HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/09/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Southwest LRT Project and Planning Update
2. 7:15 p.m. Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access
Closure Project
Written Reports
3. Deer Management Policy
4. Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. 2011 Evergreen Awards
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes for September 6, 2011
3b. Study Session Minutes for September 12, 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. Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance adopting fees for 2012 and set Second Reading for October 3, 2011.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 1st Reading of Ordinance - Native Vegetation Planting
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt First Reading of an Ordinance amending
Chapter 34 of the City Code relating to Native Vegetation Planting and to set Second
Reading for October 3, 2011.
9. Communication
Meeting of September 19, 2011
Special Study Session and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Authorize staff to enter into an agreement with CTC to complete a fiber optic study at a
cost not to exceed $50,000. The final cost would be determined by the agreed upon
Statement of Work between CTC and the City of St. Louis Park
4b. Approve a one-year extension for the filing of the plat of METROPOINT
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3851 Yosemite Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 21-117-21-21-0102
4d. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$52,952.45 for the 36th Street Streetscape Project, Contract No. 99-09
4e. Grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change orders
and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Projects 2008-3001 and
2008-3002 (Fire Stations Replacement), in accordance with the City Council’s existing
policy
4f. Adopt Resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project
No. 2011-2200, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for
bids
4g. Approve for Filing Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 28, 2011
4h. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4i. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes July 13, 2011
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.
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: September 19, 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:
Southwest LRT Project and Planning Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of the Study Session report and related discussion is:
1. To outline a structure for community input and moving forward on activities related to
Southwest LRT; and,
2. Discuss the City’s response to the recently issued Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
letter regarding Preliminary Engineering (PE) for the SW LRT project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What is the appropriate structure for providing community input on the pending SWLRT design
plans in general and the Beltline Station Area Design Guidelines planning project?
Should the City request clarification regarding the meaning of the FTA PE letter of September 2,
2011?
BACKGROUND:
The August 22nd Council Study Session agenda packet included a report which provided an
update on the SWLRT project and outlined a concept for how to include community input in the
SWLRT and station area planning projects. This report and the concept for involving the
community in the SWLRT and station area planning projects is based on and consistent with the
August 22nd report.
SW LRT PROJECT UPDATE: Preliminary Engineering Authorized
Since the 8/22/11 staff report was written one particularly significant change has occurred. On
September 2, 2011, the SW LRT project was authorized to move into the Preliminary
Engineering (PE) phase of project development of the New Starts program by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA). This is a hugely important step forward for SWLRT. It brings a new
level of urgency and reality to all the planning and design efforts that are underway or
anticipated for the SW Corridor and the LRT project itself. This means it is all the more
important and timely that the City put in place its structure for communication and involvement
of all community stakeholders in the SWLRT planning/design process. That proposed process is
described later is this report.
FTA Preliminary Engineering Letter.
The FTA letter authorizing PE included a list of “key items” that the FTA said must be addressed
during the PE process. Of particular note for St. Louis Park, the FTA included items on the list
that dealt with (1) analyzing the impacts of relocating the TC&W freight line within the SWLRT
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); (2) required the freight rail relocation to be included in
the SW LRT project scope and budget; (3) referenced a Canadian Pacific “flyover” of the SW
LRT line; and, (4) noted the need for Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) involvement in
determining appropriate standards for safety features and separation between SWLRT and
freight traffic. All these and the rest of the items identified by the FTA must be addressed prior
to seeking entry into Final Design for the SW LRT project.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning Update
The direction provided in the FTA’s letter has significant implications for St. Louis Park. The
letter appears to mean that the issue of relocating TC&W freight trains is no longer a stand along
issue - it will be addressed and the cost of actual improvements will be covered in the SWLRT
project itself. This is potentially a step forward with regard to identifying who and how freight
rail decisions will be made.
While the inclusion of the freight rail issue in the SWLRT Project PE letter is a significant
development in the on-going freight rail/LRT debate, the references to freight rail in the FTA’s
letter are far from a detailed plan on how to proceed. It does not necessarily resolve the issue of
where TC&W trains will go and does not resolve specifically what mitigation for freight rail
relocation is needed. The FTA requirement to include freight rail relocation and the analysis of
potential impacts in the SWLRT project raises many unanswered questions about how this will
be done and what happens next. Even the Met Council, the recipient of the FTA letter, is unsure
exactly what the full meaning of the FTA’s comments on the freight rail topic means. With the
receipt of the FTA’s authorization to proceed with PE, the Met Council and FTA will begin
meeting monthly on the SWLRT project. The Met Council is not commenting on most of the
topics included in the FTA’s letter until they have a chance to meet face to face to discuss the
letter with the FTA. It is our understanding that a meeting will occur the week of 9/19/11.
In the interim staff is recommending the City send a letter to the Met Council requesting
clarification on the topics of particular importance to the City; namely the issue of freight rail
relocation, what the impact analyses will include and how it will be done. The intent is to discuss
a possible letter to the Met Council at the special study session Monday night. City Attorney
Tom Scott will be in attendance.
SW LRT PROJECT UPDATE: Schedule, Funding and Oversight
With the approval to proceed with PE, the Metropolitan Council is proceeding with issuing a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to engineering firms. Under the current schedule, work on the PE
would begin around March 1, 2012. PE looks at the details necessary to design and build the
line. It will take approximately two years to complete, and includes such items as surveys, utility
and soils investigations, detailed station planning, and resolving any other major technical issues
prior to beginning final design.
Project Schedule:
The current SWLRT Schedule from Met Council (subject to revision) is as follows:
SWLRT Project Schedule Year Status
Alternative Analysis 2006 Complete
LPA chosen 2009 Complete
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 2008-2012 in review at FTA
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 2012-2014
Preliminary Engineering (PE) 2012-2014 approved to begin
Final design 2014
Construction 2015-2017
LRT is Operational 2018
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning Update
Project Funding:
A pie chart showing the SW LRT Project (from Met Council) is shown below:
Organization for Completing the SW LRT Project:
The Metropolitan Council Management Committee will oversee the planning, development
and construction of the LRT line. Mayor Jacobs represents the City on this committee.
Meetings are currently scheduled monthly. City Engineer Scott Brink will be on a committee to
evaluate and provide input to the preliminary engineering proposals received by Met Council.
Other staff committees will be formed in the near future, requiring city planning and engineering
staff time.
SW COMMUNITY WORKS PROJECT UPDATE:
Southwest corridor-wide land use and infrastructure planning under the aegis of the Hennepin
County Community Works program is also moving forward.
Organization for SW Community Works:
There is a Steering Committee and Technical Implementation Committee (please see attached
chart) for Community Works. The Committees are working together and have developed a
vision and a work program for the group. Representatives from each city, as well as the County,
County Rail Authority and the Metropolitan Council are on the Steering Committee.
Councilmember Mavity sits on this committee with Councilmember Finkelstein as the alternate
member.
Transitional Station Area Action Plans:
SW Community Works is contracting with a consultant to complete the next level of planning
related to the LRT stations along the SW corridor. These plans are referred to as “Transitional
Station Area Plans” since they focus on short-term, immediate actions and redevelopment
opportunities in the station areas; steps that can be taken to move the station areas toward the
long-term vision. The County and the Cities will work together on this planning. The work will
look at several items necessary to prepare the stations for the LRT line. Specifically, “action”
items will be noted and prioritized in order that decisions that need to be made prior to, or as a
part of preliminary engineering, are well-thought through. These plans will include looking at
access and circulation, infrastructure and opportunities for economic development, and will
include a public process component to be designed by the cities individually.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning Update
Community Works is also providing some funding for capital improvements along the transit
line. Cities are identifying some of the needed improvements and working with the County to
include them in the SW corridor capital improvements planning.
CITY STATION AREA PLANNING EFFORTS:
The City is undertaking some of its own planning efforts to address specific issues that will
become important to the city in the changing geography with light rail transit and transit stations.
To date, work has begun on some of the aspects of the Beltline Station area. Grants were
received from Met Council to (1) study surface water management and to (2) conduct a public
process for creating design guidelines. For the surface water component, the city has hired Barr
Engineering and the work has just begun. The design guideline process, discussed in more detail
below, will begin this fall. In addition, the city has engaged SRF Consulting to do preliminary
study on issues and opportunities for access and circulation in the Beltline Station area. These
pieces will be incorporated into the overall Transitional Station Area Action Plans for the
Beltline area, and the work with Advisory Committees. It will help to guide the decisions related
to the station areas in the future.
The city structure for carrying out these planning activities is envisioned by:
1. Creating Advisory Committees for each of the three SLP station areas (Louisiana
Avenue, Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Blvd),
2. Holding a series of community meetings at key points in each projects process to
provide anyone and everyone in the community to have an opportunity to ask
questions, make comments and express opinions;
3. Creating an internal cross-departmental team to review and evaluate issues related to
the project and station area planning; and,
4. Hiring technical expertise as needed to assist in planning and decision making
Advisory Committees Concept:
An Advisory Committee is proposed to be created for each station area. The purpose is to have a
vehicle for community input and communication through out the development of the LRT line;
and, to be involved with the SW Community Works planning efforts. Several planning pieces
will need to be completed. A community Advisory Committee process would allow residential
and business neighbors to be involved in designing guidelines for future redevelopment and for
improvements in the station areas. Establishing the format for and assembling the Advisory
Committees in the short term will ensure that the city will have a means to gather the community
input it will need to address the rush of SWLRT design issues and SW Community Works
corridor planning issues that will begin to flow our way soon.
Advisory Committee:
▪ A group of representative stakeholders assembled to provide public input to the planning
process for Station Areas
▪ Make up 12-14 members
▪ Meet every/every other month
▪ Continue through LRT construction
▪ Stakeholder advice on formulating solutions
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning Update
Membership:
▪ Nearby neighborhood representatives
▪ Businesses, property and institutional property owners
▪ Planning Commissioner and PRAC Commissioner
Duties of Members:
▪ Attend and participate in Advisory Committee meetings
▪ Communicate to people representing
▪ Gain understanding of project issues
▪ Be open and listen to other’s/various perspectives
▪ Work toward consensus on issues
Outcome:
▪ A vehicle for strong communication between citizens, business and property owners, the city
and other agencies;
▪ Input into Preliminary Engineering and Final Design for the LRT line
Community Meetings
In addition to the Advisory Committees, it is envisioned that a series of community meetings
would be held at key points in each projects process. The intent would be to provide anyone and
everyone in the community to an opportunity to ask questions, make comments and express
opinions on the project in question.
Beltline Station Area Design Guidelines
The first group to be organized would be for the purpose of creating Design Guidelines for the
Beltline Station Area. Last year, the City received a Met Council Livable Communities grant in
order to help fund this process.
The intent of the Guidelines is to provide clear direction for developers and property owners
seeking to redevelop or enhance properties within the station area. The guidelines will help to
define how development should proceed to maximize the benefit to the property owner and the
regional systems in the area.
Schedule:
Written report to Council August 22
Discussion with Council September 19
Scope of Work September 26
Assemble Advisory Committee September
First advisory committee meeting Oct/Nov
2nd meeting Nov/Dec
Monthly meetings 1st quarter 2012
Complete Design Guidelines May 2012
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City received a $70,000 grant for two items for the Beltline Station Area Surface Water
Management and Design Guidelines. The City match required is 25%. Access and circulation
planning has been funded by the city. Hennepin County, with a grant from HUD, will be
funding the Transitional Station Area Action Plans.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The SWLRT project and station area planning is with the City’s strategic vision to be a
connected and engaged community.
Attachments: SW LRT Project and Planning Chart
FTA PE Letter
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) SW LRT “PROJECT” Met Council SW LRT COMMUNITY WORKSHennepin County Work Program: ▪ Station Area Planning Access and circulation Infrastructure planning Development planning Coordinate community priorities with project office ▪ Provide capital improvement funding Deliver SW LRT line Maximize community and economic benefits of SWLRT Corridor Management Committee ▪ Elected/appointed officials from participating agencies ▪ Mayor Jeff Jacobs Steering Committee ▪ Elected/appointed officials from participating agencies ▪ Council Member Mavity ▪ Council Member Finkelstein, Alt Other Committees ▪ Staff ▪ Business Advisory ▪ Citizens Advisory Technical Implementation Committee ▪ Staff from participating agencies ▪ Subcommittees on funding, access, marketing, etc.Work Program: • Preliminary Engineering • Final EIS • Final Design • Construction LRT • LRT related infrastructure SW Project Office CITY St. Louis ParkGuide land use and development City CouncilStaff Advisory Committees Work Program: • Immediate area of station • Station area land use planning • Development and Redevelopment • Circulation system Special Study SessionMeeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning UpdatePage 7
Special Study SessionMeeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning UpdatePage 8
Special Study SessionMeeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning UpdatePage 9
Special Study SessionMeeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning UpdatePage 10
Special Study SessionMeeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 1) Subject: Southwest LRT Project and Planning UpdatePage 11
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update regarding the public process
related to a proposed visual barrier construction and access closure project along Highway 169 at
22nd Street, 22nd Lane, and 23rd Street (Figure 1).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish Mn/DOT to pursue this project as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
History
On March 14, 2011 the City Council was presented various options regarding the possible
construction of future noise walls and access closures along the east side of Highway 169. Based
on the rankings of a noise abatement study combined with Mn/DOT’s desire to eventually close
direct access ramps between local streets and freeways, Mn/DOT presented several different
options and funding scenarios for the City’s consideration. A noise wall between 16th Street and
I-394 (on the east side of Highway 169) has already been programmed by Mn/DOT and the City
for construction in 2015.
Proposed Project
In particular, Mn/DOT has stated interest in closing the direct access ramps between Highway
169 and 23rd Street, 22nd Lane, and 22nd Street, and at 16th Street (east side of the Highway). If
the City agrees to closure of the access at 22nd/23rd, Mn/DOT has stated they would construct a
visual barrier at this location at no charge to the City. The visual barrier would essentially
consist of a 12 foot high wall, rather than a 20 foot high standard noise wall. The main reason
Mn/DOT is proposing a visual barrier is because the project type (access closure) does not
require the level of environmental analysis required by the Federal Highway Administration, and
this particular location does not have a significant ranking under the noise abatement study. The
visual barrier will offer some noise attenuation, but the main purpose is a visual screen.
According to Mn/DOT, a 2012 letting is required in order to utilize available Safety Capacity
Funds.
Construction of a barrier and closure of access to and from Highway 169 at 23rd Street, 22nd
Land, and 22nd Street has been discussed previously, most recently in 2002 when a short public
process was conducted. Public reaction to the proposal was mixed, there was not enough support
for closing the access, and the project was deferred for future consideration.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
Similarly, if the City were amenable to closing the access at 16th Street, Mn/DOT would extend
the noise wall (programmed for 2015) an additional distance south across 16th Street. At both
locations, Mn/DOT desires long-term to eventually close these accesses for safety reasons. In
the event safety concerns or accidents should increase and eventually reach a stage where
Mn/DOT feels closure is necessary, they will close these ramps without installing the barriers.
Public Involvement
At Council’s direction, staff began a neighborhood process for exploring the possibility of
closing the access at 22nd Street, 22nd Lane, and 23rd Street by conducting a neighborhood
informational meeting on May 3, 2011 at St. Louis Park Junior High School.
Over 30 residents attended the May 3 meeting, along with representatives of both Mn/DOT and
the City. In addition to the verbal comments received at the meeting, residents were also
encouraged to submit comment cards at the meeting’s conclusion. Staff contact information was
provided and residents were also encouraged to provide further feedback by E-Mail or telephone.
In general, many of the comments received fell under the following areas:
1) Concerns over the safety of the Highway 169/Cedar Lake Road interchange (particularly
access from Cedar Lake Road on to northbound Highway 169).
2) Existing cut-through traffic through the neighborhood (to and from the access ramps) was
stated as a safety concern (speeds, endangering pedestrians, etc.).
3) Safety concern regarding motorists on Highway 169 who often exit and immediately re-
enter Highway 169 at this location in order to “move farther ahead in the queue” when
Highway 169 is backed up.
4) Concerns over traffic impacts to Cedar Lake Road, Flag Avenue, the intersection of
Cedar Lake Road and Flag Avenue, and the 16th Street Access.
