa Ave S, and to set the
second reading for June 20, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council agree with vacating this unused right-of-way?
BACKGROUND:
42 ½ Street and Natchez Ave were originally platted in 1910 as Littel Street and West Avenue in
the Wooddale Park plat. Roads were built in all the platted right-of-ways except this small
section of 42 ½ Street and Natchez Avenue. To this date, these right-of-ways remain
unimproved, meaning they do not contain a street, trail or other public improvement.
Previous vacations:
The north half of 42 ½ street was vacated in 1964 as part of the Marfield plat which was
approved and filed at that time. The vacated half of 42 ½ street was combined with land to the
north to create lot 3 of that plat. A house was built on that lot in 1965.
The east half of Natchez Ave is located in the City of Edina, and was vacated around 1950,
leaving the west half in St. Louis Park as an unimproved public right-of-way that is only 20 feet
wide as opposed to the 40 to 66 feet width required for a residential street.
Future need of right-of-way:
As indicated by these vacations that have already occurred, the City of Edina and the St. Louis
Park Public Works Department have determined that a road is not needed. The City of Edina
was notified of St. Louis Park’s intent to vacate additional sections of these right-of-ways and
does not object. The St. Louis Park Public Works Department also has reviewed the proposal
and confirms that the right-of-way is not needed, and can be vacated.
Utility companies were notified of the City’s intent to vacate the right-of-ways, and there are no
objections. There is an existing power line in both right-of-ways, so the city would retain a 10
foot utility easement along the south side of the 42 ½ Street right-of-way and along the west edge
of the Natchez Ave right-of-way.
The entire length of Natchez Ave is not going to be vacated due to four parcels located in Edina.
These parcels may not have access to any other public right-of-way other than the remaining half
of Natchez Ave. Therefore, staff is proposing to vacate only the north 100 feet of Natchez Ave.
The Edina parcels, which are currently vacant and owned by adjacent landowners in Edina, will
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street W. & Natchez Ave. S.
still have access by going south in the Natchez Ave right-of-way to Morningside Rd. The north
100 feet needs to be vacated to avoid an irregular shaped lot that could result by only vacating 42
½ Street. Vacating the north 100 feet of Natchez Ave. will maintain a square shaped lot that
exists today at 4253 Ottawa Avenue.
Recommendation:
Since the right-of-way is not currently being used, and there is not a future need for it, staff is
recommending that it be vacated.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Location Map
Wooddale Park Plat
Marfield Plat
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street W. & Natchez Ave. S.
ORDINANCE NO.____-11
AN ORDINANCE VACATING PORTIONS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
42 ½ STREET WEST AND NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the right-of-way proposed to be vacated has been duly filed.
The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on May 26, 2011 and
the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the
right-of-way is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that
said right-of-way be vacated.
Section 2. The following described right-of-way as now dedicated and laid out within
the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That part of Natchez Avenue South (formerly known as West Avenue) as dedicated in
WOODDALE PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying northerly of the
easterly prolongation of the south line of the North Half of Lot 3, Block 9, said
WOODDALE PARK and lying southerly of the easterly prolongation of the north line of
Lot 1, said Block 9.
And
That part of the South Half of 42 ½ Street West (formerly known as Littel Street) as
dedicated in said WOODDALE PARK, lying westerly of the east line of West Avenue,
as dedicated in said WOODDALE PARK, and lying easterly of the southerly
prolongation of the east line of the West 70.00 feet of Lot 15, Block 1, said
WOODDALE PARK.
And
That part of the South Half of said 42 ½ Street West lying westerly of the southerly
prolongation of the east line of the West 70.00 feet of said Lot 15 and lying southerly of a
curve concave to the northwest and having a radius of 50.00 feet. Said curve is tangent to
the north line of Block 9, said WOODDALE PARK and passes through the southwest
corner of Lot 3, Block 1, MARFIELD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
Retaining an easement for utility purposes over, under, across and through the South 10.0
feet of said 42 ½ Street West and retaining an easement for utility purposes over, under,
across and through the West 10.0 feet of said Natchez Avenue South.
reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park any and all easements that may exist in, over,
and across the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, and public utility
purposes.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street W. & Natchez Ave. S.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading June 6, 2011
Second Reading June 20, 2011
Date of Publication June 30, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect July 15, 2011
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street W. & Natchez Ave. S.
LOCATION MAP
Right-of-way to be vacated.
Portion of Natchez
Ave S to remain
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street W. & Natchez Ave. S.
Wooddale Park Plat
Proposed vacation
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 6b) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of an Ordinance Vacating Portions of 42 ½ Street W. & Natchez Ave. S.
Marfield Plat
Proposed Vacation
Previously Vacated
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize the submission of comments for the MNS EAW along with recommended
mitigation measures.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to submit comments on the MNS EAW including a list of
recommended mitigation measures?
BACKGROUND:
On May 16, 2011 the MN&S Freight Rail Study EAW was released for public review. The 30-
day official comment period extends through June 15, 2011. The City Council has expressed
concerns in relation to the proposed mitigation measures identified in the EAW. The Council has
discussed providing comments on the EAW to address in particular the inadequacy of the
proposed mitigation in the EAW and identify additional mitigation measures the City believes is
necessary.
Mitigation
At the May 16 and 31, 2011 Study Sessions the City Council discussed mitigation for the
potential re-route of freight traffic from the Bass Lake Spur to the MNS line. Attached is an
updated list of proposed mitigation items for the MNS route. Also attached is a set of comments
on the MNS EAW in general. These comments, along with the proposed mitigation measures,
would comprise the comments formally submitted from the city. Please note that the proposed
comments on the EAW are a work in progress and will evolve over the coming days. The intent
is to discuss the final set of comments at the June 13 Study Session as noted in the schedule
below.
June 6th Special Study Session discussion of proposed comments on the MN&S EAW
Regular City Council meeting authorizing submission of comments
June 8th MN&S EAW Open House at the Rec Center
June 13th Finalize EAW comments
June 15th Deadline for submittal of comments on the MN&S EAW
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
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. It is also related to the broader Vision elements
about the variety of transportation modes, sidewalk and trails and environmental stewardship.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures
Attachments: Draft MNS Mitigation Measures List (clean)
Draft MNS Mitigation Measures List (redline)
Draft EAW Comments (clean)
Draft EAW Comments (redline)
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director; and,
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor.
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
MNS Mitigation Measures
Track improvements
• Replace and upgrade the MN&S track with 136# seamless tracks reducing noise and
vibrations
• Install rail lubricators
• Concrete ties to reduce the vibration
Mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland, floodplain, hazardous materials
handling, wildlife habitat, etc.
Whistle Quiet Zones to upgrade rail crossings safety measures to eliminate the need to blow
whistles or horns as trains approach intersections.
Provide fencing and signing along the length of the railroad r-o-w to discourage people
intruding unsafely on the MN&S tracks.
Create grade separated frontage road on north side of Hwy 7 by lengthening the MN&S
bridge over Hwy 7 to provide space to create a frontage road on the north side.
Build a pedestrian overpass near High School and Dakota Avenue to connect the High
School to the Lake Street area and football field.
Create pedestrian and non-vehicle access under MN&S tracks at Dakota Park by building an
under pass at 27th St. to connect to the N. Cedar Lake regional trail from the east.
Expansion of MN&S r-o-w in residential area by acquiring homes immediately east of MN&S
tracks north of approximately the intersection of MN&S tracks with Brunswick Avenue to 27th
Street on the north.
Reroute coal trains west of metro area.
Elimination of sidings as well as through tracks east of Wooddale on Bass Lake spur to
eliminate the possibility of cars being stored in this area or trains blocking Wooddale or
Beltline.
Completely remove the Oxford industrial area switching wye tracks, abandon the rail r-o-w,
and build a southern connection to MNS.
Funding and construction of Louisiana & Hwy 7 Interchange.
Structure Improvement Program – Create a grant program to provide technical assistance
and financial help for property owners to make noise and/or vibration mitigation
improvements.
Sound and vibration mitigation improvements for all schools, businesses and homes adjacent
to the MNS line.
Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 close to the MN&S bridge to provide access for pedestrians.
Eliminate blind curves in the Lake Street/High School area.
The freight rail should only be rerouted if firm commitments are in place for implementation of
SWLRT.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 3
Property owners should be compensated for loss of property value due to rerouting of TCW
trains to the MNS tracks.
Any disruption of businesses due to construction of the MNS improvements must be
appropriately mitigated.
Special care must be taken to protect and ensure no damage occurs to monitoring water
wells as a result of the MNS project.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 4
MNS Mitigation Measures
Track improvements
• Replace and upgrade the MN&S track with 136# seamless tracks reducing noise and
vibrations
• Install rail lubricators
• Concrete ties to reduce the vibration
Mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland, floodplain, hazardous materials
handling, wildlife habitat, etc.
Whistle Quiet Zones to upgrade rail crossings safety measures to eliminate the need to blow
whistles or horns as trains approach intersections.
Provide fencing and signing along the length of the railroad r-o-w to discourage people
intruding unsafely on the MN&S tracks.
Create grade separated frontage road on north side of Hwy 7 by lengthening the MN&S
bridge over Hwy 7 to provide space to create a frontage road on the north side.
Build a pedestrian overpass near High School and Dakota Avenue to connect the High
School to the Lake Street area and football field.
Create pedestrian and non-vehicle access under MN&S tracks at Dakota Park by building an
under pass at 27th St. to connect to the N. Cedar Lake regional trail from the east.
Expansion of MN&S r-o-w in residential area by acquiring homes immediately east of MN&S
tracks north of approximately the intersection of MN&S tracks with Brunswick Avenue to 27th
Street on the north.
Reroute coal trains west of metro area.
Elimination of sidings as well as through tracks east of Wooddale on Bass Lake spur to
eliminate the possibility of cars being stored in this area or trains blocking Wooddale or
Beltline.
Completely remove the Oxford industrial area switching wye tracks, abandon the rail r-o-w,
and build a southern connection to MNS.
Funding and construction of Louisiana & Hwy 7 Interchange.
Structure Improvement Program – Create a grant program to provide technical assistance
and financial help for property owners to make noise and/or vibration mitigation
improvements.
Sound and vibration mitigation improvements for all schools, businesses and homes adjacent
to the MNS line.
Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 close to the MN&S bridge to provide access for pedestrians.
Eliminate blind curves in the Lake Street/High School area.
The freight rail should only be rerouted if firm commitments are in place for implementation of
SWLRT.
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Indent: Left: 16.75 pt,
Hanging: 1.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 18.25 pt,
Hanging: 1.25 pt
Deleted: Better
Deleted: of
Deleted: to ensure it is in place
where appropriate
Deleted: Switching Wye – r
Deleted:
Deleted: loan and/or
Deleted: at the High School.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 5
Property owners should be compensated for loss of property value due to rerouting of TCW
trains to the MNS tracks.
Any disruption of businesses due to construction of the MNS improvements must be
appropriately mitigated.
Special care must be taken to protect and ensure no damage occurs to monitoring water
wells as a result of the MNS project.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 16.75 pt,
Hanging: 1.5 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 18.25 pt,
First line: 0 pt
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 pt
Deleted: Other Potential Mitigation
Measures ... [1]
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 6
Page
2: [1]
Delete
d Meg
McMon
igal
06/01
/2011
3:55:0
0 PM
Other Potential Mitigation Measures
Removal of north arm of the switching wye so CP trains could continue to serve the existing
customer by using the south arm of the switching wye.
Housing Buyout program - Create a program to purchase homes on the west side of the
MN&S tracks from willing sellers and remove, remodel or resell them.
Place MN&S tracks on overhead structure from Walker to Brunswick.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 7
Draft Comments on MN&S EAW from
St Louis Park
General Comments:
1) The original goal for the City was to minimize the time, noise and disruption that freight trains
have in the City of St Louis Park. The stated purpose of the proposed action is inconsistent with
the City’s goals as stated in Resolution 10-070 (see attached); and, the purpose of the proposed
action ignores the fact that a key purpose for the reroute of freight rail trains off of the
Kenilworth alignment is to accommodate SW LRT.
2) Page 15 details that the elimination of the Skunk Hollow track is not part of the proposal even
though it is was a major goal of the City. The idea of rerouting coal trains west of the metro area
is also not a part of the proposed action.
3) There is reference to meeting with the three affected railroads but there is no documentation on
those meetings or the official position of the railroad on the design assumptions.
4) There are no track profiles shown in the EAW. There are three major concerns about the lack of
information about the profiles:
a) The City is concerned that the track profiles match the existing road crossings to minimize
roadway work or the project would be required to pay for the extensive street work. The
Lake/Library area drainage is very sensitive to any grade changes.
b) The analysis assumes 25 mph for the trains. The profile is a critical component of speed and
noise. The grades will not allow a consistent 25 mph speed, so how does affect the analysis.
c) The grades exceed mainline standards, and the EAW states that the grades over 1 percent are
relatively short and match the current track profile. The longer trains may have difficulty
with these grades. The City had requested earlier in the study for a speed profile analysis on
how the longer trains will be affected by these grades. No speed profile analysis has been
provided.
5) The EAW states that the track design will meet current CP standards, but the typical cross
sections do not reflect the wider sub grade standard.
6) There is no discussion on how this EAW meshes with the DEIS being conducted for the SW
LRT. The primary purpose of any MN&S reroute project is to gain space in the Kenilworth
Corridor for the SW LRT tracks.
7) There is not discussion about ownership and maintenance of the track and other improvements.
The CP and TC&W railroads have indicated to the City that they do not want to own the new
structures.
8) The traffic analysis uses inadequate assumptions:
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 8
a) Railroad crossing signals are activated before the train arrives at the crossing and remain
down after the train exits the crossing. The time is normally about 30 seconds before the
train enters plus 5 seconds after the train exits the crossings. There is no reference in the
blockage computations that this time has been accounted for, and it appears this has not
been included.
b) The length of the rail car varies by the type and commodity. The EAW used 85 foot length
for all cars. Coal cars are 55 to 60 feet long. Ethanol cars are about 60 feet. Grain cars are
65 to 70 feet long. Generally the length of trains is overstated.
c) The peak hour traffic near the high school is not the normal peak hour. Bus schedules are
sensitive to time and a train at the school’s peak hour would be a major disruption to the bus
system.
9) There is no discussion about potential derailments and how emergency personnel would develop
an evacuation plan.
10) There is only a 20’6” clearance between the bottom of the new bridge over the Bass Lake Spur
track and the Bass Lake Spur tracks; this does not meet the minimum State requirements.
11) Pages 19-21: Remediation of the Golden Auto National Lead site involved extensive processing
of a large volume of lead contaminated soils and concrete, much of which has been safely
contained on the site. A 10-18 inch impervious cap covers the bulk of the site. Excavation on
this site has the potential to encounter areas of contaminated soils and areas of crushed concrete.
The construction proposes to pierce the cap. Great care will need to be taken to ensure the
integrity of the impervious cap is maintained and any contaminated soils that must be removed
are handled properly. Geo-technical challenges may also be encountered due to the significant
deposits of crushed concrete on the site. The distribution of contained contaminated soils and
crushed concrete is not evenly distributed nor is it of a uniform thickness throughout the site.
Further analysis is needed to establish the extent of capped contaminated soils and crushed
concrete that will be encountered for construction of footings and foundations, or other
earthwork on the Golden Auto National Lead site. The EAW minimizes and does not fully
address these potential construction issues.
12) Page 77: In the Louisiana SW LRT station area it is noted the SW DEIS plans a facility for 250
cars – this is not the amount in the DEIS. It also states that this project will provide “optimal
developable land” for development in the station area, however there will be property taken
property off the tax rolls, and impacted greatly by the proposed rail bridge, leaving land
remnants that are not “optimal.” There would also be impact on the local road system.
13) Specific Comments:
14) Page 2: The proposed action statement makes no reference to the SW LRT project.
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 9
15) Page 8: Closure of 29th Street is a City decision. The closure is proposed because the proposed
track profile would be about 4 feet higher than the existing crossing making it difficult to
construct a roadway approach that works. There are no details on how much of 29th Street is
proposed to be removed or how the dead end streets resulting from closure of 29th Street’s rail
crossing will be handled. No cul de sacs or other means for vehicles, including street
maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles, to turn around is provided.
16) Page 16: The list of permits is incomplete. There needs to be a series of agreements with the
three railroads and Hennepin County as well as between the railroads; these may not easily be
achieved. Approvals are also needed from Three Rivers Park District for the trail revisions.
17) Page 40: 28th and 29th Streets are classified as local streets. The 2011 traffic count for 29th is 190
ADT.
18) Page 64: There were two field locations for the vibration. The nearest site was 60 feet, yet the
analysis assumes that there is no impact past 40 feet from the track. The City has heard from the
High School and the businesses that they have vibration disruptions now, without the reroute.
The vibration analysis does not accurately reflect the existing and proposed rail operations.
19) Page 71: The proposed Cedar Lake Trail bridge over the new Iron triangle track will also be 30
feet above the surrounding ground surface and will have a significant visual impact.
20) Page 77: It is stated that the SWLRT DEIS is “currently being prepared” whereas it is under
review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) at this time.