Staff subsequently retained the firm of Bolton and Menk to conduct a traffic study to further
assess and quantify impacts related to an access closure. In addition to analyzing the impact of a
closure at 22nd Street, 23rd Street, and 22nd Lane, the study also reviewed impacts related to the
access at 16th Street, both in a closed or open condition. Traffic projections for Flag Avenue,
Cedar Lake Road, and the intersections of Flag Ave/Cedar Lake Rd. and Highway 169/Cedar
Lake Road were also reviewed. In summary, the study indicated that any adverse traffic impacts
from a closure at 22nd Street, 23rd Street, and 22nd Lane would not be significant, largely because
of the relatively small amount of traffic that actually utilizes the ramps. In the event a closure
should be proposed in the future at 16th Street however, traffic mitigation measures for Flag
Avenue and the intersection of Flag Avenue at Cedar Lake Road would need to be considered.
Bolton and Menk’s traffic report provides further explanation and detail, and is attached to this
report.
A second informational meeting was conducted on August 18 with a slightly smaller number of
residents attending. At this meeting, the traffic report was presented by Bolton and Menk, and
additional questions were addressed by Mn/DOT and City staff. Additional comments were
also received. Although comments are varied and mixed, overall public sentiment appears to
lean towards closing the access at 22nd Street, 23rd Street, and 22nd Lane and construction of the
visual barrier. A compilation of all comments received are attached for further reference and
information.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
NEXT STEPS:
With 2012 construction funding available for this project, Mn/DOT has stated they would like
direction from the City regarding this proposal as soon as reasonably possible. If Council is
amenable to Mn/DOT’s proposal, formal consent for this project will be sought by Mn/DOT at
the October 3, 2011 regular Council meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
In the event a closure and visual barrier construction should proceed at 22nd Street, 22nd Lane,
and 23rd Street, Mn/DOT would fund this construction at no cost to the City.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Figure 1 (Project Location)
Bolton and Menk Traffic Report
Compilation of Comments
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Project
H:\STPK\T42103332\docs\42103332_Traffic_Study_Report.doc
M E M O R A N D U M
Date: June 17, 2011
To: Scott Brink, PE; St. Louis Park City Engineer
From: Christopher S. Chromy, P.E., P.T.O.E.,
Senior Transportation Engineer
Jacob Bongard, E.I.T.
Subject: US 169 Ramp Closure Traffic Study
22nd Street and 23rd Street Ramp Closure Impact
Project No.: T42.103332
I. Introduction
The objective of this report is to document and summarize the existing traffic operations on the
local roadway system and the affect of the proposed closure of ramp access for US 169 at 22nd
Street and 23rd Street. The study analyzes the impact the closure has on the volume to capacity
ratios on the adjacent local roadways as well as provides an analysis of three intersections to
determine whether ramp closures results in unacceptable delays during the peak hours.
II. Existing Conditions
Data Collection
In order to determine how traffic is currently operating in the study area, a traffic operations
analysis was completed for existing conditions at several key intersections and roadway
segments within the study area. Turning movement volumes, Annual Daily Traffic volumes
(ADT), and Annual Average Daily Traffic volumes (AADT) were collected from both field
studies and information from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for these
key intersections and segments.
Traffic data collection efforts occurred between the dates of May 17, 2011 and June 1, 2011 for
AM (7:00- 9:00 a.m.) and PM (3:30 – 6:00 p.m.) peak periods1 at the following key intersections
1. Cedar Lake Road at W. 28th Street
1 The peak hours varied for each intersection. The AM peak was from 7:15 to 8:15 AM on Cedar Lake Rd and 7:30
to 8:30 AM on Flag Ave, and the PM peak was from 5:00 – 6:00 PM at Cedar Lake Rd at 28th St and 4:30 – 5:30 at
the other study intersections.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 5
Page 2
H:\STPK\T42103332\docs\42103332_Traffic_Study_Report.doc
2. Cedar Lake Road at Flag Avenue
3. Flag Avenue at Club Road
Tube counters were placed to collect ADT data at two key locations within the project area:
1. Flag Ave (North of Cedar Lake Road & South Of Club Road)
2. Cedar Lake Road (West of Flag Avenue)
Figures 1 illustrates the locations of these key intersections and locations.
Traffic Operations Analysis Results
The traffic operations analysis for intersections and segments within the study considers the
following measures to determine the adequacy of existing intersection operations: intersection
delay/Level of Service (LOS) and volume-to-capacity ratios. An explanation of each of these
measures is provided below:
Intersection Delay/Level of Service (LOS):
A level of service (LOS) analysis was completed on every intersection that peak hour
turning movement data was collected to determine how well these intersections are
operating. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle as calculated by the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which defines the level of service, based on
control delay. Control delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as they
are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection, and the time for the
vehicle to speed up through the intersection and enter into the traffic stream. The average
intersection control delay is a volume weighted average of delay experienced by all
motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches. Intersections and each
intersection approach are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. LOS A indicates
the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS A through D
is generally perceived to be acceptable to drivers. LOS E indicates that an intersection is
operating at, or very near, its capacity and that drivers experience considerable delays.
LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity and drivers experience
substantial delays.
The LOS and its associated intersection delay for signalized and unsignalized
intersections is presented in Table 1. The delay threshold for unsignalized intersections is
lower for each LOS compared to signalized intersections, which accounts for the fact that
people expect a higher level of service when at a stop-controlled intersection.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 6
Page 3
H:\STPK\T42103332\docs\42103332_Traffic_Study_Report.doc
Table 1
Level of Service Criteria
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
LOS
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(Sec.)
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(Sec.)
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10
B >10 and ≤ 20 >10 and ≤ 15
C >20 and ≤ 35 >20 and ≤ 25
D >35 and ≤ 55 >25 and ≤ 35
E >55 and ≤ 80 >35 and ≤ 50
F >80 >50
Volume-to-Capacity Ratios:
Table 2 provides a method to evaluate roadway capacity. For each facility type, a
planning-level daily capacity range and a maximum ADT volume range is listed, along
with the level of traffic volume indicating a segment is approaching capacity (defined as
85 percent of the daily volume). These are based upon guidance from the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual and professional engineering judgment. A range is used since the
actual capacity of a roadway will vary based on its access control, speed, functional
classification, peaking and other characteristics.
Table 2
Planning Level Roadway Capacities by Facility Type
Facility Type
Planning Level Daily
Capacity Ranges (ADT) *
Minor collector street** 1,500 - 2,500
Two-lane undivided urban 1 (city center) 8,000-10,000
Two-lane undivided urban 2 (non-city center) 10,000-15,000
Three-lane or two-lane divided 12,000-18,000
Four-lane undivided urban 18,000-22,000
Four-lane divided w/ turn lanes 28,000-32,000
Four-lane divided rural w/ turn lanes 35,000-38,000
*If access is limited/controlled, roadway facilities listed may be able to adequately carry traffic above the
daily capacity threshold identified in this table.
**Acceptable traffic volumes on residential collector streets vary based on housing densities and setbacks,
locations of parks and schools, and overall resident perceptions. Acceptable traffic levels on local streets
in residential areas are generally 1,500 – 2,500 vehicles per day.
In addition to the daily capacity thresholds for roadway facilities listed above, a review
of peak hour traffic volumes compared to peak hour thresholds can also be used to
identify potential capacity issues. The Highway Capacity Manual identifies peak hour
traffic volume thresholds per facility type. Typically, peak hour traffic volumes
represent approximately 10 percent of the daily volume on a roadway.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 7
Page 4
H:\STPK\T42103332\docs\42103332_Traffic_Study_Report.doc
A measurement of a roadway segment or intersection’s ability to handle traffic includes
determining how close the facility is to meeting its capacity threshold. As noted above,
this can be measured in terms of daily capacity or peak hour capacity. A facility can be
either a roadway segment or an intersection with stop sign, traffic signal, or roundabout
control. A volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) is the proportion of the actual traffic utilizing
the facility compared to the facility’s physical ability to carry a specific maximum
volume. This is calculated by dividing the total traffic using the facility by the capacity
of the facility. This can then determine if a facility is sufficient to handle the traffic that
is expected to use it. A ratio greater than 1.0 predicts that the facility will be unable to
discharge all of the demand arriving on it. Such a situation would result in long queues
and extensive delays or diversion to alternate routes. While a v/c ratio below 1.0 is
acceptable, it is preferable to have v/c ratios below 0.85 to account for traffic
fluctuations.
The intersections of Cedar Lake Rd at W 28th St, Flag Ave at Cedar Lake Road, and Flag Ave at
Club Rd were analyzed using the procedures described above to determine whether they are
adequate both geometrically and from a control standpoint. By using the applications available
in Trafficware Synchro 7, the existing level of service, maximum delay, limiting movement, and
maximum queue were identified to establish the effectiveness of the current intersection. The
results shown in Table 3 indicate that the three intersections analyzed within this study operate at
a level of service A or B, with individual movements maintaining a level of service D or better.
This indicates existing lane geometry and traffic control provides for acceptable operations at
study intersections and each is fully capable of providing efficient and adequate movements to
existing traffic.
Intersection
#
Intersection and Traffic Control Peak Hour Limiting
Movement
Max
Queue
Cedar Lake Rd. at 28th St.AM 7 A 10 B 0.43 NBT/L 105
Signalized PM 15 B 23 C 0.77 NBT/L 245
Cedar Lake Rd. at Flag Ave.AM 2 A 17 C 0.27 SB 25
Two-Way Stop Control PM 2 A 27 D 0.35 SB 40
Flag Ave. at Club Rd.AM 8 A 10 A 0.09 SB -
Two-Way Stop Control PM 9 A 10 A 0.17 NB 20
*Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay, LOS, and v/c ratio on any approach and/or movement
***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Queues given for LOS E and F movements only.
Table 3: 2011 Existing Peak Hour
Intersection
Delay*- LOS
Maximum Delay-
LOS-v/c**
1
2
3
Evaluations of the volume to capacity ratios of the existing roadways were also performed to
determine whether acceptable operations existing on study area local roadways. The data
collection performed on the city streets along with 2009 ADT values attained from 2009 Mn/Dot
ADT maps indicated the following:
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 8
Page 5
H:\STPK\T42103332\docs\42103332_Traffic_Study_Report.doc
Table 4
ADT Volumes and v/c Ratios
Roadway 2009 ADT Capacity v/c Ratio
Cedar Lake Road 10,000 12,000-18,000 0.56 - 0.83
Flag Ave (S of 22nd St) 2,300 1,500 - 2,500 0.92 - 1.53
Flag Ave (N of 22nd St) 780 1,500 - 2,500 0.31 - 0.52
W 18th St 880 1,500 - 2,500 0.35 - 0.59
Hillsboro Ave 800 1,500 - 2,500 0.32 - 0.53
16th Street 425 1,500 - 2,500 0.17 - 0.28
In comparing the values in Table 4 to the planning level daily capacity ranges found in Table 2,
it is clear that Cedar Lake Road has sufficient capacity to accommodate the number of vehicles
currently occupying it on a daily basis. The ADT of 2,300 found on Flag Avenue, south of 22nd
St, falls into the capacity range of 1,500 and 2,500 shown in Table 2 for a minor collector street.
While the ADT value featured in Table 4 for Flag Avenue is within the acceptable range, the city
should monitor traffic conditions and anticipate resident concerns along Flag Avenue.
III. US 169 Ramp Closures
An analysis was then completed on the affects of ramp closures at TH 169 and 22nd St and 23rd
Street. These two ramps create a right-in/right-out scenario for traffic exiting and entering TH
169 in the northbound direction. A Mn/DOT application that provides traffic volumes collected
by in-road sensors was used to attain traffic volumes on the identified ramps to assess how
closure would affect the remainder of the study area. 12 days were chosen in the midweek of
October 2010 to establish the 2010 ADT and also to determine the percentage of ADT utilizing
the ramps during peak hours.
Table 5
TH 169 Ramp Closure Traffic
Ramp 2010 ADT
1929 (Exiting TH 169) 297 29 10.0% 50 16.9%
1932 (Entering TH 169) 231 5 2.5% 50 21.5%
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
The values shown in Table 5 were then redistributed over the existing network with the
assumption that the ramps at 22nd St and 23rd St were no longer viable options for traffic. These
vehicles were rerouted through the study area using methodology pertaining to existing speed
limits and roadway link distances. Traffic control (Stop Signs, Signals, etc.) was also observed
and accounted for when estimating the shortest travel time to and from various study area
locations.
For vehicles entering TH 169 from the study area, travel time projections indicated the shortest
route to be the 16th street right-in / right-out access for nearly all trips originating north of Cedar
Lake Road and West of Minneapolis Golf Club. This was the primary route due to the lack of
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 9
Page 6
H:\STPK\T42103332\docs\42103332_Traffic_Study_Report.doc
traffic control to the north of the closure as well as it being the more direct path compared to the
Cedar Lake Road / TH 169 Access. Speed limits are higher on Cedar Lake Road (35 mph) and
TH 169 (55 mph), but the lengthier distance traveled induces higher travel times and makes it the
less traveled route. A visual display of the entering TH 169 traffic can be seen in Figure 2,
where the two travelsheds illustrate the optimal path pre and post 22nd ramp access closure.
Vehicles exiting TH 169 using the 23rd St access will also be required to choose an alternate
route. Figure 3 shows the travelshed of vehicles exiting TH 169 to destinations within the study
area before and after closure of the 23rd St ramp access. From the figure, it is clear that the route
with the lowest travel time is that containing Cedar Lake Road to Flag Avenue. The right turn at
the 28th St and Cedar Lake Road intersection causes little issue regarding delay and the route
reduces the amount of back-tracking required to arrive at the same destination. While there is an
approximate location where it becomes more effective to utilize the 16th Street access, this point
is far enough north of the access closures that it can be eliminated as a viable option for exiting
traffic.
The redistributed traffic was then applied to the existing volumes present at the three study
intersections. Table 6 shows the intersection delay, maximum delay of a specific movement, and
the max queue accumulated at the intersections. In comparing the values within Table 6 to the
existing values in Table 3, it is clear that the closure of the 22nd and 23rd street ramps off TH 169
have very little impact on the operation of key intersections during the peak hour periods.
Intersection
#
Intersection and Traffic Control Peak Hour Limiting
Movement
Max
Queue
Cedar Lake Rd. at 28th St.AM 7 A 10 B 0.43 NBT/L 105
Signalized PM 15 B 23 C 0.77 NBT/L 245
Cedar Lake Rd. at Flag Ave.AM 2 A 18 C 0.27 SB 25
Two-Way Stop Control PM 3 A 34 D 0.41 SB 50
Flag Ave. at Club Rd.AM 8 A 10 A 0.13 SB 20
Two-Way Stop Control PM 10 A 10 B 0.23 NB 25
*Delay in seconds per vehicle **Maximum delay, LOS, and v/c ratio on any approach and/or movement
***Limiting Movement is the highest delay movement. Queues given for LOS E and F movements only.
2
Table 6: 2011 Existing Peak Hour + 22nd St & 23rd St Ramp Closure Traffic
3
Maximum Delay-
LOS-v/c**
Intersection
Delay*- LOS
1
While peak hour volumes were redistributed through the network, increased ADT volumes were
also compared to existing roadway capacities to evaluate modified v/c ratios. Table 7 shows that
the increase in average daily traffic does little to worsen the existing conditions on Cedar Lake
Road and other roadways within the study area. This indicates that while current conditions may
not be optimal for Flag Ave, it along with other nearby roadways are nearly unaffected by
redirected traffic due to US 169 access closures.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 10
Page 7
H:\STPK\T42103332\docs\42103332_Traffic_Study_Report.doc
Table 7
Comparison of ADTs Following Access Closure
2009
ADT
Traffic
Increase
Capacity v/c Ratio
Cedar Lake Road 10,000 297 (2.97%) 12,000-18,000 0.57 – 0.86
Flag Ave (S of 22nd St) 2,300 148 (6.4%) 1,500 – 2,500 0.98 – 1.63
Flag Ave (N of 22nd St) 780 231 (29.6%) 1,500 – 2,500 0.40 – 0.67
W 18th St 880 231 (26.3%) 1,500 – 2,500 0.44 – 0.74
Hillsboro Ave 800 231 (28.9%) 1,500 – 2,500 0.41 – 0.69
16th Street 425 231 (54.4%) 1,500 – 2,500 0.26 – 0.44
IV. Conclusions
In concluding the US 169 Access Closure Study, it is apparent that the closure of the 22nd and
23rd St accesses on TH 169 would have little to no impact on traffic conditions on surrounding
roadways and intersections. The intersections of Cedar Lake Rd at 28th Street, Cedar Lake Rd at
Flag Ave, and Flag Ave at Club Street are relatively unaffected by the quantity of traffic rerouted
during the AM and PM peak hours. The increases in delay observed at individual intersections
were so minute in nature that it did not affect the current levels of service. Volume to capacity
ratios were also relatively unaffected by the increase in traffic attributed to the described access
closure. Together, all of these events draw the conclusion that ramp closures at 22nd Street and
23rd Street would have little to no measurable impact on the local roadway network as a whole.