21) Page 81: Section 30b deals with right of way and relocations. The EAW comments that only
one parcel is required and 13 partial takings. Table 19 understates the impacts.
a) There are two residential units that have been proposed to be taken that are not listed in
Table 19.
b) There is extensive construction work in the iron triangle area but there is not access into the
construction site. The area is surrounded by wetlands, flood plains, parks, railroads and
private developed property. The EAW should provide a construction access plan to this area
and provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of this access.
c) Parcels 108,109 and 110 will have a bridge within 25 feet of their building edges and for
parcels 108 and 109 their parking lots and driveways will be impacted.
d) Parcels 97, 98, 100 and 101 are underdeveloped lots used primarily for outdoor storage of
construction materials. Table 19 has inaccurate areas of impact.
22) Page 93: The proposed improvements will be constructed between City maintained monitoring
wells near the Golden Auto site that may be impacted by construction or vibration. There is no
reference on how the project will affect these wells and how they will be protected.
23) Page 93: Table 20 estimates that 2 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The City would prefer
that the wetland replacement be located within St Louis Park and the EAW should address
possible mitigation sites.
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 10
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
24) Page 94: There is a reference to constructing 3 storm water runoff ponds. The City has had
difficulty locating drainage facilities in this area because of development and contamination. The
EAW does not describe in any detail where these ponds would be located and what properties
will be affected.
25) Page 97: Commitment to include welded rail in the project should be an Area, since the CP and
BNSF standards for mainline tracks is welded rail.
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 11
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
Draft Comments on MN&S EAW from
St Louis Park
General Comments:
1) The original goal for the City was to minimize the time, noise and disruption that freight trains
have in the City of St Louis Park. The stated purpose of the proposed action is inconsistent with
the City’s goals as stated in Resolution 10-070 (see attached); and, the purpose of the proposed
action ignores the fact that a key purpose for the reroute of freight rail trains off of the
Kenilworth alignment is to accommodate SW LRT.
2) Page 15 details that the elimination of the Skunk Hollow track is not part of the proposal even
though it is was a major goal of the City. The idea of rerouting coal trains west of the metro area
is also not a part of the proposed action.
3) There is reference to meeting with the three affected railroads but there is no documentation on
those meetings or the official position of the railroad on the design assumptions.
4) There are no track profiles shown in the EAW. There are three major concerns about the lack of
information about the profiles:
a) The City is concerned that the track profiles match the existing road crossings to minimize
roadway work or the project would be required to pay for the extensive street work. The
Lake/Library area drainage is very sensitive to any grade changes.
b) The analysis assumes 25 mph for the trains. The profile is a critical component of speed and
noise. The grades will not allow a consistent 25 mph speed, so how does affect the analysis.
c) The grades exceed mainline standards, and the EAW states that the grades over 1 percent are
relatively short and match the current track profile. The longer trains may have difficulty
with these grades. The City had requested earlier in the study for a speed profile analysis on
how the longer trains will be affected by these grades. No speed profile analysis has been
provided.
5) The EAW states that the track design will meet current CP standards, but the typical cross
sections do not reflect the wider sub grade standard.
6) There is no discussion on how this EAW meshes with the DEIS being conducted for the SW
LRT. The primary purpose of any MN&S reroute project is to gain space in the Kenilworth
Corridor for the SW LRT tracks.
7) There is not discussion about ownership and maintenance of the track and other improvements.
The CP and TC&W railroads have indicated to the City that they do not want to own the new
structures.
8) The traffic analysis uses inadequate assumptions:
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Font color: Black
Deleted: the
Deleted: narrowed
Deleted: this
Deleted: goal
Deleted: to
Deleted: for
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 12
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
a) Railroad crossing signals are activated before the train arrives at the crossing and remain
down after the train exits the crossing. The time is normally about 30 seconds before the
train enters plus 5 seconds after the train exits the crossings. There is no reference in the
blockage computations that this time has been accounted for, and it appears this has not
been included.
b) The length of the rail car varies by the type and commodity. The EAW used 85 foot length
for all cars. Coal cars are 55 to 60 feet long. Ethanol cars are about 60 feet. Grain cars are
65 to 70 feet long. Generally the length of trains is overstated.
c) The peak hour traffic near the high school is not the normal peak hour. Bus schedules are
sensitive to time and a train at the school’s peak hour would be a major disruption to the bus
system.
9) There is no discussion about potential derailments and how emergency personnel would develop
an evacuation plan.
10) There is only a 20’6” clearance between the bottom of the new bridge over the Bass Lake Spur
track and the Bass Lake Spur tracks; this does not meet the minimum State requirements.
11) Pages 19-21: Remediation of the Golden Auto National Lead site involved extensive processing
of a large volume of lead contaminated soils and concrete, much of which has been safely
contained on the site. A 10-18 inch impervious cap covers the bulk of the site. Excavation on
this site has the potential to encounter areas of contaminated soils and areas of crushed concrete.
The construction proposes to pierce the cap. Great care will need to be taken to ensure the
integrity of the impervious cap is maintained and any contaminated soils that must be removed
are handled properly. Geo-technical challenges may also be encountered due to the significant
deposits of crushed concrete on the site. The distribution of contained contaminated soils and
crushed concrete is not evenly distributed nor is it of a uniform thickness throughout the site.
Further analysis is needed to establish the extent of capped contaminated soils and crushed
concrete that will be encountered for construction of footings and foundations, or other
earthwork on the Golden Auto National Lead site. The EAW minimizes and does not fully
address these potential construction issues.
12) Page 77: In the Louisiana SW LRT station area it is noted the SW DEIS plans a facility for 250
cars – this is not the amount in the DEIS. It also states that this project will provide “optimal
developable land” for development in the station area, however there will be property taken
property off the tax rolls, and impacted greatly by the proposed rail bridge, leaving land
remnants that are not “optimal.” There would also be impact on the local road system.
13) Specific Comments:
14) Page 2: The proposed action statement makes no reference to the SW LRT project.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: from
Deleted: d
Deleted: (page 77)
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 13
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
15) Page 8: Closure of 29th Street is a City decision. The closure is proposed because the proposed
track profile would be about 4 feet higher than the existing crossing making it difficult to
construct a roadway approach that works. There are no details on how much of 29th Street is
proposed to be removed or how the dead end streets resulting from closure of 29th Street’s rail
crossing will be handled. No cul de sacs or other means for vehicles, including street
maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles, to turn around is provided.
16) Page 16: The list of permits is incomplete. There needs to be a series of agreements with the
three railroads and Hennepin County as well as between the railroads; these may not easily be
achieved. Approvals are also needed from Three Rivers Park District for the trail revisions.
17) Page 40: 28th and 29th Streets are classified as local streets. The 2011 traffic count for 29th is 190
ADT.
18) Page 64: There were two field locations for the vibration. The nearest site was 60 feet, yet the
analysis assumes that there is no impact past 40 feet from the track. The City has heard from the
High School and the businesses that they have vibration disruptions now, without the reroute.
The vibration analysis does not accurately reflect the existing and proposed rail operations.
19) Page 71: The proposed Cedar Lake Trail bridge over the new Iron triangle track will also be 30
feet above the surrounding ground surface and will have a significant visual impact.
20) Page 77: It is stated that the SWLRT DEIS is “currently being prepared” whereas it is under
review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) at this time.
21) Page 81: Section 30b deals with right of way and relocations. The EAW comments that only
one parcel is required and 13 partial takings. Table 19 understates the impacts.
a) There are two residential units that have been proposed to be taken that are not listed in
Table 19.
b) There is extensive construction work in the iron triangle area but there is not access into the
construction site. The area is surrounded by wetlands, flood plains, parks, railroads and
private developed property. The EAW should provide a construction access plan to this area
and provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of this access.
c) Parcels 108,109 and 110 will have a bridge within 25 feet of their building edges and for
parcels 108 and 109 their parking lots and driveways will be impacted.
d) Parcels 97, 98, 100 and 101 are underdeveloped lots used primarily for outdoor storage of
construction materials. Table 19 has inaccurate areas of impact.
22) Page 93: The proposed improvements will be constructed between City maintained monitoring
wells near the Golden Auto site that may be impacted by construction or vibration. There is no
reference on how the project will affect these wells and how they will be protected.
23) Page 93: Table 20 estimates that 2 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The City would prefer
that the wetland replacement be located within St Louis Park and the EAW should address
possible mitigation sites.
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Outline numbered +
Level: 2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c,
… + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
Aligned at: 18 pt + Tab after: 36 pt
+ Indent at: 36 pt
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: the
Deleted: ed
Deleted: roadway
Deleted: would be closed.
Deleted: <#>¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: wetlands ,
Deleted: , railroads
Deleted: a construction
Deleted: to
Deleted: e
Deleted: .
Deleted: <#>¶
Deleted: P
Deleted: <#>There appears to be a
discontinuity from the PR-3 profile
drawing to the PR-4 drawing. ¶
<#>Are approvals needed from Three
Rivers Park District or the City of
Minneapolis?¶
Deleted: propsed
Deleted: be
Deleted: t
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 14
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
24) Page 94: There is a reference to constructing 3 storm water runoff ponds. The City has had
difficulty locating drainage facilities in this area because of development and contamination. The
EAW does not describe in any detail where these ponds would be located and what properties
will be affected.
25) Page 97: Commitment to include welded rail in the project should be an Area, since the CP and
BNSF standards for mainline tracks is welded rail.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 36 pt,
Space After: 0 pt, No bullets or
numbering, Tabs: Not at 36 pt
Deleted: ed
Deleted: strom
Deleted: dranage
Deleted: y
Deleted: ,
Deleted: devleopemtn
Deleted: contanmination
Deleted: Commintment
Deleted: w
Deleted: Area
Deleted: “A” mitigation
City Council Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Draft MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures Page 15
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
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:
Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests City Council direction on implementing the bicycle and pedestrian system plans.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to pursue the implementation of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian
system plans at this time? If so, how aggressively does the City Council wish to pursue the
implementation?
BACKGROUND:
At the February 2011 City Council Workshop, City Council asked to discuss the Bicycle and
Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation following a presentation of the recent
Community Recreation Survey results which indicated a continued strong interest from residents
in sidewalks and trails.
As it has been 1-2 years since the City Council has had a presentation on the Bicycle and
Pedestrian System planning and implementation, this report and the attachment hereto provide
some history of the planning process, adopted plans and goals, and implementation efforts as a
foundation and context for the discussion.
Overview:
The attached Bicycles and Pedestrians section of the Comprehensive Plan provides a very good
overview and will help the City Council’s understanding of the existing system, improvements
over the last decade, recent planning efforts, maps of planned improvements, and approved goals
and policies. Supplemental information is provided below about the timeline and resources of
past implementation efforts.
Existing System:
St. Louis Park has 109 miles of sidewalks, 35 miles of trails, and 5 miles of on-street bikeways.
The City clears snow from nearly 48 miles of sidewalks in the citywide pedestrian network, and
a limited number of trails, including the Regional Trails.
Past Implementation:
From 1999-2007 the City implemented several high priority pedestrian and bicycle
improvements that were identified in a 1999 Sidewalks and Trails plan This initiative was a
result of the Vision St. Louis Park process completed in 1994/95. During that time, the City built
7 miles of new sidewalks, 2½ miles of trails, several new neighborhood connections to the
regional trails, and made numerous intersection crossing safety improvements such as Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible curb ramps, crosswalk striping, street lighting, signal
timing, and enhanced signage.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation
In 2000, the City added the City Engineer position to help manage an expanded Capital
Improvement Program, including the sidewalks and trails construction projects. The City spent
approximately $3 million in general obligation bonds and Municipal State Aid funds on the
above improvements. In addition to the above projects, a few more expensive and complicated
projects were funded through partnerships with Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County,
and other sources. Specific examples include the $2 million for the pedestrian bridge over
CSAH 25 at Ottawa Avenue and the $300,000 trail on Minnetonka Boulevard from Highway
169 to Xylon Avenue. A few other improvements were built with private funding as sites
redeveloped adjacent to the city or regional systems. For example, a regional trail connection
was built by Sam’s Club at Louisiana Avenue.
Recent and Ongoing Community Support and Interest:
During the 2005-2006 Vision St. Louis Park process, the community showed strong interest in an
expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. It was a common theme across all
eight focus areas and action groups, and City Council made it a focus in its Strategic Directions
in 2007. Improved north-south connections were especially desired, and the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe railroad tracks were noted as a major barrier. Potential railroad crossings (or crossing
improvements) at Highway 100, Dakota Avenue/Edgewood Avenue, and Virginia Avenue were
all identified.
The recent Community Recreation Survey indicated trails were among the top two facilities most
desired by the community and north-south connections were mentioned specifically.
Recent Planning Activity
As a result of the 2005/06 Vision St. Louis Park process the City sought and received several
grants to help plan for future Bicycle and Pedestrian improvements. The resulting plans included
the Active Living: Sidewalks and Trails Plan, Minnetonka Boulevard Corridor Study and
Xenia/Park Place Blvd Corridor Study. The key goals, policies and priorities defined in these
plans were incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan.
Other noteworthy planning activity includes a Three Rivers Park District CP Rail Regional Trail
Feasibility Study and Southwest Light Rail Transit station area planning. Also, the City has been
a partner with Active Living Hennepin County for the past three years.
Noteworthy projects implemented since 2007 that improved the bicycle and pedestrian systems,
included the Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue interchange, Park Place Boulevard
reconstruction, 36th Street streetscape, countdown pedestrian timers installed at all City and
County signalized intersections in St. Louis Park; curb bump outs on Alabama Avenue; new
traffic signals on Louisiana Avenue at Oxford Avenue and Louisiana Circle; new regional trail
connection at Lilac Park, as well as reconstructed and widened trails in several parks (Dakota,
Jordan, Keystone, Fern Hill, Wolfe) and along Cedar Lake Road east of Highway 100.
Planned Improvements:
The highest priority improvements identified in the City’s plans would cost approximately $10
million (in 2008 dollars), excluding the Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue interchange. Below is a
general breakdown of the improvements and estimated costs (in 2008 dollars). Costs associated
with the ongoing maintenance and project delivery (staff, equipment, design, public input,
construction management, etc.) are not included and would still need to be addressed.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation
Sidewalks
o $422,569 construction costs for 1.86 miles of high priority citywide network
sidewalks
o $998,867 construction costs for 4.4 miles of high priority neighborhood network
sidewalks
o $2,150,129 construction costs for 9.47 miles of second priority sidewalks
Trails
o $224,978 construction costs for 1 mile of high priority trails
o $366,862 construction costs for 1.62 miles of second priority trails
On-Street Bikeways (combination of designated bike lanes, share-the-road, signed routes)
o $150,259 construction costs for 5.37 miles of high priority (north-south) on-street
bikeways
o $55,976 construction costs for 2.19 miles of high priority (east-west) on-street
bikeways
o $495,116 construction costs for 19.34 miles of second priority on-street bikeways
Other Improvements
o $3,000,000 for two pedestrian/bicycle bridges or tunnels
o $800,000 to add accessible ramps to the pedestrian bridge at 42nd & Hwy 100
o $1,000,000 to replace railroad bridge over Virginia Ave
o $360,000 for two new signalized intersections at Monterey Dr/36 ½ Street and
36th Street/Phillips Parkway
DISCUSSION:
Staff desire to discuss with the City Council’s the desired approach(es) for implementing the
Bicycle and Pedestrian System Plans and what target timeline is appropriate. Below are a few
examples of a continuum of approaches.
Mostly
Opportunistic
Make improvements or additions to the system when there is adjacent
subdivision or redevelopment.
Program improvements to coincide with adjacent pavement management
work or street reconstruction projects
Watch for grant funding that fits with planned improvements
Design segments and build neighborhood support for high priority
improvements, but wait until funding is available to build
Implement “pilot projects” for facilities that are new in St. Louis Park
Seek grant funds and funding partners, reallocate resources, or raise
revenue
Program and build high priority segments within 5-10 years
Program and build the high priority and second priority improvements
within 20 years
Very Proactive
Develop maintenance and rehabilitation programs and funding to sustain
an expanded system(s)
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation
NEXT STEPS:
After receiving direction from City Council, staff will prepare more detailed sidewalk and trails
implementation plans for City Council discussion at a future study session.
Staff’s tasks may include developing specific recommendations regarding:
budget and schedule for identified improvements
resources needed to deliver the projects and maintain expanded systems (staff, equipment,
policies, etc.)
potential funding sources
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
The highest priority bicycle and pedestrian system improvements listed in this report are not in
the current CIP; nor are the costs in the City’s operating budget for the design and engineering
work necessary to implement these projects and maintain them once constructed. Implementing
the plan will entail additional planning and design, significant capital costs, project delivery
costs, engineering and maintenance staffing implications, and on-going maintenance costs.”
As stated previously, the estimates in 2008 for construction only of the highest priority planned
improvements was approximately $10 million. In the past, the City has paid for these
improvements with G.O. bonds and Municipal State Aid funds.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community with an organized and expanded network
of sidewalks and trails.
Attachment: 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Bicycles & Pedestrians Section
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Cindy Walsh, Park & Recreation Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C1 ComprehensivePlan
Vision for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Systems
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
The community will focus on developing an expanded and organized
network of sidewalks and trails.
St. Louis Park residents benefit from two significant regional trails, a network
of sidewalks that encompass a large portion of the City and city trails within an
extensive park system. This system can be improved and in doing so, St. Louis
Park will become a more livable community in which its citizens can lead more
active, healthy lives. Filling in gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks,
crossing barriers in the community like railroads and highways, complete street
design, improving road crossings, and providing bicycle parking will improve the
existing bicycle and pedestrian systems in St. Louis Park.