From this study, it can be seen that the 22nd and 23rd street ramps serve only as a convenience for
residents living in the direct vicinity of the ramps rather than an integral cog in the traffic flow of
the study area. These on and off-ramps are non-essential to minimizing the delay at the three key
intersections studied or the two-lane residential streets within the project area. The intersection
of Cedar Lake Road at Flag Avenue observes a 55% and 50% increase in eastbound left-turning
traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. While this appears to be a substantial
increase compared to current conditions, the intersection continues to operate at an acceptable
level under its current lane geometry and traffic control. These results indicate that there is not a
current need to mitigate the intersection of Cedar Lake Road at Flag Avenue.
The traffic volume on 16th Street could expect to increase by 50% or more due to the redirected
trips entering US 169, however overall daily and peak hour volumes remain well within
acceptable levels for a residential collector street.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 11
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 12
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 13
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update Page 14
09/13/2011TH 169 Access CommentsDateCommentComment Card 05/03/2011 Cedar Lake Road/TH 169 interchange needs improvement first. Traffic control needed at Flag and Cedar Lake Road.Comment Card 05/03/2011 Supports closure, but feels ramp from Cedar Lake Road to NB Highway 169 needs attention.Feels traffic control is needed at intersection of Flag and Cedar Lake Road. Feels closure of ramps at16th should be done as well.Comment Card 05/03/2011 Referred to similar public process conducted 10 years ago, and access remained open.Mentioned fire access.Comment Card 05/03/2011 Against closure. Mentioned TH 169/Cedar Lake Road NB ramp as unsafe. Concerned over added traffic to Flag Avenue. Concerned over emergency/fire access. Resident uses the access.Comment Card 05/03/2011 In favor of closing. Also supports closure at 16th.E-Mail 05/05/2011 Very much in favor of closing. Mentioned accidents/incidents where vehicles ended up on their property. Says existing frontage road is used as a high speed "passing lane" forback-ups on Highway 169, endangering peds, bikes, dogs, etc.E-Mail 08/21/2011 Reiterated support of closure and referred to past incidents (included photos)E-Mail 05/06/2011 Supports closure - Would especially like to see the wall more than anything. Expressed 06/20/2011 same concerns regarding Highway 169 traffic using the frontage road as a passing lane.E-Mail 05/06/2011 Appears to support closure. Concerns over cars speeding on the frontage road (using as a bypass) and safety. Supports construction of the wall.E-Mail and 05/06/2011 Fully supports closure - Present condition is dangerous. Cars speed from TH 169 on to Comment Card local streets - danger to peds - likes the idea of a barrier for aesthetic and noise benefit.E-Mail 08/21/2011 Unable to attend 8-18-11 meeting, but wished to reiterate support of closure.E-Mail 05/08/2011 Concerns over space in closure area (i.e., is there room for both a wall and a street).Expressed concerns over safety at the 16th Street access.Expressed issues with TH 169/Cedar Lake Road interchange.Had questions/concerns with regards to the look of the wall itself and maintenance.Letter 05/09/2011 Strongly supports closure. Increasing traffic has made current situation more and more dangerous. Concerned over safety for children and neighbors; TH 169 traffic using frontageSpecial Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure UpdatePage 15
09/13/2011TH 169 Access CommentsDateCommentroad as a "by-pass" endangering pedestrians.E-Mail 05/09/2011 Opposed to closure. Concerns over maintenance to frontage road and added traffic to FlagE-Mail 08/31/2011 Avenue and Cedar Lake Road. Prefers existing chain link fence over a wall. Questions Mn/Dot's claims/concerns over safety. Concerned about traffic impacts if/when 16th Street access is ever closed.E-Mail 05/10/2011 Support closure. Emphasized ped/ bike safety. Frntg. road connects neighborhood streetsE-Mail 08/17/2011 and has no sidewalk - cars from 169 endanger pedestrians. Feels closure would improvesafety. If money is available now, we should not turn it down. Acknowledges issues withTH 169/Cedar Lake Road intersection, etc., but issue at hand should be taken care of now.Telephone 05/27/2011 Not in favor of closing. Likes convenience and access for emergency vehicles. Questions for Mn/Dot - What is actual accident history, and could only half of the access (i.e. the southramp) be done?E-Mail 06/06/2011 General questions regarding the closure.E-Mail 08/09/2011 Supports closure. Concerned about peds, kids, bikes, etc. on the frontage road as highway traffic uses the road for a bypass.Telephone 08/18/2011 Appears to be opposed to closure. Likes convenience, access, etc.E-Mail 09/03/2011 Would prefer that a temporary closing be conducted first to evaluate.Telephone 09/06/2011 Resident and family opposed to closure - likes convenience, extra emergency access, etc.E-Mail & 09/06/2011 Supports closure and barrier construction. 22nd Lane is becoming more congested as it isTelephone used for a shortcut. Concerned about safety for children, etc. Also has safety concerns with regards to the ramp from Cedar Lake Road to NB Highway 169Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Project Update - Trunk Highway 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure UpdatePage 16
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Deer Management Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. If Council does not wish to make any additional changes to this policy,
this item will be on the October 3, 2011 agenda as an action item.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the changes to the Deer Management Policy?
BACKGROUND
The City of St. Louis Park has researched and taken action on the management of deer since
1993. Chronological information of previous discussions about deer management were provided
for the City Council to review at their February 28, 2011 Study Session. At the February 28,
2011 meeting Council indicated its desire to talk more about deer management and some options
for potential removal in areas of the City other than the Westwood Hills Nature Center.
The Council further discussed this item at their July 11, 2011 study session and reviewed an
amended policy. As the attached minutes reflect, council directed staff to add a statement to the
proposed policy indicating that staff would educate the public on an annual basis. That addition
has been made to the policy.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Changes to our current practice may result in the need to budget additional money for 2012. Staff
does not anticipate that any changes made will be cost prohibitive.
NEXT STEPS
If the City Council does not have any other changes to the policy, this item will be brought
forward to the October 3, 2011 Council meeting as an action item. Staff will attempt to
coordinate our management program with adjacent cities and focus on using public property
whenever possible. If private property is needed, staff will proceed with willing property owners.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Wildlife management falls under the second strategic direction “St. Louis Park is committed to
being a leader in environmental stewardship”.
Attachments: Amended Deer Management Policy
2010/2011 Deer Numbers from Fly Over
Deer Management Unit Locations and Goals
Minutes from the July 11, 2011 City Council Study Session
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Deer Management Policy
ADOPTED PROVISIONS FOR
AN ON-GOING DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(As revised by City Council on February 3, 1997, October 3, 2011)
I. Population Reduction of Main Herd: The size of the deer herd in and around the
Nature Center needs to be reduced to a level not less than the DNR recommended
standard of 15-25 per square mile as soon as possible.
A. Since the City is unable to get a DNR permit to transfer the deer elsewhere, the
use of trained and experienced St. Louis Park Police Officers as sharpshooters at
sites which are isolated and secured within the boundaries of the Nature Center is
the safest and most humane means to achieve herd reduction.
B. The Nature Center will be secured and signs will be posted to ensure the highest
possible level of public safety.
C. City Maintenance staff will field dress the animals and transport them to a
location designated by the area’s DNR Conservation Officer.
D. The animals will be professionally processed and all meat will be distributed to
food shelves or other charitable organizations which serve needy families,
whenever possible.
II. I. Population Maintenance of Main Herd Deer: The herd size is to be maintained at the
DNR recommended standard.
A. The City will contract with Hennepin Parks Three Rivers Park District and/or the
DNR on an annual basis to conduct a mid-winter aerial survey of the deer
population throughout St. Louis Park.
B. A viable method of immuno-contraception may be used to retard herd growth
once such technology is approved and available.
C. If viable contraceptive technology is not available, then the sharpshooting method
as described above will be utilized and will continue on an annual basis until such
contraceptive technology is available.
D. In order to discourage movement of the deer from the Nature Center into
adjoining neighborhoods and to reduce over-browsing there, a supplemental
feeding program is to be established, preferably in areas where the deer are most
likely to be seen by Nature Center visitors.
B. E. To reduce predation on other public and private properties in and around the
Nature Center, an ordinance banning residential feeding throughout the City has
been adopted. The City will continue to enforce the current deer feeding ban on
all properties.
II. Deer Management in other Locations: Problems associated with excessive deer
populations must be addressed in other locations throughout the community.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Deer Management Policy
C. A. The City will use data produced from the annual mid-winter aerial survey to
determine the size of the deer population in other areas. A permit from the DNR
will be obtained by showing the City’s Biological Carrying Capacity (“BCC”)
relative to how many deer are seen in the flyover. The BCC is the number of deer
that an area can sustain without damaging habitat. The permit from the DNR is
then issued for the difference between the number of deer that are seen in the
flyover versus the BCC.
D. B. On all other public properties, the City is to implement population reduction and
maintenance methods which have been approved by the DNR and are deemed to
be both safe and efficient in order to achieve desired population levels consistent
with current Deer Management Units. not less than the DNR recommendation of
15-25 per square mile of habitat, contingent upon adequate notification
procedures and Council approval.
E. C. On private properties throughout the community, the City will, with full
knowledge, consent and signature of the owner, make arrangements to implement
the population reduction of deer. and maintenance methods described in Section
3(b) above to achieve population levels not less than the DNR recommendation of
15-25 per square mile, contingent upon adequate notification procedures and
Council approval. Deer will be removed using St. Louis Park police officers or a
contracted private company. All deer removed will be processed and transported
to a designated food shelf or other charitable organizations to be distributed to
those in need of venison.
II. III. Other On-going Programs: Concerns about funding, public education and program
continuity must also be addressed.
A. In order to help pay the additional costs that an on-going deer management
program entails, the City will create a “Deer Fund” which will enable interested
residents and citizens to contribute toward keeping the City’s deer population
controlled and well managed. Deer Fund contributors will be allowed to
“earmark” their donation for specific programs if so desired.
B. In the event that individual property owners need financial help to implement
recommended procedures for reducing predation on their property, a request can
be made to use Deer Fund monies.
A. C. A comprehensive educational program has been developed by Parks and
Recreation in conjunction with Community Education to keep the public informed
on wildlife issues, with specific emphasis in the area of protecting private
property from wildlife predation. Parks and Recreation staff will annually
promote, through several city publications, the city’s ordinance prohibiting the
feeding of deer. Staff will continue to enforce this ordinance.
B. D. The City staff will continue to work with the DNR and neighboring municipalities
in an attempt to develop a unified strategy for dealing with this regional issue, and
to ensure that the wildlife management efforts of St. Louis Park are not in conflict
with the policies and programs of surrounding communities.