Goals for the Pedestrian and Bicycle System:
• Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
• Establish a citywide grid-system of sidewalks every ¼-mile.
• Establish a citywide grid-system of bicycle facilities every ½-mile.
• Close gaps in neighborhoods’ existing sidewalk networks.
• Improve citizens’ transportation and recreation choices.
• Provide an accessible, convenient, inviting and easily understood system.
Where We Are Today
St. Louis Park has 109 miles of sidewalks, 35 miles of trails, and 5 miles of on-
street bikeways. The City’s focus is on upgrading, improving, and expanding
pedestrian and bicycle networks to meet citizens’ transportation and recreation
needs. The City works to improve safety and convenience of walking, biking
and transit use, preserve and maintain the existing system, expand the system
to close gaps, cross barriers, improve multimodal transportation, and connect to
important community destinations.
Recent Accomplishments
The City Council adopted a Sidewalks and Trails Plan in 1999, and has since
implemented many of the identified highest priorities. The City built seven miles of
new sidewalks, 2½ miles of trails, several new connections to the regional trail for
neighborhood access, and numerous intersection crossing safety improvements such
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 5
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C2 ComprehensivePlan
as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible curb ramps,
crosswalk striping, countdown timers and enhanced signage.
Most recently, the City built a pedestrian bridge over CSAH 25
that helps link Carpenter Park and the northern side of the city
with the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail and other destinations
to the south.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks
The City organizes its pedestrian and sidewalk networks into three
categories: regional, citywide, and neighborhood systems. These
categories help describe or prescribe the purpose, connections,
design, activity, and maintenance level of each system.
Regional System
The City is fortunate to have two regional trails that loop through
the City and extend for miles east and west. The Cedar Lake LRT
Regional Trail stretches from Hopkins to the Midtown Greenway
in Minneapolis. The North Cedar Lake Regional Trail starts
at Highway 169 and Excelsior Boulevard (intersecting with the
Cedar Lake LRT) and connects to downtown Minneapolis. Both
trails link up with the celebrated Minneapolis Grand Rounds
Scenic Byway that encircles most of Minneapolis with 50 miles of
off-street trails.
A possible third future regional trail is being studied by Three
Rivers Park District. It would follow the Canadian Pacific (CP)
railroad corridor and could stretch from the Minnesota River in
Bloomington to Crystal.
The regional trail system is the backbone of the City’s bicycle
system. It also provides great recreational walking/jogging
routes. The regional system has the highest level of use and is the
highest priority for snow removal and other maintenance of the
pedestrian and bicycle systems.
In addition to regional trails, the City has a few on-road bikeways
that are shown on Hennepin County’s bicycle system map.
Minnetonka Boulevard from 169 to Highway 100 is the only
road that has signs indicating it is a Hennepin County bike route.
Citywide System
Citywide trails, sidewalks and bikeways make important
connections within the City and to neighboring cities’ systems.
These facilities tend to locate along major road corridors and
connect to key community destinations. The existing and planned
system provides pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and/or trails) at
roughly ¼-mile intervals, and bicycle facilities at ½-mile intervals.
City trails are predominantly within parks and open spaces. A few
trails run along streets, but many do not make continuous bicycle
connections. Instead, they connect with sidewalks and help form
the citywide pedestrian network.
The City has a few on-road bikeways shown on Hennepin
County’s bicycle system map. Some of these have basic signs to
indicate a bicycle route, but most are roads with striped shoulders,
or are noted to be used frequently by bicyclists. Examples include
Cedar Lake Road, Texas Avenue and Wooddale Avenue.
The City clears snow from nearly 48 miles of sidewalks in the
citywide pedestrian network. These sidewalks/trails are 5 to 8
feet wide. Immediately adjacent to key destinations the sidewalk
width, amenities and level of maintenance may increase. For
example, on parts of Excelsior Boulevard, the City collaborated
with neighboring commercial property owners to create special
services districts that help pay for ongoing maintenance of
pedestrian lighting, banners, landscaping, special surface
treatments, and snow removal.
Neighborhood System
Neighborhood sidewalks serve predominantly nearby residences.
They link to neighborhood parks, schools, shops, transit stops
and the citywide pedestrian network. City maintenance is
generally limited to fixing trip hazards. Adjacent property owners
are required to shovel snow from sidewalks by City ordinance,
and the City ensures compliance through random inspections
and complaints.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 6
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C3 ComprehensivePlan
CEDA
R L
AKE
R
D
TEXAS AVE SLOUISIANA AVE SWALKER ST DAKOTA AVE SPARK PLACE BLVDBROOKSIDE AVE STEXAS AVE SCED
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
Existing Sidewalks and Trails
16
September 11, 2009
St. Louis Park Community Development
0 0.50.25
Miles
Legend
Sidewalk
City Trail
Regional Trail
On-Road Bikeway
Road Centerline
Railroad
Municipal Boundary
Existing Sidewalks and Trails
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 7
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C4 ComprehensivePlan
Where We Are Headed
St. Louis Park is committed to provide street, sidewalks, trails,
and transit networks that are safe and inviting for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit riders. The City will continue its efforts
to maintain pedestrian and bicycle systems that provide
transportation and recreation opportunities for its citizens.
Changing demographics, shifts in transportation policies, and
increased awareness in the natural environment are shaping
plans for the future.
Emerging Trends
Important and growing segments of the population do not or
cannot drive. Children under 16, people with certain disabilities,
elderly adults, and people that cannot afford a vehicle need
alternative transportation options to live independent lives.
Other people choose to walk, bike or ride transit because it is less
expensive, non-polluting, healthy, and a fun activity for them.
Walking, biking and transit systems that are safe and accessible
can greatly improve the overall quality of life in the community.
Nationwide and in Minnesota there are many campaigns
that promote walking, biking, and transit use for a variety of
reasons. Some focus on accessibility, such as the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Some focus on safety, such as Safe Routes
to School and Complete Streets programs. Others focus on
health and preventing chronic diseases associated with physical
inactivity. Still others focus on protecting the natural environment
or creating unique and pleasant places. Each of these campaigns
presents compelling arguments to improve non-motorized
transportation and transit.
Current Plans, Studies and Partnerships
The City has been doing extensive planning for its pedestrian
and bicycle systems. The 2006 Vision process showed there is
a call to be a connected and engaged community and expand
sidewalks and trails. Below is a summary of these plans, studies
and partnerships.
Active Living
Active Living is a way of life that integrates physical activity into
daily routines through activities such as biking, walking and/
or taking transit to work or school, to do errands, and includes
other activities such as playing in the park, walking the dog and
gardening. The Center for Disease Control recommends that
adults get 30 minutes, and children get 60 minutes, of moderately
physical activity per day most days of the week.