Golden Valley - St. Louis Park - Theodore Wirth
0
0
0
1
11
23
15
SOO LINECANADIAN PACIFICCHICAGO NORTHWESTERN
B
U
R
LI
N
G
T
O
N
N
O
R
T
HERNTWIN CITIES
WESTE
R
N SOO LINE
SOO LINE
BURLINGTO
N
N
O
R
T
H
E
R
N
§¨¦394
§¨¦394
£¤169
£¤169
")100
")55
")7
")7
")55
")100
")7
")100
UV3
UV40
UV81
UV17
UV102
UV25
UV156
UV70
UV66
UV20
UV5
UV153
UV25
36TH AVE N
32ND AVE N
THOMAS AVE NWAYZATA BLVD
C E D A R L A K E R D LEE AVE NLAUREL AVE UPTON AVE NREGENT AVE NNOBLE AVE NVINCENT AVE NKYLE AVE N38TH ST W
WALKER ST
DULUTH ST
KILMER LN N36TH ST W MAJOR AVE NOLYMPIA ST
10TH AVE N
THE
O
D
O
RE W
IR
TH
P
KWY
LAKE ST W
G O L D E N VALLEY RDFRANCE AVE N27TH ST WTEXAS AVE SLILAC DR N23RD AVE N
W ESTERN AVE
OXFORD STMENDELSSOHN AVE NFLAG AVE SCULVER RD
HIGHWAY 7BOONE AVE NKELLY DR35TH AVE N
ZENITH AVE SFLORIDA AVE SGEORGIA AVE SSUMTER AVE N40TH ST W
PLY M O U TH AVE N LOUISIANA AVE NCEDAR LAKE PKWYVALDERS AVELA K E ST N EHAMPSHIRE AVE NCALHOUN PKWY WPENNSYLVANIA AVE NQUEBEC AVE NBRUNSWICK AVE NLIB
R
A
R
Y
L
NORKLA DRJERSEY AVE SUNITY AV
E N GRIMES AVE N32ND PL N
CAMBRIDGE ST HIGHWAY 100 SMCNAIR DRLOUI
S
I
A
NA AVE
S
26TH AVE N
TRITON D R HALIFAX AVE NCOUNTRY CLUB DR
COLORADO AVE S16TH ST WZANE AVE NFLORIDA AVE N27TH AVE N
28TH AVE N
KNOLL ST N
HAROLD AVE
ALABAMA AVE SVERNON AVE SYORK AVE NDREW AVE NXENIA AVE NYATES AVE NABBOTT AVE SSANDBURG RD
37TH ST W
C EDAR LAKE RD SWES L E Y D R
29TH AVE N
XERXES AVE NCEDAR LAKE AVE
GOR
H
A
M
A
V
E
R I D G EWAY RDMANOR DRVALLEY PL
P A R K GLEN RDAQUILA AVE N32ND ST W
PATSY LN
35TH ST W
BELT LINE BLVD34TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE STOLEDO AVE SKIPLING AVE SPARK PL
A
C
E
B
L
VD SCLUB RD
B E T TY C R O CKER DR
JOPPA AVE SHANLEY RDADAIR AVE NBROOKVIEW PKWYSUNS ET B LV DMEADOW LN NLOWRY AVE N
39TH ST W
WINSDALE ST N
BURNHAM RDANGELO DRPARKVIEW B LVD
OAKD
A
L
E
A
V
E
N
EARL ST
HUNTINGTON AVE SH I G H W A Y 5 5 ZENITH AVE NKENTUCKY AVE N2 8 T H S T W
NORTH ST
VIRGINIA CIR N VALE CREST RDXENIA AVE SMARYLAND AVE SXYLON AVE N30TH AVE N
ZARTHAN AVE SDO U G LA S AVE
YORK AVE SXERXES AVE SFLAG AVE NWINNETKA AVE SWELCOME AVE NTURNERS XRD NBA S S WOOD RD
DIVISION ST
EDGEBRO
OK
DR
UPTON AVE SWESTWOOD DR SNEVADA AVE NAL
T
H
E
A LN
25 1/2 ST W
HAMILTON ST
CIRCLE DNS QUAIL AVE NBURNTSIDE DRPARKVIEW TERHILL PL N
VICTORY MEMORIAL DRS
UNSET RDGISLAND D R
ZINRAN AVE S31ST ST W
GOODRICH AVEAQUILA LN SUTAH AVE NGLENHURST AVE SGOLDEN HILLS DR
BEARD AVE SMEADOW LN S3 1 ST A VE N
TURNERS XRD SMAJOR DRABBOTT AVE NELIOT VIEW RD
JULIANNE TERNATCHEZ AVE N1ST ST NWENSIGN AVE NUTICA AVE S2 3 R D ST W
NORTHERN DR
BYRD AVE N
WESTBEND RD
26 1/2 AVE N
WEBSTER AVE SXENWOOD AVE S26TH ST W
16TH AVE N
21ST AVE N
FORD RDORCHARD AVE NM
O
N
TE
R
EY D
RNEVADA AVE S3 6 1/2 ST WYOSEMITE AVE SQUENTIN AVE SBOONE
A
V
E
S
ANN LN
B A S S E TT CREEK
D
R
VALLACH
E
R
A
VENATCHEZ AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W IDAHO AVE SLINDSAY ST
SHERIDAN AVE SBEARD AVE N33RD PL N
WINNETKA AVE NRHODE ISLAND AVE SFARWELL AVE
HAMPSHIRE LN N
GENERAL MILLS BLVDSCOTT AV
E
NVINCENT AVE SK
E
W
ANEE W
AY
LYNN AVE SVIRGINIA CIR S LAWN TERLORING LN
R
HODE
I
S
L
AND AVE N24TH ST WWESTMORELAND LN
POPLAR DR
OT
T
AWA AVE SDAWNVIEW TER
W
O
O
D
D
AL
E A
V
E
SOREGON AVE NTOLEDO AVE NHIAWATHA AVEHILLSBORO AVE NNAPER ST
DONA LN
SAINT CROIX AVE N
SALEM AVE S22ND ST W
Y U K O N AVE NOLSON MEMORI A L HWY34T H A V E N
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SOTTAWA AVE N34TH P L NPH O E NIX S T
TURNPIK E RD12TH AVE NINDEPENDENCE AVE NJUNE AVE SWISCONSIN AVE NPAISLEY LNGAMBLE DR
T
Y
ROL TRL N
PARK
L
NBRIDGEWATER RDC E D A R V IE W D RWINFIELD AVE NIVY LN
FRANCE AVE SBIES DRCOVE DR 25T H S T W
E
D
GEWOOD AVE NZEALAND AVE NEDGEMOOR DRQUEBEC AVE S18 T H ST W
BURD PL
OAK PARK AVE N
YOSEMITE AVE NPERRY AVE NCOLONIAL D
R
13TH AVE N
S T A NLEN RD
SAINT LOUIS AVERALEIGH AVE SWYNNWOOD RDGEORGIA AVE NEWING AVE NMARKET ST
E L MDALE RD
UTAH D R S
X Y L O N AVE SCHESTNUT AVE W
14TH ST W MEAND ER RD
DEA N C TCAMPBELL D
R JERSEY AVE N30 1/2 ST W
2 9 TH S T W WILLS PL33RD AVE N
6 T H AVE NCEDAR S HORE DR29TH P L N
34 1/2 ST W
CEDARWOOD RD
YUKON AVE SMCNAIR A V E N
SUMTER AVE SADELL A V E N
SAND RA LNWATERSTONE PLMED I C INE LAKE RDLANCASTER LN NJANALYN CIR
CAV
E
L
L
A
VE SVERA CRUZ AVE NDRAKE RD
DAKOTA AVE SUTAH AVE SAQUILA AVE STERRACE LNORDW A Y S T
MARYLAND AVE NDREW AVE SHAMPSH
I
R
E
P
L
N
FIELD DR
TYLER AVE NINDIANA AVE NL A K E V I E W AV E S22ND LN W
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
S
TIDAHO AVE NLE WIS RDR I DGE DRCHOWEN AVE SPARK E R R D
35TH PL N
EWING AVE SWOLFE PKWY
KINGS VALLEY RD
DA H L B E RG D R
35 1/2 ST WEDGEWOOD AVE S2ND AVE N
THOMAS AVE SROSE MNR
WINDSOR WAYT
A
F
T
A
V
E
S BRUNSWICK AVE SMONTEREY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S18TH AVE N
EWALD TER CORTLAWN CIR S KYLE PL
LOWRY TER
P A R K C E NTER BLVDMEDLEY LN N JUNE AVE NVIEWCREST LN
TYRO L TRL SBLACKSTONE AVE SKILLARNEY DR13TH LN W
PRINCETON AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SOREGON AVE SMADISON AVE W
PHILLIPS PKWYLA
K
E
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
N
VAN BUREN AVE NWALLY ST
BENTON BLVD
HAZEL LNBONNIE
LN
LEBER LN
VIRGINIA AVE SHILLSBORO
AVE
S
EDLIN PL
13 1/2 ST W
33RD ST W
PARKDALE DR
DECATUR AVE SGREEN VALLEY RD
24TH CT W HALGLO PL17TH AVE N
GETTYSBURG AVE NMERRIBEE DR
BROOKVIEW DR
MARIE LN W
H I L L L N S
WESTMORE WAY
DULUTH LN
WASHBURN AVE S21ST ST WWASHBURN AVE NHAMPTON RD
8TH AVE N
LIST PLOAK P A R K V I L L A G E D R32ND CIR NELGIN PL N
24TH AVE N
WINNETKA H E I G H T S D R
ROSE LN
30TH AVE N
1 8TH ST WTHOMAS AVE SUPTON AVE NFLAG AVE S30 1/2 ST WLILAC DR N30TH AVE N
UTAH AVE SCAVELL AVE SPERRY AVE N30TH AVE N
JERSEY AVE SGEORGIA AVE NUNITY AVE NZENITH AVE NINDIANA AVE N31ST AVE N XERXES AVE NFLAG AVE NBOONE AVE NBOONE AVE N36TH ST WEDGEWOOD AVE S37 T H ST W
29TH ST W
26TH ST W
HIGHWAY 100 SLAKE ST WYOSEMITE AVE SFLAG A
V
E SNATCHEZ AVE SLILAC DR N28TH ST W COLORADO AVE SKNOLL ST N
23RD ST W
BLACKSTONE AVE S29TH AVE N
JOPPA AVE SQUEBEC AVE SIDAHO AVE S37TH ST W
29TH ST W
34TH AV E N
14TH ST W
14TH ST W
HAMPSHIRE AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W
27TH ST W
HAMPTON RD
33RD ST WBOONE AVE S
XYLON AVE SJOPPA AVE S39TH ST W
32ND ST W HIGHWAY 100 S25TH ST W
35TH AVE N
KELLY DR35TH AVE N
26TH ST W EWING AVE NFLORIDA AVE NPERRY AVE NLOUISIANA AVE SSUMTER A
V
E S
31ST ST W
K
I
L
MER
L
N N31ST ST WMARYLAND AVE SXYLON AVE N28TH ST W WA
S
H
B
U
R
N
A
VE
NHILLSBORO AVE NINDEPENDENCE AVE N36TH ST W
34TH AVE N
OREGON AVE SYORK AVE N33RD ST W TOLEDO AVE SWAYZATA BLVD
H IG H W AY 7PLYMOUTH AVE N
29TH AVE N
JERSEY AVE SIDAHO AVE SZARTHAN AVE SNEVADA AVE SWAYZATA BLVD
OTTAWA AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SHIGH
WAY
55EDGEWOOD AVE NSALEM AVE S35TH ST W
34TH PL N 35TH AVE N
WINSDALE ST N
OXFORD ST SCOTT AVE N1 6T H ST W
ALABAMA AVE S26TH ST W FRANCE AVE N31ST AVE N
WAYZATA BLVDSUMTER AVE SINDIANA AVE N16TH S T W
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SQUENTIN AVE S28TH ST WRHODE ISLAND AVE N22ND ST W ZANE AVE NCAMBRIDGE ST
31 S T AVE NALABAMA AVE SXENIA AVE N31ST ST W
LYNN AVE S34TH AVE N
35TH AVE N
31ST AVE N
UPTON AVE SXENWOOD AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE N29TH AVE N
G O L D E N VALLEY RD
37TH ST W XERXES AVE NEWING AVE S18TH ST W
HIGHWAY 100 S28TH ST W
W A Y Z ATA BLV D
BOONE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE S36TH AVE N
NEVADA AVE SXENWOOD AVE SO L S O N M E M O RIAL HWY
2 2 N D S T W DAKOTA AVE SDAKOTA AVE S34TH AVE N
THOMAS AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SYORK AVE NMENDELSSOHN AVE NLILAC DR N8TH AVE N
HAROLD AVEFLAG AVE NLYNN AVE SRALEIGH AVE SCE D A R L A K E R D S
35TH ST WKILMER LN NWAYZATA BLVDJERSEY AVE NVALDERS AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE NOTTAWA AVE NOLSON MEMORIAL HWY
30TH AVE N EDGEWOOD AVE NRHODE ISLAND AVE NAQUILA
AVE N34TH AVE N
JERSEY AVE NZANE AVE NQUENTIN AVE S27TH ST WUTAH AVE SORKLA DRGO L D E N VALLEY RD
28TH ST W
10TH AVE N
33RD AVE N
H IG H W A Y 7 INDIANA AVE N16TH ST W
UTICA AVE SFLORIDA AVE SWEBSTER AVE SVIRGINIA AV
E
SYUKON AVE NGLENHURST AVE S22ND ST W
24TH ST W
PLYMOUTH AVE N
DREW AVE SOXFORD ST
LILAC DR N
UPTON AVE SDULUTH ST
TEXAS AVE S27TH AVE N
GEORGIA AVE NAerial Surveys
AREA_NAME
Golden Valley
Theodore Wirth Park
St. Louis Park
Lakes
0 10.5 Miles
±
This map is a compilation of data from varioussources and is provided "as is" without warrantyof any representation of accuracy, timeliness, orcompleteness. The user acknowledges and acceptsthe limitations of the Data, including the fact that theData is dynamic and in a constant state ofmaintenance, correction, and update.
Aerial Deer Survey2010 and 2011
Department of: NRMCreated by: Steven Hogg
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Deer Management Policy Page 4
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Deer Management Policy Page 5
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 11, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:50 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue
Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein and Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Kraayenbrink), Director of Public Works (Mr.
Rardin), Planner (Mr. Fulton), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Utilities
Superintendent (Mr. Anderson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Ms. Christina Barberot (Chair, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission) and Mr.
James Wisker (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District).
4. Deer Management Policy
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and possible revisions to the City’s current deer
management policy based on previous Council discussion in February. She noted that any
changes to the policy would be formally adopted at a City Council meeting. She advised that the
DNR does not require any type of public notification to remove deer and suggested that the City
work with the City of Golden Valley in managing the deer population by obtaining a joint
permit; staff also suggests hiring a private contractor to remove deer.
Councilmember Sanger supported the revisions to the deer management policy and stated that
residents have expressed significant concerns regarding the deer population. She added that she
felt the acceptable deer count numbers could be lower. She indicated that the City needs to
enhance its educational outreach to residents that they should not feed the wildlife.
Councilmember Ross agreed and supported the idea of partnering with Golden Valley.
Councilmember Mavity suggested that paragraph II.A. of the policy be amended to state that the
comprehensive educational program will be implemented each year.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Councilmembers in attendance to direct staff to
revise the City’s policy regarding deer management throughout the City.
It was also the consensus of the majority of the City Councilmembers in attendance to partner
with neighboring cities, including Golden Valley, regarding the management of the deer
population, and to work to ensure that the deer management policies complement each other.
Council discussed the notification process and the public record regarding this discussion.
Mayor Jacobs stated that this is a highly controversial policy and there will be residents in
agreement with it and residents who will be livid about the revised policy. He added that the
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Deer Management Policy Page 6
Study Session Minutes -2- July 11, 2011
City has a long history of providing notification to residents and cautioned Council about
changing the policy and not providing adequate notice to residents.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she needs to further study the material and would like to take
additional time to review it.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the revisions to the policy will come back to Council with a
staff presentation prior to formal action, just like any other matter requiring Council action.
Councilmember Santa stated that this is a policy which can be changed by Council at any time.
She indicated that the Park Perspective should publish an article about wildlife feeding, health
hazards, reporting deer/car accidents, and should contain the revised policy, noting that the City
is managing the urban herd in conjunction with Golden Valley.
Councilmember Ross pointed out that the City has already been managing the deer population in
the City and will continue to do so based on the revised policy.
Mr. Harmening stated that another draft of the policy will be presented to Council at an
upcoming meeting, followed by formal adoption at a regular City Council meeting.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Deer Management Policy Page 7
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required unless Council requests discussion of the item. This report is to provide
information on a process staff proposes to use to issue permission for residents who desire to
keep chickens on their property.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support the administrative rules relating to the keeping of chickens?
BACKGROUND:
In 2009 a report was sent to the City Council providing information from other cities that allow
chickens. This was a report only and no action was required or directed.
During the past year there has been increased interest from residents inquiring if the city allows
the keeping of chickens for personal use. The Code currently allows chickens if written
permission is granted from the City as specified in Section 4-1:
Sec. 4-1. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals.
No person shall keep or harbor any fowl, horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine in the city, or permit
the same to be done upon premises the person owns, occupies or controls without written permission from
the city.
The city has not granted written permission in the past to allow the keeping of domestic animals.
A recent survey of other cities including Hopkins, Plymouth, Golden Valley, Edina, Woodbury,
and Farmington found that they do not allow chickens or other farm animals on residential lots.
Other cities do allow chickens with varying requirements as follows:
Minneapolis allows an owner to keep chickens through a permit process that requires the
signature of 80% property owners within 100 feet of the proponent’s property.
Minnetonka allows for five or fewer chickens to be kept on one-half acre lots for non-
commercial purposes.
Richfield is the least restrictive of the cities allowing a maximum of three chickens, no
permit or prior notification to the neighbors.
Bloomington only allows chickens in the large lot single family residential district and
owners must maintain a 100 foot setback from the coop to the property line.
Burnsville allows up to 4 chickens on a residential property and set back at least 50 feet
from any residential structure on any adjacent lots and 10 feet from the property line.
Maplewood (effective January 1, 2012) will allow up to 10 hens dependent on the size of
the single family lot.
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required unless Council requests discussion of the item. This report is to provide
information on a process staff proposes to use to issue permission for residents who desire to
keep chickens on their property.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support the administrative rules relating to the keeping of chickens?
BACKGROUND:
In 2009 a report was sent to the City Council providing information from other cities that allow
chickens. This was a report only and no action was required or directed.
During the past year there has been increased interest from residents inquiring if the city allows
the keeping of chickens for personal use. The Code currently allows chickens if written
permission is granted from the City as specified in Section 4-1:
Sec. 4-1. Regulating the keeping of domestic animals.
No person shall keep or harbor any fowl, horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine in the city, or permit
the same to be done upon premises the person owns, occupies or controls without written permission from
the city.
The city has not granted written permission in the past to allow the keeping of domestic animals.
A recent survey of other cities including Hopkins, Plymouth, Golden Valley, Edina, Woodbury,
and Farmington found that they do not allow chickens or other farm animals on residential lots.
Other cities do allow chickens with varying requirements as follows:
Minneapolis allows an owner to keep chickens through a permit process that requires the
signature of 80% property owners within 100 feet of the proponent’s property.
Minnetonka allows for five or fewer chickens to be kept on one-half acre lots for non-
commercial purposes.
Richfield is the least restrictive of the cities allowing a maximum of three chickens, no
permit or prior notification to the neighbors.
Bloomington only allows chickens in the large lot single family residential district and
owners must maintain a 100 foot setback from the coop to the property line.
Burnsville allows up to 4 chickens on a residential property and set back at least 50 feet
from any residential structure on any adjacent lots and 10 feet from the property line.
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens
d (effective January 1, 2012) will allow up to 10 hens dependent on the size of
ch have expressed an interest in keeping a few hens on their
roperty, generally for fresh eggs, staff is developing an administrative process to utilize the
oncerns to be addressed in issuing approval include limiting the number of chickens within a
sembled coop. A site plan showing the location and
imensions of the proposed coop and fenced run in relationship to all other existing structures
a coop is being constructed as an accessory structure, Zoning requirements for exterior finish
onditions staff will be considering as part of the permit process granting permission to keep
reasonably possible. In most cases, a minimum of 10 feet should
dors are carried to the adjacent public or private property.
to the property for a pre-inspection at the time of the request
and at any time requested by the city to verify compliance with the conditions or in
permit to keep chickens will be for a maximum of two years, at which point an owner may
kens creates objectionable
dors, unsanitary conditions, nuisance situations, or other city code violations on the property,
ner were to continue the keeping of chickens City
e a city code violation and normal code
ent process would be followed.
Maplewoo
the single family lot.