• Active Living Hennepin Communities Partnership:
This partnership includes Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota,
Hennepin County, the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Park,
Excelsior, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Independence and St. Louis
Park, and representatives from the health care, development
and architecture professions. Its mission is to “Plan, provide
and promote active living environments and opportunities
for everyone.” St. Louis Park is helping this group to develop
policies relating to physical infrastructure and programs that
support active living based on the principles that:
• Physical activity improves health and quality of life in our
communities;
• Places should be designed to provide everyone – regardless of
age, gender, language, ethnicity, economic status or ability
– with a variety of opportunities for safe, convenient, and
affordable physical activity;
• Development patterns should encourage mixed uses,
compact designs, and a variety of transportation choices that
link roads, transit, bicycling and walking;
• Buildings and their landscapes should be designed with
features that promote opportunities for active living and
active transportation, including highly visible stairs,
orientation to streets and sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and
transit stops at main building entries; and
• Transportation systems, including transit and trails,
should provide safe, convenient, and affordable access to
destinations such as housing, employment, schools, and
community services.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 8
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Junior High School
Cedar Manor
School
Peter Hobart
School
Benilde-St. Margaret’s
School
JCCTalmud Torah School& Jewish Day School
Torah Academy
GrovesAcademy
Senior High
School
Park SpanishImmersion
SusanLindgrenSchool
Most Holy Trinity School
Whole LearningSchool
Church of the
Holy Family
Aquila
School
Metropolitan
Open School
1/4 Mile Radius
1/2 Mile Radius
Current Walk Zone
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Texa-Tonka
Knollwood
Mall
Excelsior
& Grand
Elmwood
Area
WestEnd
1/4 Mile Radius
Walking Distance to Transit Stops Walking Distance to Parks
1/4 Mile Conceptual Sidewalk Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
1/2 Mile Conceptual Bicycle Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/4
Mile Grid
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/2
Mile Grid
Analysis Diagrams Draft Oct. 6, 2007
Walking Distance to Schools Walking Distance to Community
Gathering Centers
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Junior High School
Cedar Manor School
Peter HobartSchool
Benilde-St. Margaret’s
School
JCCTalmud Torah School
& Jewish Day School
Torah Academy
GrovesAcademy
Senior High
School
Park SpanishImmersion
SusanLindgrenSchool
Most Holy Trinity School
Whole LearningSchool
Church of theHoly Family
AquilaSchool
Metropolitan
Open School
1/4 Mile Radius
1/2 Mile Radius
Current Walk Zone
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Texa-Tonka
Knollwood
Mall
Excelsior
& Grand
Elmwood
Area
WestEnd
1/4 Mile Radius
Walking Distance to Transit Stops Walking Distance to Parks
1/4 Mile Conceptual Sidewalk Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
1/2 Mile Conceptual Bicycle Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/4
Mile Grid
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/2
Mile Grid
Analysis Diagrams Draft Oct. 6, 2007
Walking Distance to Schools Walking Distance to Community
Gathering Centers
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Junior High
School
Cedar Manor School
Peter HobartSchool
Benilde-St. Margaret’sSchool
JCC
Talmud Torah School& Jewish Day School
Torah Academy
GrovesAcademy
Senior HighSchool
Park SpanishImmersion
Susan
LindgrenSchool
Most Holy Trinity School
Whole Learning
School
Church of theHoly Family
AquilaSchool
MetropolitanOpen School
1/4 Mile Radius
1/2 Mile Radius
Current Walk Zone
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
1/2 Mile Radius
1/4 Mile Radius
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Texa-Tonka
Knollwood
Mall
Excelsior
& Grand
ElmwoodArea
West
End
1/4 Mile Radius
Walking Distance to Transit Stops Walking Distance to Parks
1/4 Mile Conceptual Sidewalk Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
1/2 Mile Conceptual Bicycle Grid
(Goal grid system to link destinations)
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/4
Mile Grid
4,000 FEET2,0000
Scale:
North
Conceptual 1/2
Mile Grid
Analysis Diagrams Draft Oct. 6, 2007
Walking Distance to Schools Walking Distance to Community
Gathering Centers
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C5 ComprehensivePlan
• Active Living, Sidewalks and Trails Plan:
This plan establishes a vision for the City’s future pedestrian
and bicycle networks. It highlights the City’s advances over the
past ten years, and describes the existing sidewalk, trail, and
transit systems. The plan also recognizes the need for additional
study of important corridors and more public engagement at the
neighborhood level as the City implements the plan.
This plan built upon the recommendations of the Vision St.
Louis Park Action Teams and the 1999 Sidewalks and Trails
Plan. The planning process included a thorough public review
and analysis process that included an 8-member citizen advisory
committee, a community workshop, a community open house,
and input from the Planning Commission and Parks and
Recreation Advisory Commission. This plan identified places
in the community where pedestrian and bicycle access is most
important to its citizens. The process revealed gaps in St. Louis
Park’s pedestrian and bicycle networks, and began to prioritize
areas where the City should concentrate its efforts.
Analysis Diagrams
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 9
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C6 ComprehensivePlan
Pedestrian Network Plan
16
0 0.50.25
Miles
Future Sidewalks
Priority 1
Priority 2
Existing Sidewalks
Future Trail
Priority 1
Priority 2
Existing Trails
Pedestrian Plan
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 10
Bicycle Network Plan
16
Future Bikeway
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Existing Bikeways
Future Trail
Priority 1
Priority 2
Existing Trails
0 0.50.25
Miles
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C7 ComprehensivePlan
Bicycle Plan
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 11
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C8 ComprehensivePlan
Minnetonka Boulevard Design Plan
This plan is a collaboration between Hennepin County and the
cities of Minnetonka, Hopkins and St. Louis Park to conceive a
travel corridor that addresses the needs of a variety of commuting,
recreational and local travelers. The study focused on Minnetonka
Boulevard from Interstate 494 to State Highway 100, includes a
key segment of the road that links two city halls and establishes
core design concepts that could be applied farther east and west on
the corridor. The Design Plan capitalizes on the corridor’s natural
setting, cultural resources and location between major lakes and
adjacent regional trails.
Citizens provided comments about how the road functions, how
it looks, and how local citizens were using it. They also identified
which potential improvements they would give the highest (or
lowest) priority. The top priorities for improvements were:
• Pedestrian safety improvements
• Providing a continuous east-west bike route
• Creating a multi-modal scenic corridor (“Link to the Lakes”)
• Additional Tree Planting/Landscaping
The Design Plan identifies important functions of the boulevard,
develops a set of general principles, and suggests a range of ways
to address multiple modes of transportation from commuting
to recreation to local shopping. Based on a positive response
received at the two public meetings, an overall theme of “Link
to the Lakes” was recommended, which ultimately could extend
from Lake Minnetonka to the Minneapolis Grand Rounds. In
addition, the overall idea of making Minnetonka Boulevard as a
“Scenic Corridor” was strongly endorsed.
The Design Plan presents recommendations in diagrammatic
form for the entire study area and on several prototype plans at
key intersections along the corridor. The first of two diagrammatic
plans, entitled “Bike and Trail Improvement Opportunities”,
describes these four general design principles:
• Provide for a continuous on-street bike route
• Enhance pedestrian crossings, especially at primary intersections
• Create better connections to regional trails
• Provide additional bike and transit support facilities
The second diagrammatic plan, entitled “Landscape and
Streetscape Opportunities”, describes these five general
design principles:
• Emphasize the natural landscape by framing views and by
installing new plantings within the road ROW and on adjacent
institutional properties.
• Use formal arrangements of trees and lighting in commercial
areas only.
• Use landscape as the main unifier along the corridor; allow
other features to change between districts to reflect their
unique identities.
• Develop a hierarchy of gateways, at highway interchanges,
commercial districts and at pedestrian crossings, to reinforce
regional and city identity.
• Identify opportunities to improve views of Minnehaha Creek by
thinning out vegetation and to improve access for recreational
users of the Creek and open space areas.
Minnetonka Boulevard Design Plan
Landscape and Streetscape
Opportunities Example
Minnetonka Boulevard at Texas Avenue
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 12
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C9 ComprehensivePlan
Xenia/Park Place Area Plan
This plan studied the biking and walking environments within
the Xenia Avenue/Park Place Boulevard Corridor, located in
St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. It suggests ways to enhance
non-motorized connections in this automobile dominated
mixed-use area. The goal of this plan is to improve pedestrian
and bicycle connections within the study area, to and from
nearby commuting destinations and to the regional trail and
walking network.
Currently, bicycle and pedestrian traffic movement is constrained
by the lack of facilities and uncomfortable conditions for biking
and walking. Bicycle and pedestrian movement is limited by
heavy traffic, railways, Highways I-394 and TH 100, and by areas
without safe travel ways. The study area contains large businesses
and regional commercial/retail uses that draw employees and
customers from all over the metro area.
The plan suggests enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian
connections across Trunk Highway 100, Interstate 394, and
the BNSF and CP railroad corridors, as well as to adjacent
neighborhoods, existing regional trails, transit stops, key
destinations and employment concentrations. The plan also
provides a set of informative guidelines to create and support a
functional non-motorized transportation system.
The following improvements are recommended by the plan:
First priority improvements include:
• Bikeway striping, signing, and lane marking projects along
corridors with wide shoulders
• Adding a pedestrian and bike bridge over the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) railroad near TH 100 to
connect to the Cedar Lake Trail
• Adding bicycle parking at retail areas and employment centers
• Sidewalk additions within a Xenia/Park Place area called a
“walkability zone”
Near-term improvements include:
• Adding at-grade crossings across the BNSF railroad tracks near
Dakota Park
• Improving the pedestrian/bicycle crossing of I-394 along the
Xenia Ave./Park Place Blvd. bridge
• Adding new off-street trail facilities to encourage connectivity
• Working with retailers and developers to incorporate pedestrian/
bicycle friendly design
• Encouraging area employers to provide secure bicycle parking
for employees
Long-term improvements include:
• Incorporate a regional trail along the Canadian Pacific Railroad,
in conjunction with Three Rivers Parks District
• Construct a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge over I-394 just east of
the Xenia Ave./Park Place Blvd. bridge
• Connection over I-394 on the Xenia Ave./Park Place
Blvd. Bridge
• Connections to the Cedar Lake Regional Trail from the north,
crossing the BNSF railroad
This study is a step in the realization of a more walkable, more
bikeable, more mobile community. Many cities recognize that
a healthy community is a vibrant and prosperous community.