DISCUSSION:
To accommodate residents whi
p
existing City Code language.
C
designated area and property sanitation to avoid creating a health issue or nuisance.
The process would begin when a resident requesting permission must complete an application
form. In addition to general information, details would include providing the proposed number of
chickens (no roosters), dimensions of proposed coop and chicken run, and information on the
type of building materials or pre-as
d
and property lines would be required.
If
and setback, and possible Building Code requirements, will apply.
C
chickens include:
1) Chickens will only be allowed on a single-family, residential property.
2) Limit of 4 hens; no roosters.
3) Chickens must be maintained in a coop and/or fenced chicken run at all times.
4) The chicken coop and fenced chicken run must be located in the backyard area as far
from property lines as
be considered by the owner and in no case less than the setback requirement for
accessory structures.
5) The coop and chicken run must be kept in a healthy and sanitary condition in such way
that no noxious o
6) Chicken(s) are for personal use only; no butchering or sale of eggs or chicken(s) allowed
on the property.
7) Owner will provide access
response to a complaint.
A
request an extension for another two years.
The permit may be revoked by the city at any time if the owner fails to comply with the
provisions under which the permit was issued. If the presence of chic
o
they would be grounds for lifting the permit for keeping of chickens.
If a permission is withdrawn and the ow
Attorney Tom Scott has stated that this would becom
enforcem
Special Study Session Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Administrative Rules for Allowing Chickens
, the amount of staff cost would be minimal. If numerous requests are made
nd the time demands become substantial, staff would evaluate alternatives and bring this issue
TION:
es Manager
eviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
pproved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
No fee would be required for requesting permission since this is an administrative process that
does not have a fee established through ordinance or identified in Appendix A. With only a few
requests expected
a
back to Council.
VISION CONSIDERA
None.
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Servic
R
A
Meeting Date: September 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Sanger, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt,
and Julia Ross.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations – None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes August 8, 2011
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger requested that the second sentence of the sixth paragraph on page
1 be revised to state “She also stated that Council has had discussions in the past
regarding safety issues at the Wooddale and Beltline trail crossings and requested that
Council revisit those issues and discuss how the City can make these crossings safer
sooner rather than later.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Special City Council Minutes August 11, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Special Study Session Minutes August 15, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. City Council Minutes August 15, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
3e. Study Session Minutes August 22, 2011
The minutes were approved as presented.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes of September 6, 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.
4a. Approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2403-11 amending City Code
Section 2-212 concerning Human Rights Commission membership and approve
the summary ordinance for publication.
4b. Designate Northdale Construction, Co. the lowest responsible bidder and
authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $203,434.28 for
Taft Lift Station Improvements - Project No. 2007-2400.
4c. Approve Contract with Three Rivers Park District to clear and remove snow from
the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park for
the 2011-2012 Winter Season.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 11-081 certifying the special assessment for Street
Improvements at 5700 and 5800 West 36th Street, in the total amount of
$13,770.40 -P.I.D. 16-117-21-34-0040 and 16-117-21-34-0068.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 11-082 Accepting Donation from Target Corporation in
the amount of $1,000 for Emergency Preparedness Activities.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 11-083 Accepting Donation from Park Coin in the amount
of $250 for Fire Prevention and Equipment.
4g. Adopt the Sanitary Sewer Service Line Backwater Valve Program (Revised
September 6, 2011).
4h. Approve Change Order No. 3 to Contract No. 99-09, 36th Street Streetscape
Project – Project 2008-2600.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 11-084 accepting work and authorizing final payment in
the amount of $9,098.29 for the 36th Street Bridge Enhancement Project, Contract
No. 36-09.
4j. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Most Holy Trinity
Catholic Parish located at 4017 Utica Avenue South for a Steak Fry Event to be
held on Saturday, September 24, 2011.
4k. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
Councilmember Mavity expressed Council’s thanks to Park Coin and Target for their
generous donations to the City for public safety related improvements.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Santa absent).
5. Boards and Commissions
Councilmember Mavity advised that Council interviewed two candidates this evening for
youth commission openings and asked Council to take action on the appointments.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to appoint
Emily Goldstein as a youth commissioner on the Human Rights Commission and to
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes of September 6, 2011
appoint Sophia Flumerfelt as a youth commissioner on the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Commission.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that one youth position remains open on the Human
Rights Commission.
Councilmember Mavity added that one adult position and one youth position remain open
on the Police Advisory Commission.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Santa absent).
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Adoption of the 2012 Preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation
Budgets, and 2012 Preliminary City and HRA Property Tax Levies
Resolution Nos. 11-085 and 11-086
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and policy questions for Council consideration.
He stated that the 2012 combined General Fund and Park and Recreation budgets is
$29,765,137, representing an approximate 1.19% increase over 2011.
Mr. Swanson presented the preliminary General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund
budgets as well as the preliminary City and HRA levies, noting that for 2012,
expenditures for the General Fund and Park and Recreation Fund have increased
approximately $349,000 compared to 2011. He indicated that the budget was prepared
based on a preliminary levy of 5.00% and is intended to maintain service delivery at
current levels. He reviewed the City’s tax levy allocation and stated that a significant
portion of the tax levy increase is attributable to debt service related to construction of the
new fire stations. He reviewed the HRA levy which Council has elected to use for future
infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. He explained that the HRA levy
cannot exceed 0.0185% of the taxable market value of the City, resulting in a maximum
HRA levy for 2012 of $983,574, or $45,314 less than the 2011 adopted HRA levy. He
also reviewed the proposed budget timeline and stated that Council will hold the truth in
taxation public hearing on December 5th with final adoption of the 2012 budget on
December 19th.
Councilmember Mavity requested further information regarding Council’s discussions
earlier this year regarding a possible 4.05% levy for 2012 and the changes that have
resulted in the need to increase the levy to 5.0%. She also requested further information
regarding the potential impact to the City as it relates to the State’s ongoing budget
deficit, including the market value homestead credit (MVHC).
Mr. Swanson advised that during the 2011 budget process, Council was presented with a
two year budget plan which would require approximately 9% over two years to cover the
City’s increased debt service for the fire station construction. He stated that Council
adopted a 4% levy in 2011 with the understanding that this would help mitigate potential
levy increases in 2012 and a 4.05% levy for 2012 was proposed at that time. He indicated
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes of September 6, 2011
that since the time of adoption of the 2011 budget, Council has identified several
opportunities for additional funding and requested that the 2012 budget include a 5.0%
levy in order to allow Council to further review these potential projects, as well as to
increase funding for the Employee Benefits and Housing Rehabilitation funds. He
explained that the changes in MVHC are significant and require that all Counties
recalculate their MVHC for residential properties; those figures will not be available until
September or October. He stated that higher value properties will subsidize the MVHC
that lower valued properties receive. He discussed other potential impacts to the City
based on the State’s budget deficit, noting that the 2012 budget will likely not be
impacted but future budgets may be impacted. He noted that because the City does not
receive LGA, the City is relatively insulated from the challenges facing the State. He
added that the City is committed to making sure it has sufficient funding in place for the
long-term.
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated that it is important to note that as a matter of State law, the
City is required to set its preliminary tax levy at this time, with a final determination
regarding the tax levy to be made in December. She explained that the City Council
cannot increase the levy at the time of final adoption in December, but it can be
decreased. She added that Council will spend the next couple of months refining the
2012 budget and tax levy.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated it is important to understand how self-funded the City
is, particularly given the elimination of LGA in 2002, which represented approximately
10% of the City’s budget. He added the City has been fiscally prudent and is one of the
few cities with a AAA rating.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
adopt Resolution No. 11-085 Approving 2012 Preliminary General Fund and Park and
Recreation Budgets, 2012 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Public Hearing
Date for the 2012 Proposed Budget and Property Tax Levy.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Santa absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt
Resolution No. 11-086 authorizing the Preliminary HRA Levy for 2012.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Santa absent).
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger expressed thanks to Mr. Swanson and Mr. Heintz for their
assistance in preparing the preliminary 2012 budget and property tax levy.
9. Communications – None
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Susan Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: September 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 12, 2011
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and
Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt and Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Organizational Development
Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Community Liaison Officer (Ms. Olson), Senior Planner (Mr.
Walther), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 19 and September 26, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for September 19th and the
proposed study session agenda for September 26th. He stated that the special study session on
September 19th is intended to provide Council with an update on the station area planning
process, including Preliminary Engineering.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has agreed to postpone the construction date for
Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue.
Mr. Harmening stated that Council will discuss this on September 26th and advised that Mn/DOT
has asked whether the City would be willing to postpone the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
project for a year or more. He indicated that the City has responded that it would be interested
but needs to know more.
Councilmember Sanger requested an update regarding Toby Keith’s.
Mr. Harmening advised that a report from Toby Keith’s is due September 15th and this item will
be placed on Council’s agenda in October.
2. Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and reviewed the policy questions for Council
consideration. She asked if Council is amenable to having staff members speak with private and
nonprofit groups to see what types of partnerships might be available for providing new or
expanded recreational facilities, including the Jewish Community Center, LA Fitness, and the
School District. She also asked if Council was interested in bringing in someone to talk about
demographic trends to make sure the City is meeting the needs of the community in the future.
Councilmember Santa expressed general support for the proposed process. She stated that she
has heard from residents that there are a lot of facilities available on the east side, but not as
many on the west side, especially for families. She added that Lenox has perceived limitations in
the community.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: Study Session Minutes of September 12, 2011
Councilmember Sanger stated that the main amenities listed in the staff report comports with
what she has heard, adding that there is a need for community meeting space where various
groups can gather in the City. She explained that neighborhood groups have had a hard time
finding meeting space and requested that the City consider adding a multi-use space for these
types of gatherings. She stated that a community center is intended to build community and
provide a place where the community can interact with one another. She felt it was not
appropriate for the City to partner with the Jewish Community Center or any other religious
institution. She added that the Jewish Community Center is located at the end of a dead end
street and is not easily accessible. She stated that in terms of partnering with other entities, she
would prefer to think of something along the lines of building an addition to existing facilities
that could be used as a community meeting room or an indoor playground. She also asked if it
might make sense to have a newer facility with a dedicated wing for Lenox so that seniors have a
place of their own. She added that she is more interested in having multiple functions available
in the same location in order to maximize opportunities for residents.
Councilmember Mavity stated that part of the question that Council should address is not just
what is available but how to use the facilities as a tool to create what is desired. She added that
one key is strong schools and what the City can do to make sure the schools remain strong,
attract families to the area, and maintain a balanced community.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated it will be important to understand the School District’s long
range plans for its various facilities and potential opportunities available to the City. He
indicated that the Convention and Visitors Bureau should be provided notice regarding the
community recreation survey, particularly as it relates to a potential need for a major convention
hotel. He urged Council to give thoughtful consideration to not only the cost of building any
new facilities, but also to annual operating and repair costs as well as staff time, which is why
partnering with other entities makes sense. He requested that staff compile a list of currently
available meeting space in the City to assist Council with determining how often various groups
are having difficulty finding available meeting space.
Councilmember Santa indicated that it appears there is a greater need for affordable meeting
spaces.
Councilmember Mavity stated it will be important to understand what Edina is considering and
potential opportunities for collaborating with Edina.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the use of a consultant in this
process.
Ms. Walsh explained that a consultant would work with the City on understanding trends for
aging adults, what types of things are going on in other communities, and what the City should
do to plan for the future.
Councilmember Sanger reported that the League of Women Voters is sponsoring an event at City
Hall on Thursday, September 15th, regarding demographic trends in St. Louis Park based on
Census data.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 3
Subject: Study Session Minutes of September 12, 2011
Mr. Harmening stated that next steps include developing and implementing a process to engage
the public, which could include creating a task force. He stated that tours of different types of
programs in various communities could also be arranged for Council.
Councilmember Mavity requested that staff prepare a timeline for Council consideration.
Councilmember Santa requested that staff provide further information regarding entities that may
be willing to partner with the City.
Councilmember Sanger expressed frustration that there has been little progress on this in four
years and hoped that the City could speed up the planning process and feasibility analysis going
forward.
Ms. Olson advised that the cross tabs from the Decision Resources city-wide residential survey
will be available for check-out from the City Clerk’s office in October.
3. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and stated if Council wishes to pursue the ten year capital
improvement plan (CIP) outlined in the report, a financing plan will need to be prepared for
Council review, both initial financing and recurring. He added that further discussion regarding
the public process would also need to take place.
Councilmember Sanger expressed support for developing a process and financing plan to
implement the proposed CIP. She stated that the question of how to pay for new sidewalks will
inform the community’s decision as to whether they want more sidewalks. She indicated that in
the past, residents liked the idea of a sidewalk as long as the sidewalk was across the street and
somebody else shoveled the sidewalk. She stated that the City needs to address the inequity that
exists regarding maintenance of neighborhood sidewalks versus community sidewalks, which
appears to be an arbitrary distinction, and needs to have a consistent policy in place.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated it will be important to consider not just the cost of building
new sidewalks but the maintenance costs and annual bonding costs. He indicated that people are
being encouraged to use light rail instead of their vehicles and there has to be a way for them to
get to the light rail station without using their cars.
Council discussed the previous policy decision regarding maintenance of sidewalks and the
standards used for community versus neighborhood sidewalks.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to develop a specific process and
financing plan to implement the proposed ten year capital improvement plan.
Mr. Harmening stated that further information will be presented to Council regarding additional
resources to design, deliver, and maintain the proposed bicycle and pedestrian system expansion.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she did not necessarily want more history regarding how the
City identified community versus neighborhood sidewalks, but would like information regarding
responsibility for costs, which will provide guidance in making an informed decision on how to
move forward. She also suggested that there be some level of prioritization to those areas that
are high traffic and/or high need.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item 3b) Page 4
Subject: Study Session Minutes of September 12, 2011
Councilmember Santa requested further information regarding trails, including currently
available trails, trail connections, and how to enhance what is currently in place. She added that
she would like to see more emphasis on trails than on sidewalks.
It was the consensus of the City Council to focus on trails and to identify possible funding
sources outside the City.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she recently spoke with Edina Councilmember Joni Bennett
regarding Edina’s plans for 40th and 42nd Streets, including sidewalks. She asked that the City
make sure to coordinate with Edina regarding this project. She added that she also received an
email from Ms. Kenna Clark, who lives in the Elmwood neighborhood, regarding safety issues at
the trail crossings. She reiterated her request to see what could be done in these areas to better
define the trail crossings, sooner rather than later.
Mr. Harmening stated that this item will be addressed at a future study session meeting and
added that Mr. Rardin and Mr. Brink are currently working with Three Rivers Park District,
SRF, Mn/DOT, and others to address the trail crossing issues.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern regarding inconsistencies and confusion regarding
who has the right of way when a trail crosses a roadway.
Mayor Jacobs requested that staff investigate this further to make sure consistent messages are
delivered in accordance with state law.
Councilmember Santa stated that Council’s discussion about trails will provide an opportunity to
reopen the education piece on etiquette, courtesy, and state law regarding right of way.
4. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Santa stated that Channel 5 is airing a special this week during its 10:00 p.m.
newscast regarding the National Guard’s Red Bull Infantry Division and her nephew is part of
this battalion.
Councilmember Mavity requested that Council have regular check-ins during the
communications portion of its meetings regarding light rail activities to provide an update
regarding what is happening on the various committees.
Mr. Harmening stated that Council has received an invitation from Cavalia to attend a reception
and the kick-off performance of the show on September 21st. He advised that under State law,
Council is prohibited from accepting the invitations and agreed to inform Cavalia that Council
cannot accept the invitation.
The meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
5. Fiber Network and Policy Study Update
6. Fire Stations Project Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize staff to enter into an agreement with CTC to complete a fiber optic study at a
cost not to exceed $50,000. The final cost would be determined by the agreed upon Statement of
Work between CTC and the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to engage a consultant to complete a study to address (1) what else
might be done with the existing fiber optic network, beyond existing institutional uses; and (2)
should the City provide any requirements or incentives to include fiber optic facilities in new
construction or significantly remodeled buildings or other assets? The deliverables from this
study include responses to these two questions along with analysis, opportunity and risk
identification, and recommended follow-up steps.
BACKGROUND:
This item is presented to Council as a follow-up to a written report provided at its September 12,
2011 study session. The September 12 report is attached, which also includes a related December
6, 2010 report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2011 and 2012 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope, statement of work, and
how much can be accomplished within the combined $50,000 budget limit.
Other potential future financial impacts relate to any requirements to incorporate fiber optic
infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure
that Council may direct. That said, it is important to note that any such actions would be the
result of further deliberations by the TAC and Council only after reviewing and analyzing study
results. It is not anticipated that any actions would be taken immediately following or as a result
of the study. Indeed, there are no funding sources currently identified for any such actions.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: September 19, 2011 Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Report
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement
Meeting Date: September 12, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiber Network and Policy Study Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this meeting. This report is being provided as background information in
preparation for the City Councils consideration of entering into an agreement with a consultant to
continue on with the Fiber Optic Study at its September 19 meeting. The study process is
proceeding in accordance with the written report provided to the City Council at its June 14 and
December 6, 2010 study sessions (12/6/10 report is attached).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions, comments or concerns that you might
have with this matter.
BACKGROUND:
This report is being provided as an update to the planned study that was budgeted in 2011 and
2012. At its June 14 and December 6, 2010 study sessions, Council received written staff updates
on the proposed study of possible opportunities associated with the publicly-owned fiber optic
network in the City.
The existing fiber network now includes about 30 miles of infrastructure, installed primarily
between 1997 and 2004. Different network segments have different capacities (number of fiber
strands), and some network segments have conduit only without fiber strands. These conduit
only segments were generally installed during road construction projects (by practice, not
policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with appropriate capacities to match future
service needs, but only when those service needs are known. Installation of fiber conduit when a
road is open for construction is relatively inexpensive.
The City and Schools are meeting many of their high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice,
data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8
years for an asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School applications are in
the queue (e.g., use of fiber for video conferencing) while other future uses remain unexplored.
However, fiber is anticipated to have a real future, in concert with wireless services, based on its
demonstrated performance. We need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as
spare strands.
As a reminder, the study is intended to revolve around two major areas: One is - what, if
anything, should the City do with the remaining fiber capacity from a public or private
perspective. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the existing fiber
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement
infrastructure should be expanded. The second area revolves around whether the City should
consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of
fiber optic capabilities in buildings or other assets during new construction or major remodeling.
PROGRESS SINCE DECEMBER 6 STUDY SESSION:
To address the questions above, the City Council directed formation of a Fiber Optic Study Task
Force. The Task Force was to be composed of Telecommunications Advisory Commission
(TAC) members, City staff, School staff, LOGIS staff, and representatives of the community. In
fact, this is the composition of the Task Force, and it also includes representatives from Park
Nicollet Health Systems, the business community, and the League of Women Voters.
Since January 2011, the Task Force has taken time to learn more about fiber optic technology,
and develop a plan to detail and explore the Council questions. As planned and anticipated, it is
now time to engage a consultant to complete the study activities and develop policy alternatives
around the study questions.
How did the Task Force get to this point in the process? A subcommittee of the Task Force was
charged with developing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) statement, issuing same, and then
interviewing selected firms to potentially complete the study based on submitted Statements of
Qualifications (SOQ). This summer, the subcommittee completed that task. After extensive
publication of the study RFQ, including to minority and women owned businesses, four SOQ’s
were received. Two firms were interviewed. Those two firms were Tellus Ventures and CTC.
The subcommittee brought results of the SOQ review and interview process to the Task Force on
August 10. At that meeting, the Task Force recommended that CTC be deemed the preferred
firm based on an analysis of the various strengths and weaknesses of the two finalists, and
reference checks. While CTC is the preferred firm, it should also be noted that both firms appear
able to complete the study within the budgeted amount of $50,000 from the Cable TV Fund.
The Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) considered the recommendation of the
Fiber Optic Study Task Force at it August 25 meeting. Its advice to the City Council is in support
of the Fiber Optic Study Task Force in recommending CTC to complete this study.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on analysis completed by the Fiber Optic Study Task Force and the recommendation from
the TAC, staff is recommending that the City Council enter into an agreement with CTC at its
September 19 meeting. More specifically, staff recommends that the City Council designate CTC
as the preferred firm to complete the fiber optic study, and that staff be authorized to enter into
an agreement with CTC at a cost not to exceed $50,000 to complete the fiber optic study, based
upon a mutually agreeable Statement of Work. It should be noted that the City has worked
successfully with CTC in the past, particularly in support of the wireless project and through
successful litigation with the contractor. Consistent with the City’s commitment to diversity, it
should also be noted that CTC is a woman owned business enterprise. Indeed, CTC President
Joanne Hovis would be the lead on this study.
Should the Council approve this action at its September 19 meeting, it is anticipated that the
study would be completed within the first half of 2012. Detailed study work would be conducted
with the TAC and Fiber Optic Study Task Force. TAC would review study findings, then plan to
report to Council with those finding and any additional recommendations.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2011 and 2012 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be
accomplished within the combined $50,000 limit.
Other potential future financial impacts relate to any requirements to incorporate fiber optic
infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure
that Council may direct. That said, it is important to note that any such actions would be the
result of further deliberations by the TAC and Council only after reviewing and analyzing study
results. It is not anticipated that any actions would be taken immediately following or as a result
of the study. Indeed, there are no funding sources currently identified for any such actions.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: December 6, 2010 Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Report
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
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:
Fiber Network and Policy Study Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. The study process is proceeding in accordance with the written report
provided to the City Council at its June 14, 2010 study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is being provided as an update to the planned study that was budgeted in 2010 and is
also proposed for additional funding in 2011. At its June 14, 2010 study session, Council
received a written staff update on the proposed study of the possible opportunities associated
with the publicly-owned fiber optic network in the City.
The existing fiber network includes about 28 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments
have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit
only without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road
construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with
appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are
known. Installation of fiber conduit when a road is open for construction is relatively
inexpensive.
The City and Schools are meeting many of their high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice,
data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8
years for an asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School needs remain (use
of fiber for video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, fiber is anticipated to
have a real future, in concert with wireless services, based on its demonstrated performance. We
need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands.
The study is intended to revolve around two major areas: One is what to do with the remaining
fiber capacity. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the existing fiber
infrastructure should be expanded. The second area is around whether the City should consider
playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of fiber
optic capabilities during new construction or major remodeling.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 6
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has now identified members of a task force to further define and propose the scope,
implementation, and outcomes of this study. Results of that effort would then be returned to
Council for review prior to the next step of issuing an RFQ for a consultant to conduct the study.
The attached project plan identifies current task force members and other aspects of the study.
We are hopeful that the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce will be able to appoint a member to
the task force, as they have been invited to do.
The Telecommunications Advisory Commission will be updated on the status of this project at
its December 9 meeting.
It is expected that the task force will commence its meetings in January 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 and 2011 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be
accomplished within the combined $50,000 limit.
Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic
infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: Fiber Optic Study Task Force Project Plan
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 7
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement
City of St. Louis Park
Fiber Optic Study Task Force
Project Plan
Task Force Members:
Bruce Browning, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission (Co-Chair)
Toby Keeler, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission (Co-Chair)
Deb Brinkman, League of Women Voters
Judith Cook, League of Women Voters
Amy Hoerner-Balser, Clientek Consulting and SLP Property Owner
Scott Jensen, Park Nicollet Health Clinics
Tom Marble, SLP Schools
Kevin Pikkaraine, LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems)
Clint Pires, CIO, City of St. Louis Park
John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator, City of St. Louis Park
Lori Dreier, Police Lieutenant, City of St. Louis Park
Laura Adler, Engineering Program Manager, City of St. Louis Park
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, City of St. Louis Park
John Tilton, Chief Building Official, City of St. Louis Park
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, City of St. Louis Park
Task Force Goals:
1. Mutual Understanding of the Background (Business Need / Opportunity)
2. Mutual Understanding of the Reasons for the Task Force
3. Mutual Understanding of Economic Development Questions We Are Asking and Why
(Project Benefits)
Possible Uses / Expansion of Existing Fiber Infrastructure
Possible Enabling Ordinances (requirements or incentives)
4. Identify Additional Background, Reasons, and Questions
5. Frame the Study Scope, Implementation, and Expected Outcomes (Project Approach)
6. Formulate the RFQ
7. Review Study Proposals / Interview Consultants
8. Recommend Consultant to City Manager / City Council
9. Monitor and Participate in the Study
10. Receive the Study and Recommendations
11. Present Study Results to Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council
Schedule:
January – September 2011
Budget:
$50,000 (from Cable TV Fund – subscriber franchise fees; not tax supported)
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4a) Page 8
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement
Task Force Structure:
1. Members
2. Chair and Vice Chair
3. Roles of Members to Achieve Goals
4. Meeting Schedule
Risks:
While there are numerous potential economic development benefits associated with this project,
it is important to identify some of the possible risks associated with it as well.
1. Not being able to adhere to the timeline or anticipated budget
2. Not asking the right questions in the study to properly determine economic development
or other opportunities
3. Impact of diversion from other major initiatives
4. Inability of a critical mass of task force members to actively participate
5. Inability to find the optimal consultant to address study questions
6. The study results miss key findings or provide unjustified recommendations
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Metropoint Hotel – Plat Time Extension.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a one-year extension for the filing of the plat of METROPOINT.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support an extension of the time limit to the filing time for the plat of
METROPOINT?
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a second one-year extension to the time limit to file a plat associated with the hotel
development at the Metropoint office complex in Shelard Park. The site, located at 600 Highway
169, is home to the 600 Tower, an 18-story office building. An approved Planned Unit
Development (PUD) allows for construction of a new seven-story hotel located immediately
west of the existing 600 Tower.
Because of market conditions, the property owner and hotel developer have not moved forward
with construction. However, they believe that market conditions are becoming more favorable
and that construction on the project could commence within the next year.
The plat was originally approved by the City Council on March 15, 2010. A one-year extension
was approved, moving the deadline for filing to September 15, 2011. A request was made for an
extension on September 1, 2011; the current request would extend the deadline for filing the plat
to September 15, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3851 Yosemite Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 3851 Yosemite Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 21-117-21-21-0102.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
David Ladmer and Angela Caszatt, owners of the single family residence at 3851 Yosemite Avenue
South, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for their 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 owners 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 owners have 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 $4,250.00.
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 September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 3851 Yosemite Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
3851 YOSEMITE AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 21-117-21-21-0102
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3851 Yosemite Avenue South have 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 3851 Yosemite Avenue South, and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have 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 Owners 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 $4,250.00.
4. The Property Owners have 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 Owners have 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 Owners have 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 September 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract No. 99-09 with Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. – Project
No. 2008-2600.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$52,952.45 for the 36th Street Streetscape Project, Contract No. 99-09.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
On August 17, 2009, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $614,316.30 to Thomas
and Sons Construction for the 36th Street Streetscape Project – Project No. 2008-2600. Change
Order No. 1, which provided for additional concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter replacement work
in the amount of $65,797.70, was approved by Council on September 8, 2009.
Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $35,482.92, was approved by Council on November 15,
2010. Items in Change Order No. 2 included adjustments and modifications to retaining
walls, sanitary sewer, signal loop detectors, and lighting. Additional quantities of excavation and
replacement of material with structural soils were also determined to be necessary in the planting
bed and landscaping areas.
Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $16,763.00 was approved by the City Council on September
3, 2011. This change order provided for the repair of a sanitary sewer service and subsequent
restoration measures.
The Contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of
$740,252.05.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Final Contract Cost
The cost of the work to be performed by the Contractor under Contract 99-09 is now estimated as
follows:
Original Contract $614,316.30
Change Order No. 1 $65,797.70
Change Order No. 2 $35,482.92
Change Order No. 3 $16,763.00
Quantity Overrun $8,192.03
Total $740,551.95
Page 2City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 99-09 w/Thomas & Sons Const. – Project No. 2008-2600
Funding Sources
This project, along with the 36th Street Bridge Enhancement Project, is being funded through a
combination of a Met Council Livable Communities Development Account Grant, Elmwood TIF,
and Special Assessment monies.
The final contract amount of $740,551.95 for this Streetscape Project combined with the
final contract cost of the 36th Street Bridge Enhancement Project ($181,965.77) is $922,517.72.
This amount, combined with final construction, engineering and administrative costs is estimated at
this time to be $1,300,000 for both projects combined. This amount still falls well within the
original budgeted estimates for both projects as follows:
Livable Communities Grant $832,000
Elmwood TIF $560,500
Special Assessments $13,770
Total Available $ 1,406,270
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project will help address the Strategic Direction of being a connected and engaged
community and improving community aesthetics.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning/Zoning Supervisor
Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Page 3City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4d)
Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 99-09 w/Thomas & Sons Const. – Project No. 2008-2600
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
THE 36th STREET STREETSCAPE PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-2600
CONTRACT NO. 99-09
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated August 7, 2009, Thomas and Sons
Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the construction of the bridge enhancement
project per Contract No. 99-09.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $614,316.30
Change Orders $118,043.62
Underruns / Overruns $ 8,192.03
Previous Payments $687,599.50
Balance Due $ 52,952.45
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Date: September 19, 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:
Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change
orders and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Projects 2008-3001 and
2008-3002 (Fire Stations Replacement), in accordance with the City Council’s existing policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to grant the City Manager the change order authority requested? The
project will continue to be administered in accordance with the City’s existing policy.
BACKGROUND:
The City Charter states that the City Manager is the chief purchasing agent of the City and is
allowed to approve and execute contracts in compliance with State Law. The City’s internal
procedure/policy was recently updated to be in compliance with State Law, allowing the City
Manager to approve general purchasing up to a cumulative maximum of $100,000. In the event
the $100,000 amount is exceeded, City Council approval is required.
The Fire Stations construction is now 30% complete. It is currently on schedule and on budget.
A written report to City Council on work progress was provided on September 12, 2011. There
is $87,830 in change orders approved or pending. Per the City’s policy, the City Manager will
be approving these change orders. Any added costs for change orders are paid from the
budgeted project contingency, which has $490,520 remaining.
The City Manager is authorized to approve change orders on contracts up to a cumulative total of
$100,000. Given that the authority the City Manager has to approve change orders is near the
cap, the City Council is asked to authorize up to an additional $100,000 in order to allow the
project to continue to be expedited.
The City Council originally awarded the construction contracts on April 11, 2011 and May 5,
2011. A considerable amount of construction activity occurred since then that necessitated
administrative change order approvals. Examples of additional work items included utility
adjustments, changes to materials, amounts and quantities of specific items (most notably
impacted soils), etc.
The City is using the agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations,
rather than a more typical general contractor (GM). With this approach, the City is the owner
and general contractor for the project. The construction manager acts as the city’s advisor and
representative throughout planning, design and construction of the stations. There are more than
30 contracts related to the construction of the two stations.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Project Administration – Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 & 2008-3002)
The change orders and additions encountered to date have been typical of most projects, and
have been addressed with the contractors by the construction manager Kraus Anderson with
concurrence and approval by the City in accordance with City policy. Change orders and orders
for additional work items and quantity adjustments are typical for any construction project. The
Fire Stations Replacement project (approximately $10 million in construction costs) has been no
exception. The magnitude of the project amplifies the number changes and associated costs
beyond those of smaller projects.
Kraus-Anderson Construction has provided a Change Order Summary (attached) providing a list
and basic description of the change orders approved or pending to date. The summary excludes
changes that were cost neutral or credits to the project.
Approval of this item allows the City Manager to authorize up to an additional $100,000 for
necessary changes on this project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project continues to be constructed within the original budgeted amount and costs continue
to be monitored in accordance with State and City regulations.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Change Order Summary (Kraus-Anderson Construction)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Project Administration - Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002)Page 3
City Council meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4e) Subject: Project Administration - Fire Stations Replacement (Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002)Page 4
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Project Report: Sanitary Sewer – Mainline Rehab – Project No. 2011-2200.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Improvement
Project No. 2011-2200, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for
bids.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire staff to undertake this planned improvement?
BACKGROUND:
The existing sanitary sewer system is aging and in need of routine repair to keep it operating
within acceptable standards. The majority of the sanitary sewer system was installed in the
1950's and 1960's when the City experienced rapid growth. The design life of most sanitary
sewers is about 100 years. Due to soil conditions, structural defects, wear and tear, overloading,
corrosion and deterioration, most systems do not last that long, and our system is no exception.