Providing trail and sidewalk connections allows the option of
choosing to bike or walk rather than driving.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 13
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C10 ComprehensivePlan
Page 28FIGURE 15.WALKABILITY ZONE MAPPark Place Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Study
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 14
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C11 ComprehensivePlan
Park Place Boulevard Street Sections
Cedar Lake Road West of Park Place Boulevard (Existing)Cedar Lake Road West of Park Place Boulevard (Future concept)
Possibilities for Park Place Boulevard/Xenia Avenue Bridge over I 394 Possibilities for Park Place Boulevard/Xenia Avenue Bridge over I 394
Possibilities for Park Place Boulevard/Xenia Avenue Bridge over I 394
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 15
V. Connecting Our Community
V-C12 ComprehensivePlan
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
kj
kj
kj
kj
!/
!/
!/
!/
!/
"/
"/!/
!/!/!/"/!/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
(/961
!"#493
"ÿ001
"ÿ001
(/961
(/961
!"#493
456761
456761
456771
45673
45673
45675 45675
ff7
CEDA
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
TEXAS AVE SLOUISIANA AVE SWALKER STDAKOTA AVE SFORD RDBELTLINE BLVDPARK PLACE BLVDBROOKSIDE AVE SCE
D
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
TEXAS AVE SDAKOTA AVE SFORD RDIntersection and Bridge Improvements Plan
Connecting Our Community
16 September 11, 2009
St. Louis Park Community Development
Bicycles and Pedestrians
Future Intersection Improvements
!/Priority 1
"/Priority 2
Future Bridge Improvements
kj Future Bridge
kj Future Bridge Improvement Ü 0 0.50.25
Miles
PlanComprehensive
Intersection and Bridge Improvements Plan
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 16
Environmental Stewardship
54 ComprehensivePlan
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C13 ComprehensivePlan
Goals and Strategies
The City of St. Louis Park is proactively making the
community a better place to live. Designing and operating a
transportation network that assures safety and accessibility
for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
riders is a key component of that effort. Improving the City’s
bicycle and pedestrian systems will provide transportation
and recreation choices that are safe, healthy, economical,
environmentally friendly, and available to all people.
Safety Goals
Improve the safety of the bicycle and pedestrian networks.
Goal 1
Systematically review and improve bicycle and pedestrian
crossings at major road intersections, highways and
railroad tracks.
Strategy A
Install countdown timers at all signalized intersections as
new signal are installed or existing signals are routinely
replaced or upgraded.
Strategy B
Consider improvements to lighting, striping or other
measures at intersections having repeated crashes
involving pedestrians or bicycles.
Goal 2
Provide for the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit
riders when designing roads and road improvements.
Strategy A
Prepare and consider a Complete Streets resolution and
policy. (Complete Streets are designed and operated to
enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists,
motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to
safely move along and across a complete street.)
City-wide Sidewalk Network Goals
Goal 3
Work toward a citywide grid system of sidewalks spaced
approximately every 1/4-mile (see Pedestrian Plan).
Strategy A
Identify funding sources for capital and operational
expenses to expand and maintain the city-wide
sidewalk network
Strategy B
Build new sidewalks that are part of the city-wide network
Strategy C
Focus on segments serving several key destinations or key
corridors as prioritized in the Active Living, Sidewalks
and Trails Plan
Strategy D
Continue the city’s annual condition analysis and
maintenance activities
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 17
Environmental Stewardship
55 ComprehensivePlan
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C14 ComprehensivePlan
City-wide Bicycle Network Goals
Goal 1
Work toward a citywide grid-system of bikeways spaced
approximately every ½-mile (see Bicycle Network Plan).
Strategy A
Identify funding sources for capital and operational
expenses to expand and maintain the city-wide
bicycle network
Strategy B
Build off-road trails and on-street bikeways that are part
of the city-wide bicycle network as prioritized in the
Active Living, Sidewalks and Trails Plan
• Provide new north-south bikeways connecting to
the regional trail system
• Improve existing east-west commuter bicycle routes
(Cedar Lake Road, Minnetonka Boulevard,
Regional Trails)
• Focus on corridors that connect several key
destinations as prioritized in the Active Living,
Sidewalks and Trails Plan
Strategy C
Work with other jurisdictions to study the feasibility and
alignment of a potential regional trail from Bloomington
to Hopkins along the CP Rail line
Neighborhood Sidewalk Network Goals
Goal 1
Close gaps in neighborhoods sidewalk network.
Strategy A
Identify funding source to construct up to ½-mile of
sidewalk per year to close gaps in the neighborhood
sidewalk network
Strategy B
Build sidewalk segments that are missing within a block,
or on a block that is between blocks with sidewalks
Consider incentives for property owners that petition
the City for sidewalk construction that close gaps in
neighborhood sidewalk network (i.e. fund installation)
Strategy C
Require sidewalks (or off-road trails or on-street bikeways
where planned and appropriate) on all new subdivisions,
new streets, and road reconstruction projects
Connections Goals
Goal 1
Improve transportation and recreation choices.
Strategy A
Provide on-road bikeways that connect to regional trails,
transit, and employment centers
Strategy B
Improve walking and biking connections to schools
and parks
Strategy C
Develop park trails along Minnehaha Creek,
where appropriate.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 18
Environmental Stewardship
56 ComprehensivePlan
V. Connecting Our Community
C. Bicycles and Pedestrians
V-C15 ComprehensivePlan
Options Goals
Goal 1
Provide accessible, convenient, attractive and easily understood
bicycle and pedestrian systems.
Strategy A
Improve way finding for users
- Maps
- Coordinated Signs (work with Three Rivers Park
District, Hennepin County)
Strategy B
Work with St. Louis Park School District or individual
schools to identify and promote preferred walk and bike
routes to students and parents
Strategy C
Provide bicycle parking with all new commercial,
multiple family residential and public facility
developments and additions.
Strategy E
Prepare new sidewalk performance standards that address
the entire sidewalk corridor from street to building.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject:Bicycle & Pedestrian System Planning and Implementation Page 19
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fuel Costs and Budget 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed. Given the escalation in fuel costs, Council requested information on potential
budget impacts. This summary is a comparison of budgeted versus first quarter expenditures.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information regarding this topic?
BACKGROUND:
Council requested information on how fuel costs are running compared to budget for 2011 due to
the higher energy rates. Below is information on this topic:
Fuel Contract: On January 1, 2010, the City of St. Louis Park entered into a contractual
arrangement with the State of MN and Yocum Oil Company to purchase a portion of its diesel
and gasoline requirements using a Fixed Price mechanism. This contract stipulates a firm fixed
price applied to a firm monthly gallon amount for a period of 13 months, and was renewed for an
additional term effective January 1, 2011. A new fixed price is effective at each renewal period.
Because municipalities utilize a stringent budgeting process, and are mandated by their
governing authorities to optimize effectiveness with little budget volatility, the Fixed Price
contractual mechanism fits perfectly within a municipality’s operational Risk Management
policies. Recent historical and current energy market pricing is extremely volatile, with price
moves averaging over 8 cents per day, and price moves of 25-30 cents just in the past 2 weeks.
The City of St. Louis Park has protected its budget from this volatility for the fixed gallon
amounts of its requirements. Because of the uncertainty of the future of energy market pricing, it
is impossible to know if the fixed price will be favorable versus the market prices; however, this
is not the objective of the contract.
We did an analysis of the City’s contract performance against the market, and to date from the
initial contract inception, the fixed prices have cumulatively favored better than the market, and
the resulting savings are 22.6 cents per gallon of gasoline, and 19.7 cents per gallon of diesel,
with the total savings shown below.
Biodiesel credit: Current IRS regulations grant a $1.00 credit per gallon of biodiesel. The credit
was applied to the City’s account on May 6th, 2011. Essentially, this is a windfall for participants
from the Federal government.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Fuel Costs and Budget 2011
Below is information on the savings we encounter by utilizing this contract.
Gasoline Savings/Gallon Gallons Total Saving
January 1, 2010 through May 12, 2011 $ 0.226 61,500 $ 13,929.73
Diesel
January 1, 2010 through May 12, 2011 $ 0.197 34,000 $ 6,694.13
Below are fuel costs and budget.
Budget: The budget for gasoline and diesel is as follows:
2011 Motor Fuels budget (Jan 1, 2011 – April 30, 2011): $295,000.00
2011 Current Motor Fuel Expenditure
(Jan 1, 2011 – April 30, 2011): $117,098.00
2011 Biodiesel Credit – May 6th, 2011 $41,914.70
Anticipated Motor Fuel Expenditure for 2011: Expected to stay within budget
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION:
Financial information included in this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
NA
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Director Dennis Millerbernd, Equipment Supervisor
Assisted by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
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:
Cavalia - The West End.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council generally favor allowing Cavalia to hold its touring show on the vacant
Duke property this fall? Please contact staff with any questions, concerns or comments that you
might have. Note – staff is proposing that representatives of Cavalia attend a special study
session on June 20 to discuss this proposal further.
BACKGROUND:
Last Friday Staff was contacted by a major international travelling show called Cavalia that
wishes to bring its production to the vacant future office building site at The West End. The
property owner, Duke Realty, and the production company reached an agreement to use the site
on Wednesday. Officials with Cavalia indicated they originally intended to hold the production
in Minneapolis but were unable to find a site suitable to their needs. They considered the vacant
site north of Mall of America in Bloomington but preferred the highway access, visibility,
demographics and proximity to downtown Minneapolis afforded by the Duke site. They also like
the immediate proximity of restaurants, hotels and shops in the West End area.