Similar to other City infrastructure (i.e. streets and buildings), our system has reached the age
where it requires attention in order to maintain its structural integrity. Staff has implemented a
proactive program to identify and repair or rehabilitate structural defects before they become
outright failures.
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN:
The city’s sanitary sewer mainlines have been inspected for defects such as structural cracks,
inflow and infiltration, root intrusion, and any other special maintenance needs. Based on
current video inspections and maintenance records, staff has selected approximately 4500 feet of
pipe to reline for this year’s project. The work will occur at 10 different locations throughout the
city including work in the Fern Hill, Bronx Park, Oak Hill, Cobblecrest, Cedar Manor, Willow
Park and Eliot View Neighborhoods (see attached map). The relining process will rehabilitate or
renew these sections of aging pipe and is expected to extend their service life another fifty plus
years.
The rehabilitation work will utilize a “trenchless” method of installation referred to as Cured In
Place Pipe (CIPP). This CIPP rehabilitation process basically involves insertion of a flexible
lining into sewers between manholes which is expanded against the pipe by water or steam
pressure, where it then hardens and essentially results in a new pipe inside of the old pipe. This
process eliminates deep open trench excavations in the street (conventional pipe replacement
methods).
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Project Report: Sanitary Sewer – Mainline Rehab – Project No. 2011-2200
The Contractor will typically line one or two blocks of pipe in a day. During the relining process
homes connected to the line will be asked to restrict their water use for about 12 hours. After the
relining is complete, holes are cut in the liner to restore service line connections. The contractor
is required to notify each of the affected homes 7 days in advance and again 24 hours in advance
of the work on each line segment.
PROJECT TIMELINE: The following schedule is proposed:
Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council September 19, 2011
Advertise for bids Late Sept/Early October
Bid Opening October 5, 2011
Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract October 17, 2011
Construction November, 2011 through
April 2012
COSTS/FUNDING:
The total estimated cost of the sanitary sewer rehabilitation project is:
Estimated Costs
Construction Cost $146,000
Contingencies (10%) $ 14,600
Engineering & Administrative (8%) $ 7,000
Total $167,600
Funding Sources Amount
Sewer Utility Fund $167,600
This project is included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) scheduled for construction in
2011/2012 with a total project budget of $170,500.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Site Map
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Project Report: Sanitary Sewer – Mainline Rehab – Project No. 2011-2200
RESOLUTION NO. 11-____
RESOLUTION.ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-2200,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-2200
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer, or designee, related to the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding the Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation is hereby
accepted.
2. Such improvement as proposed is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the
Project Report.
3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2011-2200, is hereby established and
ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the
direction of the City Engineer or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official
newspaper an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement 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 for award of contract.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 19, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Project Report: Sanitary Sewer – Mainline Rehab – Project No. 2011-2200
Meeting Date: September 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4g
OFFICIAL MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2011
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on July 28, 2011, at St. Louis
Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers.
Members Present: Chair Henry Solmer
Commissioner Susan Bloyer
Commissioner James Gainsley
Commissioner Paul Roberts
Members Absent: Vice-Chair Ryan Burt
Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Nancy Sells, Administrative Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Chair Solmer called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2010
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of August 26, 2010. The
motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Variance: Side Yard Setback
Location: 8112 Virginia Circle North
Applicant: Edwin B. Hollen
Case No.: 11-16-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the applicant is requesting a variance from the side yard setback to allow a garage
addition to the house with a 2 foot setback instead of the required 6 foot setback. The
variance is requested to convert an existing one-car garage to a two-car garage. If
approved, the variance would widen the garage from 15.3 feet to 20.3 feet resulting in a
setback of 2 feet instead of the required 6 feet. He described the existing one car garage
on the west side of the property. In the proposed addition the entry door to the house
would be relocated to accommodate additional space for the two car garage to move in
closer to the house as well as moving the westerly wall closer to the property line. The
garage would also come forward toward the street 2 feet to gain additional depth. Total
garage width would go from 15.3 to 20.5 feet. The depth would go from 21 feet to 23.5
feet.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 28, 2011
Mr. Morrison explained that staff believes it is important to maintain a side yard of no
less than three feet which allows adequate space for the property owner and emergency
personnel to access the back yard should the applicant or neighbor install a fence along
the property line. Staff believes the first criterion has been satisfied with the condition
that the garage maintain a minimum of a 3 foot side yard.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the remaining criteria, stating that staff believes all of the criteria
have been satisfied for a three foot variance instead of the requested four foot variance.
He said staff recommends adoption of Resolution 01-11 approving a three foot variance
to the required six foot side yard for the garage with the following conditions:
1. The addition shall be a one story addition.
2. The addition shall be for garage use only.
3. All future additions must meet the zoning regulations at the time the addition is
proposed. A second story addition shall not be added to that portion of the
structure within the six foot setback.
4. The addition shall be constructed in accordance with the survey and exhibits as
amended and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals to meet a three foot side
setback.
Commissioner Gainsley asked if there were any easements already in effect on the
property.
Mr. Morrison responded that there are no easements on the property.
Chair Solmer asked if there would be reasonable emergency exits to the backyard from
the east side of the house.
Mr. Morrison said there are reasonable emergency exits He said the east side of the
house is just shy of 14 feet from the property line.
Mr. Roberts inquired about the garage width with the 3 foot variance.
Mr. Morrison said the exterior garage width would be about 19.3 feet, and the internal
width would be around 19 feet.
Chair Solmer asked if the tree was on the applicant’s property.
Mr. Morrison stated that according to the survey the tree is right on the property line.
Chair Solmer asked if there was any issue with removing the tree if part of it is on the
neighbor’s property.
Mr. Morrison responded there is nothing in the code that regulates that. It is something
the two neighbors will have to work out.
Chair Solmer opened the public hearing.
Ed Hollen, applicant, commented that years ago the people that lived there put up a chain
link fence at the northeast corner of their house. He said he has willingly maintained the
10 feet that the neighbors own for the last 15 years. He said he doesn’t claim any right to
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes July 28, 2011
it at all except there would still be a good amount of space between. He and the neighbor
have determined that the center of the tree is just about the property line. The neighbor
has no problem with the tree being removed and no problem with the variance.
Commissioner Bloyer asked the applicant if he could live with a 3 foot setback rather
than a 2 foot setback.
Chair Solmer asked the applicant as he asked for the variance on the grounds that it’s
more difficult to leave the car outside, is the width practical for him and will he be able to
use this space as intended?
Mr. Hollen said they will make it work. He added that there is plenty of room on the east
side for access to the back. He spoke about a nearby property where the space between
the buildings is 9 feet.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gainsley said the request for a 3 foot variance is reasonable. He said he is
primarily in favor of the variance related to the peculiar and practical difficulty of
excavating a grade change.
Commissioner Roberts said based on the conditions of the house and the grade he was in
favor of a 3 foot variance with the restrictions outlined by staff.
Commissioner Bloyer said she agreed.
Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to grant the 3 foot variance with conditions
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Bloyer seconded the motion with the stipulation to correct the resolution
language to a 3 foot setback rather than a 2 foot setback.
The motion, including correction to the resolution, passed on a vote of 4-0.
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
Commissioner Roberts made a motion to nominate James Gainsley as Chair and
Susan Bloyer as Vice-Chair. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
7. Communications
8. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Assistant
Meeting Date: September 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4h
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 August 27, 2011 through September 9,
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
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
283.50SOCCEROPERATIONAL SUPPLIES301 APPAREL
283.50
74.55STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
74.55
38.42SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
38.42
4,145.00PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESABRAKADOODLE
4,145.00
128.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEACTION FLEET INC
128.00
38.18OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL
38.18
156.00BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
156.00
525.14SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESALLIED BLACKTOP
525.14
55.58GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
137.56PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
87.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
125.21ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
61.82SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.30STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
637.31
169.77NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESAQUILA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
169.77
287.85GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
287.85
184.52IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARC
184.52
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
33.94E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONEAT&T
33.94
141.93REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBAKER, BETSY
141.93
53.43WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
53.43
671.98ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
671.98
190.36ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
190.36
48.00INSPECTIONS G & A MASSAGE THERAPY ESTABLISHMENTSBONFE PLUMBING HEATING & AIR C
48.00
179.96PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
179.96
76.27WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBRILL, WALTER
76.27
78.20REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROADY, KJ & CF
78.20
154.53PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSBROCK WHITE CO LLC
154.53
407.15NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
407.15
21.00SOFTBALLPROGRAM REVENUEBUCHIKA, REGINA
21.00
2,344.84SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICECANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
2,344.84
76.59REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCANDIR, OGUZ CEM
76.59
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,100.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWCANDLEWOOD HOME BUYERS INC
1,100.00
545.06IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
545.06
2,917.75DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
520.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,437.75
10,200.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
10,200.00
64.60FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
64.60
20.30-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
68.56ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
41.18HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
18.54HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
600.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
127.57HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
446.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
45.19HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
416.08IT G & A TRAINING
35.76ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
60.00ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
505.00FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
74.23FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
598.37OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
377.11OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
424.67OPERATIONSTRAINING
130.00OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
19.95INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
149.69INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
297.11PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
6.09-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
547.35ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
11.97PERFORMING ARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
346.71PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES
176.50SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.70PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER
9.35PARK MAINTENANCE G & A POSTAGE
81.51IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
169.62PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
118.28PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
134.10BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
33.06WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,034.74ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
26.15WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
345.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,925.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
53.07YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.13OTHER SUMMER CAMPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
128.69VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
36.65VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MEETING EXPENSE
160.22TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
62.90-SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
977.80SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
23.58TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
10,729.90
112.50T-BALL/BASEBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCLAUSEN, DAIN
112.50
4,360.50PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCLEARWATER RECREATION
4,360.50
530.35CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
530.35
550.15WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCOLDWELL BANKER BURNET
550.15
4,555.62PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
4,555.62
180.53SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
180.53
516.77NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, MEGAN
516.77
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
275.02SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
275.02
38.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM AIR DUCTS BY RICK LLC
38.00
85.28REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDACHIS, BRUCE
85.28
1,013.88WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
1,013.88
289.64GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
289.64
60.29NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDALLUM, JOANNA
60.29
2,650.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDALSIN, JOHN & SONS INC
2,650.00
2,408.42GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNREALIZED REVENUEDEBOISE, ELIZABETH
2,408.42
86.41WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSDEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC
86.41
1,767.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDEMARS SIGNS INC
1,767.00
11,199.05GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESDLR GROUP KKE
11,199.05
842.74SUPPORT SERVICES G&A POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
842.74
229.78WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESDON'S RODENTS
229.78
39.28WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEDINA REALTY
39.28
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
315.10DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
315.10
500.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESELIOT VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN
500.00
209.26GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
209.26
99.88OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS
99.88
2,890.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESESP SYSTEMS PROFESSIONALS INC
2,890.00
167.94WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSEVERSON, MAJA
167.94
258.07PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
258.07
12.08POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
1,018.26SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,030.34
4,413.30OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFIRE CATT LLC
4,413.30
199.48OPERATIONSFIRE EQUIPMENTFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
199.48
44.89OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSFIRE SAFETY USA INC
44.89
90.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
90.28
524.93WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFRANK, MELVIN
524.93
2,500.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIFRIEDGES LANDSCAPING INC
2,500.00
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,000.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESFRIENDS OF THE ARTS
10,000.00
117.42PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIESGAME TIME
117.42
633.49ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
633.49
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWGEORGE GROUP NORTH
1,000.00
127.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGHIZONI, DAVE
127.50
168.47POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESGRAFIX SHOPPE
168.47
72.68PATCHING-PERMANENT GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
72.68
48.79-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSGRAPHIK DIMENSIONS LTD
758.39IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
709.60
18.03ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARGROSS, ALISON
18.03
6,645.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGROTH SEWER & WATER
6,645.00
5,000.00GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSHAGE CONCRETE WORKS
5,000.00
2,500.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHALLQUIST, WILLIAM
2,500.00
446.25SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
446.25
200.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHARMON INC
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
200.00
671.95AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
4,737.88WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
5,409.83
938.79PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHCI CHEMTEC INC
938.79
801.38WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
801.38
53.09WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHEATH, JODY
53.09
32.29WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHEGNA, JESSICA
32.29
109.57PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHELLEKSON, SARAH
109.57
382.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
382.50
30.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVI
30.00
6,946.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
6,946.00
1,259.93SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHENRICKSEN PSG
1,259.93
97.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHERZOG REAL ESTATE, THOMAS
97.32
4,250.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
4,250.00
4.60-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHOLDAHL COMPANY
71.45PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
66.85
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
17.51POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
14.51SEALCOAT PREPARATION SMALL TOOLS
78.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.96BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
118.10
48.55WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHOUGH, ANGELA
48.55
204.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JEFFREY
204.00
525.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, JESSICA
525.00
50.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE
50.00
150.32WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
150.32
545.06PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
545.06
3,500.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESINDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #2
3,500.00
25.64PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINDIANHEAD TRUCK EQUIPMENT
1.65-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
23.99
386.50SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEINFRASTRUCTURE TECH INC
386.50
230.00LIFEGUARDINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESINGRAM, AUDREY
230.00
182.54PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
182.54
10.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAININGIPMA-HR MINNESOTA
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJDA DESIGN ARCHITECTS
225.00
2,404.69OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESJEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
2,404.69
30.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAININGJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
30.00
37.08ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARKEEFE, MARY
37.08
210.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKELLER, ANTHONY
210.00
640.00ESCROWSGRECO DEVELOP/WOODDALE POINTEKENNEDY & GRAVEN
640.00
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKEUNING, ARNOLD
200.00
325.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKITCHENWERKS
325.00
51.89SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
51.89
124.55ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLANG, LISA
124.55
1,562.31RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
115.54SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,677.85
160.31RANGEOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESLAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS INC
160.31
96.01ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLEE, KATIE
96.01
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
15.95WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLEW, JOHN
15.95
3,038.05HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONLOOKOUT BAR & GRILL
3,038.05
3,516.29PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
855.23VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
4,466.52
112.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLUDLOW, TINA
112.50
64.18WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLUNDELL, KENNETH
64.18
312.80Justice Assistance Grant -2005 SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLUSE, JOHN
312.80
97.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMACK, EMILY
97.50
584.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
159.16SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
743.29
150.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMERCHANT, DAVID & LOIS
150.00
641.04PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMETRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY
641.04
386.00SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGMHSRC/RANGE
1,930.00SUPERVISORYTRAINING
386.00PATROLTRAINING
2,702.00
514.90POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTMICRO CENTER
514.90
720.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
720.00
475.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEMINNEAPOLIS CONCRETE SAWING &
475.00
58.78POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMINNESOTA CHIEFS POLICE ASSOC
58.78
21,574.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
21,574.00
289.15REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMINVALCO INC
289.15
2,926.58GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET UNREALIZED REVENUEMN CRIME VICTIMS REPERATIONS B
2,926.58
636.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMOTOROLA
636.00
57.36WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMY HOME SOURCE
57.36
45.94POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
299.89PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
255.71BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
53.33GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
654.87
149.60REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNIEHANS, MIKE
149.60
9,398.47-STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGENORTHWEST ASPHALT CORP
187,969.39CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
178,570.92
69.81HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
10.53HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
31.78GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
53.52POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
23.05OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
268.13INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
198.30ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
655.12
2,046.65PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
106.88WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
192.36NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,431.39
162.50GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPANKOW, KARI
162.50
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPATRIOT BUSINESS GROUP
1,000.00
30.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGSPETTY CASH
40.00POLICE G & A LICENSES
70.00
347.34WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
320.63STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
667.97
281.43WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
281.43SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
281.42SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
281.42STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,125.70
910.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPOTAPENKO, VITALII
910.00
219.10BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
1,857.69STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,076.79
5,737.05TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
5,737.05
180.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPRIVATE UNDERGROUND
180.00
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
395.70ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICER & R SPECIALTIES
395.70
67.16WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
67.16SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
67.16SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
67.15STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
268.63
200.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSREADY WATT ELECTRIC
200.00
113.81WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSREDMAN, MANDI
113.81
78.43POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESREGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
78.43
288.56PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSREINDERS
288.56
504.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEROYAL CONCRETE PIPE INC
504.45
255.54WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSCHNEIDER, MARK
255.54
187,369.47CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
187,369.47
469.09PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
469.09
167.68GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO
167.68
75.31REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSIEGEL, DIANE
75.31
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSILVERBERG, ARYEH
200.00
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7,500.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSINGH, AMRIT
7,500.00
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSONDAY, TOM
200.00
10.09PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSPS COMPANIES INC
10.09
32.00GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUEST DAVID'S ADVENTURE
32.00
273,367.41CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-VISIONST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS
273,367.41
1,649.40PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTANDARD SPRING
1,649.40
51.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSTEINBACH, NICK
51.31
35.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTORFER, LEON
35.00
3,192.50AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSTRATEGIC EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY C
3,192.50
232.92POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
232.92
352.93WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESWANSON FLO-SYSTEMS CO
352.93
285.00LIFEGUARDINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWEENEY, JACOB
285.00
46.64POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
46.64
46.44ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
46.44
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
200.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, JUDY
200.00
408.75ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
408.75
120.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAUTMANN, JOHN
120.00
82.27PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTURFWERKS
82.27
30.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATTWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
30.00
8,486.95TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEUPPER CUT TREE SERVICE
8,486.95
1,456.28SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSUSA BLUE BOOK
1,456.28
31.12WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
31.12
153.95HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONVAIL, LORI
153.95
20,231.82-PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGEVALLEY PAVING INC
404,636.39CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
384,404.57
10,923.93WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
10,923.93
163.73ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
163.73
73.62COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
73.62
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
588.03WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
588.03
100.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWALTER, MITCH & JACKIE
100.00
772.42WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
772.42
1,603.79CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
1,603.79
131.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
131.00
37.60HUMAN RESOURCES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARWEGNER-KOENSE, TRICIA
37.60
10,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWWESTERN, SANDY & JOHN
10,000.00
94.55WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWEXLER, RACHEL
94.55
136.33WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWOLSON, ELLIOT
136.33
65.52WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSWYMAN, MICHAEL
65.52
496.01WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
23,170.98ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12.70OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
97.68STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
132.81OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
23,910.18
9,853.68TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP
9,853.68
18,886.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESXTERIOR XPERTS
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
9/14/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:40:24R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
9/9/2011 -8/27/2011
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
18,886.00
23,214.70PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
23,214.70
6.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSZAMZOW, LINDSEY
6.00
209.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
209.80
Report Totals 1,350,048.43
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4h)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
Meeting Date: September 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4i
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Renee DuFour, Trinicia Hill, Justin Kaufman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney and Suzanne Metzger
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for June, 2011
The Board minutes of June 8, 2011 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Election of Officers
After Commissioner discussion, Commissioner DuFour moved to table the
election of officers to the next Board meeting and Commissioner Hill seconded
the motion. The motion passed 3-0.