About Cavalia
Cavalia, based in Quebec, is one of the largest touring shows in the world. It was created by
Normand Latourelle, one of the pioneers of Cirque du Soleil. The show has been described as a
unique combination of equestrian arts, multimedia, dance and acrobatics. The production
company describes Cavalia as
A magical ballet between man and horse. It is a journey into a world of
profound beauty; an unforgettable adventure, visually breathtaking and charged
with pure emotion. Under the world’s largest touring Big Top, horses and
humans share the stage in dream-like virtual settings, created by panoramic
projections and special effects. Cavalia is a dream of freedom, complicity and
harmony; a moving and spectacular tribute to the bond between man and horse.
Cavalia has been touring for more than seven years and has visited 36 major cities in the US,
Canada and Europe. During that time it has held more than 1,600 performances and has been
seen by more than 2.5 million spectators. The show only visits a handful of cities each year and
the Twin Cities area would be the smallest market they have performed in to date. The show
features 33 artists, acrobats, dancers and riders from around the world and six musicians as well
as 62 horses, representing 13 different breeds.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Cavalia - The West End
Show Schedule
The production would be set up on the site in August with shows running from September thru
mid–November.
Each show draws approximately 2,000 people and there are a maximum of 7 shows per
week
Approximately 10 weeks of performances
The show lasts 2.5 hrs., including a 30-minute intermission
From Tuesday to Friday, the show is presented at 8 p.m. On Saturday, there are two
performances, one at 3 p.m. and one at 8 p.m. On Sunday, the show is at 2 p.m.
Ticket prices range from approximately $50 to $200. The show generally attracts an
affluent audience.
The Proposed Site
Cavalia has identified the vacant property on the eastern portion of The West End area (at the
southwest quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100) as an ideal location to hold its performances. The
site is owned by Duke Realty and is approximately 16 acres; ten acres of which are in the City of
St. Louis Park and six acres are in the City of Golden Valley. The Cavalia village includes nine
tents: the White Big Top, the Rendez-Vous tent, the General Entrance tent, two artistic tents, two
warm-up tents, the stables and a staff cafeteria. The White Big Top tent is 110 feet tall
(approximately 10 stories) and spans more than 26,264 square feet making it one of the world’s
largest. The stage is 160 feet wide (equivalent to a NFL football field) and requires 2,500 tons of
sand and dirt (100 truck loads) to build. Set-up takes 12 days and tear down generally can be
completed in three days. Four semi-trailers are utilized for offices and equipment. Once on the
site, the tour company expressed it is generally self-sufficient for all other equipment and
services.
City Approvals and Services
This is a unique and complicated undertaking. It touches on nearly every City department. The
fact that the site is divided between St. Louis Park and Golden Valley will require Golden
Valley’s approval and significant involvement as well.
Bringing the proposed show will require a series of approvals. Staff is currently working with the
City Attorney to determine how such a show could be allowed under the Zoning Ordinance.
Currently it is anticipated that the project would be handled as a PUD amendment or CUP. Staff
suggests holding a study session with representatives from Cavalia and Duke on June 20th so as
to allow them to further explain their site requirements and to gauge the Council’s support for the
project. Formal actions could then be scheduled for consideration in July.
In addition a series of permits will need to be obtained including (but not limited to): the tents,
electricity, sewer and water hook-ups, signage, truck hauling and traffic control as well as food
and alcohol sales.
Communication with the surrounding neighborhoods will also need to occur.
Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Cavalia - The West End
Economic Impact
Hosting Cavalia would certainly have a significant stimulative effect on St. Louis Park and the
immediate area. The show is expected to draw approximately 70,000 spectators to the city. The
show itself plans to spend approximately $2 million in the metropolitan economy. The tour
employs 120 people on a permanent basis. An additional 200 people are expected to be hired
locally. Cavalia estimates the economic impact of their show on local tourism in excess of
$500,000. Between the tour company and visitors the show expects to generate approximately
3,000 room nights. Equally important, Cavalia would bring considerable visibility to St. Louis
Park in general and The Shops at West End in particular.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Cavalia, and or Duke, will be responsible for paying for the services the show utilizes.
Considerable staff time will be needed in various departments to bring the show to fruition.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hosting Cavalia is consistent with the City’s vision of being a community permeated with arts
and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: Cavalia Presentation 2011
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
CAVALIA PRESENTATION2011Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 4
ABOUT CAVALIA⌐Since the fall of 2003, this blockbuster show has been touring North America, taking the public and critics by storm. ⌐From the very beginning, Cavalia has enjoyed sold-out, extended runs in every city it has visited. The reviews have been unanimously and overwhelmingly enthusiastic.⌐Cavalia is a unique combination of equestrian arts, multimedia, dance and acrobatics. It is a journey into a world of profound beauty; an unforgettable adventure, visually breathtaking and charged with pure emotion.⌐Under the world’s largest touring Big Top, horses and humans share the stage in dream-like virtual settings, created by panoramic projections and special effects.⌐Cavalia is a dream of freedom, complicity and harmony; a moving and spectacular tribute to the bond between man and horse. Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 5
ABOUT CAVALIA⌐Between 2003 and 2006, Cavaliawas presented in nearly twenty Canadian and American cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Washington DC and Chicago. ⌐In 2007, when the troupe crossed the Atlantic, European capitals such as Brussels, Amsterdam, Berlin and Madrid also fell under the charm of Cavalia. ⌐With more than 1,600 shows to its credit, Cavalia, oftenqualified as “a magical ballet between man and horse,” hascharmed more than 2.5 million spectators.⌐Cavalia was created by Normand Latourelle, one of the pioneers of Cirque du Soleil. Creator, producer and entrepreneur, Normand Latourelle is renowned for his adventurous productions.Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 6
CAVALIA COULD GALLOP TO YOUR CITY⌐Cavalia returns to North America after triumphantly touring Europe⌐Maximum of 7 shows per week⌐A minimum of 6 weeks of performances per city⌐More than 70,000 spectators expected per city⌐The show lasts 2.5 hrs, including a 30-minute intermission⌐From Tuesday to Friday, the show is presented at 8 p.m. On Saturday, there are two performances, one at 3 p.m. and one at 8 p.m. On Sunday, the show is at 2 p.m.⌐Economical impact of nearly $500,000 in the tourism and recreation industry⌐Investment of $2,000,000 in the local economySpecial Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 7
A GREAT SUCCESS DUE TO ⌐An innovative formula of entertainment⌐An inventive, spectacular and moving show⌐Unequaled performances⌐Effective branding⌐High-end positioning⌐A strong brand recognitionSpecial Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 8
AN AFFLUENT AUDIENCE⌐Adults 30 to 64 years old⌐Consumers of cultural products⌐Families with high incomes⌐Well educated⌐30% own a horse⌐60% are attracted by the show aspectSpecial Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 9
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOWSince August 28, 2003⌐Touring for more than 6 years on 2 continents⌐25 cities visited in North America⌐10 cities visited in Europe⌐7 countries visited⌐Over 2.5 million spectators⌐120 employees on tour including 44 artists, acrobats, dancers and riders⌐62 horses representing 13 different breeds⌐75 trucks of material⌐Presented under world’s largest touring Big Top, a majestic white structure rising some 110 feet above the ground.⌐One of the largest tours in the world Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 10
SITE REQUIREMENTS⌐The minimum required space is approximately 200,000 sq. ft. with a minimum of 350 ft. on one side.⌐A surface of 300 ft. X 300 ft. should be free from any other installations (buildings, poles, aerial wires, etc.) and should be reasonably leveled.⌐The site’s surface can be covered with asphalt, gravel, dirt or grass.⌐The site should be accessible to various vehicles, including 60-foot semi-trailers.⌐An electrical source of 2000 Amp / 3 phase / 480 volts or its equivalent is required on-site. We can also operate with generators.⌐Fire hydrant and sewer entry are required on site (within 175ft. from the Big Top).⌐We are generally self-sufficient for all other equipment and services. We bring all our tents, containers and offices, plus all electrical equipment.⌐We need parking space to accommodate between 600 and 800 cars.Special Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 11
APPENDIXSpecial Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 12
BIG TOPBOX OFFICESITE PLANCONCESSION TENTRENDEZ-VOUS TENTSpecial Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 13
SHOW SCHEDULEWeek Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week-3-11234567SET-UP SHOWTEARDOWNSpecial Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 14
FOR MORE INFORMATION:Ann DelarosbilT: (514) 879-9002 x 3015/ 1-866-989-2282 x 3015 adela@cavalia.caSpecial Study Session Meeting of June 6, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Cavalia - The West EndPage 15