b. TRAILS Contract Extension to December 31, 2011, Ninth Amendment
Ms. Schnitker explained that due to a recent notification from HUD that the HA
may receive FY 2010 Housing Choice Voucher FSS funding, staff recommends
extending the contract with Resource, Inc. to continue to provide FSS Coordinator
services through December 31, 2011. Commissioner DuFour moved to approve
the Ninth Amendment to the Agreement between the Housing Authority of St.
Louis Park and Resource, Inc. (Employment Action Center) and Commissioner
Hill seconded. The motion passed 3-0.
c. Approval to Amend the Public Housing Admissions and Continued Occupancy,
Resolution No. 607, MHOP Residency Preference
Ms. Schnitker stated that in order to comply with the Consent Decree
requirements and the agreement between the HA and Minneapolis Public Housing
Authority, the HA is establishing a residency preference for those who apply for
the Louisiana Court MHOP units. Commissioner DuFour requested further
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes July 13, 2011
clarification on whether the residency preference would apply to all twelve
MHOP units, or be limited to the eight replacement units, prior to approving
Resolution No. 607. Commissioner DuFour moved to table Approval to Amend
the Public Housing Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy, Resolution No.
607: Joint Residency Preference for MHOP Unit Applicants, until the next Board
meeting. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion, and the motion passed 3-0.
d. Wayside Project-Based Units: Update
Ms. Schnitker provided an update on Wayside House’s efforts to develop a long
term solution to the HA’s operational concerns regarding the administration of
project-based Section 8 Housing choice rental assistance. The HA plans to issue
approximately six to eight tenant vouchers to Wayside residents. As the residents
move out, the incoming residents will be issued Shelter+Care vouchers through a
partnership with Community Involvement Program and Perspectives. Wayside
will apply for their allocation of Shelter+Care units in the next funding cycle later
this summer. Staff will present a plan for moving forward at the September Board
meeting.
e. Contract Indemnification – Update
Ms. Schnitker explained that Tom Scott, Campbell Knutson P.A., had been
consulted regarding HA contract indemnification. Commissioner Kaufman stated
that there were no considerations contained in the CEE contract amendments for
deletion of the Liability and Indemnification clause; and therefore the contracts
would not be binding. Commissioner Kaufman suggested the appropriate
language required and that the CEE amendments be brought to the next Board
meeting for approval. The Commissioners unanimously agreed to table approval
of the revised CEE contract amendments until the September Board meeting.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List – July, 2011
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report – July, 2011
2. Louisiana Court Update – Verbal report
3. Draft Financial Statements – June 2011
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner DuFour moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Hill seconded
the motion. The motion passed 3-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Renee DuFour, Secretary
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading of Ordinance adopting fees for
2012 and set Second Reading for October 3, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee schedule to reflect adjustments to
fees charged for programs and services called for by ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of our budget
process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other fees are
allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other
cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and to make sure our business costs are covered
for such service.
Sec. 1-19 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code states that fees called for within individual
provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and listed as Appendix A of the Code. Fees
must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. The Administrative Services Department has
worked with individual departments to complete this review and their recommendations are
included in the attached ordinance.
A public hearing notice was published September 8, 2011 informing interested persons of the
city’s intent to consider fees. Fees, rates and charges called for by resolution or set by a
department are not required by law to be included in the Appendix A City Code fee schedule.
Next steps:
The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 3, 2011. If approved, the fee
increases will be effective January 1, 2012.
Staff will be presenting proposed 2012 liquor fees for approval by resolution at the November
21, 2011 City Council Meeting. Utility fees for 2012 water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste
rates are scheduled for approval later this year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Each Department Director has reviewed Appendix A of the City Code. The Finance Department
and Public Works Department are recommending no increase in their fees for 2012. The Fire
Department has no fee increases but is adding the after hours inspection fee which is also listed
under Inspections. The Inspections and Community Development Departments have each
proposed fee increases which are the shown in Appendix A (attached).
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
Unless otherwise noted, proposed fee increases reflect the increased administrative costs of
providing services and were comparable to other cities. The proposed fee increases have been
incorporated into the proposed 2012 budget.
City Clerk’s Office
A new fee item was included from the Domestic Partnership Ordinance No. 2398-11 adopted
January 2011 relating to the registration application fees.
Community Development Department
Community Development is proposing fee increases for services related to street, alley, and
utility vacations, subdivisions, preliminary plats, final plats, and time extensions for variances
and conditional use permits. Over the past years the department made adjustments to ensure the
fees charged are justified by the services provided. These fees were not included in that effort
and the adjustment will make the fees consistent with the fees charged for similar type services
provided. Services involved include administrative costs associated with review by multiple
departments, along with the planning commission, and city council; and for notices published
and mailed.
A new fee item was also included from the Zoning Code amendments Ordinance No. 2402-11
adopted July 2011 relating to temporary uses of carnivals and festivals.
Fire Department
No fees were increased for the Fire Department but a current fee listed under Inspections
Department for after hours inspections was added. This fee covers costs related to a request for
inspections outside of normal city business hours when inspection of the work is an emergency
or nature of the work makes inspection during regular hours impractical.
Inspections Department
Permit and license fees proposed by the Inspections Department were increased when
appropriate consistent with the “fee for service” program philosophy. Building permit fees at the
lower range of the table were increased for the first time in five years to cover administrative
costs and are comparable to other cities.
Police Department
No fees were increased for the Police Department but a new fee was proposed to cover
administrative costs associated with lost ID replacements for solicitor/peddler registrations.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance and Summary Publication
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
ORDINANCE NO. ____-11
ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2012
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby
set by this ordinance for calendar year 2012.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the
City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 4, 2010 by Ordinance No. 2390-10 for
the calendar year 2011 which is hereby rescinded.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine
Domestic Partnership
Registration Application Fee $50
Amendment to Application Fee $25
Termination of Registration Fee $25
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000
Conditional Use Permit $2,000
Major Amendment $2,000
Minor Amendment $1,000
Fence Permit
Installation $15
Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50
Official Map Amendment $500
Parking Lot/Driveway Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
Planned Unit Development
Preliminary PUD $2,000
Final PUD $2,000
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,250
PUD - Major Amendment $2,000
PUD - Minor Amendment $1,000
Recording Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
Registration of Land Use
$50
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
Sign Permit
Erection of Temporary Sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $30
Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75
Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100
Special Permits
Major Amendment $2,000
Minor Amendment $1,000
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $300 $800
Subdivision Dedication
Park Dedication (in lieu of land)
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5 % of current market value
of the unimproved land as determined
by city assessor
Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit
Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $500 $800 plus $50 $90 per lot
Final Plat $300 $500
Combined Process and Replats $750 $900 plus $25 $90 per lot
Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $300
Temporary Use
Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1000
Time Extension $75 $150
Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $115 per caliper inch
Variances
Commercial $500
Residential $300
Zoning Appeal $300
Zoning Letter $50
Zoning Map Amendments $2,000
Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
Zoning Text Amendments $2,000
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Recording Deed transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording cost
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fireworks Display Permit
Actual costs incurred
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
Service Fees
Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck
$325 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$255 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75.00
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75.00
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Building Demolition Deposit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500
All Other Buildings $5,000
Building Demolition Permit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $150
All Other Buildings $220
Building Moving Permit $500
Business Licenses
Billboards $140 per billboard
Commercial Entertainment $275
Courtesy Bench $45
Dog Kennel $145
Environmental Emissions $310
Lodging (Hotel/Motel)
Building Fee $160 $165
Unit Fee $9.25 $10
Massage Therapy Establishment $325
Massage Therapy License $95
Therapists holding a Massage Therapy
Establishment License
$25
Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $2
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $485
Vehicle Parking Facilities
Enclosed Parking $205 $210
Parking Ramp $155 $160
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed after building
occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family
dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $280 $290
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $440
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $650
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $860
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,070
above 200,000 sq ft $1,280
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50
Certificate of Property Maintenance
Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $50
Change in Ownership
Condominium Unit $135
Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $295
Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 per building + $12 per unit
Single Family Dwellings $215
All Other Buildings:
Up to 5,000 sq ft $290
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $440
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $650
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $860
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,070
above 200,000 sq. ft $1,280
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance $60 $65
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection,
mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
Up to $500 Base Fee $42.25 $45
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $42.25 $45 + $1.80 $2
for each additional (or fraction thereof)
$100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $69.25 $75 + $14 $15
for each additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $391.25 $420 + $10.10 $10
for each additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $25,000.01
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $643.75 $670 + $7
for each additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $50,000.01
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $993.75 $1,020 + $5.60
for each additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $100.000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,233.75 $3,260 + $4.75
for each additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,608.75 $5,635 + $4.25
for each additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $1,000,000.01
Electrical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 $45
+ 1.75% of job valuation
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
Single family, one appliance $43 $45
Erosion Control Permit
Application and Review $150
ISTS Permit
(sewage treatment system install or repair) $125
Mechanical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 $45
+ 1.75% of job valuation
Mechanical Permit (cont'd.)
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $60 $62
Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $60 $62
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $43 $45
Plumbing Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 $45
+ 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $43 $45
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 $45
+ 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace/repair sewer or water service $73
Competency Exams Fees
Mechanical per test $30
Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30
Contractor Licenses
Mechanical $95
Solid Waste $195
Tree Maintenance $85
Dog Licenses
1 year $25
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
Dog Licenses
2 year $37
3 year $50
Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100
Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250
Interim License $15
Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55
Penalty for no license $40
Food and Beverage Equipment Permit
Installation (used equipment valued as new) $50 + 1.75% permit valuation
Plan Review Fee 35% of permit fee
Food and Beverage Licenses
Class E (multi-site educational facilities) $2,800
High + & large grocery store (25,000 sq ft +) $1,325
High + small grocery store (to 25,000 sq ft) $925
Class H (establishment with on-site preparation of food
and dining service)
$850
Class L - (prepackaged food) $225
Class M - (coffee shop) $580
Class V - (food vending machine) $15
Temporary Food Service
3+ days $150
1 to 3 days $100
Concession - Seasonal (Class S) $180
Prepackaged Food Only $40
Inspections
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building
permit table
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and
has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)
$130
Insurance Requirements
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
ISTS Permit
Sewage treatment system install or repair $125
License Fees - Other
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment
requiring a business license
Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
License Reinstatement Fee $250
Transfer of License (new ownership) $75
Plan Review
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate
Structure
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Public Sanitary Facilities - Swimming Pools, Whirlpool, Sauna (Dry
or Steam), Public Bath or Shower, Tanning Beds or Similar Facilities
Class I $820
Class II $450
Class III $285
Rental Housing License
Single Family Unit $95 per dwelling unit
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $145 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit
Condominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative $75 per unit
Multiple Family
Per Building $160 $165
Per Unit $10.25 $11
Temporary Noise Permit $60
Temporary Use Permits
Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260
Commercial Film Production Application $80
Petting Zoos $60
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110
Vehicle Decals
Catering $75
Solid Waste $20
Tree Maintenance & Removal $8
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animals
Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $25
2nd offense w/in year $40
3rd offense w/in year $50
4th offense w/in year $75
Boarding Per Day $25
Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing
$100
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
Criminal Background Investigation
Volunteers & Employees $5
False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $100
Late payment fee 10%
Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150
Lost ID Replacement Fee $25
Vehicle Forfeiture
Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or
Curb and Gutter Permit
$10 per 10 linear feet
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations
(MSC)
$30 each
Record Deed Transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording Cost
Winter Parking Permit
Caregiver parking $25
No off-street parking available No Charge
Off-street parking available $125
Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit
Administrative Fee (all permits) $50
Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $50 per hole
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet
(minimum $400)
Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet
(minimum $200)
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2012.
Public Hearing September 19, 2011
Second Reading October 3, 2011
Date of Publication October 13, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2012
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 3, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 6a) Page 11
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider 2012 Fees
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____-11
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR
BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2012
This ordinance sets 2012 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The
fee ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to
determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2012.
Adopted by the City Council October 3, 2011
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 13, 2011
Meeting Date: September 19, 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:
1st Reading of Ordinance - Native Vegetation Planting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 34 of the City Code relating
to Native Vegetation Planting and to set Second Reading for October 3, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed ordinance to clarify City Code provisions
relating native vegetation plantings?
BACKGROUND:
Chapter 34 of the City Code covers vegetation which includes trees, weeds and vegetation
maintenance. The proposed change affects the vegetation maintenance section of this chapter.
The proposed change to the code is a very minor housekeeping item to help make the ordinance
clearer to the property owners. The section to be amended is found under Article IV: Vegetation
Maintenance. Staff proposes removing “Native Vegetation” under letter (c) of Section 34-116;
Lawn Maintenance Requirements. The intent of this requirement is for weeds, turf grass and
rank vegetation, as all defined in this chapter, to be maintained in accordance with our weed
ordinance (to attain a height no higher than 6”). Currently as written, any native landscape plant
would have to be cut to a height of 6”, which is the opposite intent of this ordinance. This is
confusing to the property owners interested in growing native vegetation.
The use of native vegetation (indigenous trees, shrubs, wildflowers, grasses and other plants that
have naturally adapted themselves to the climate and soils of the area but require cultivation and
maintenance to remain viable) is very beneficial to our environment and promoting such
vegetation enhances St. Louis Park’s natural environment. There are currently 8 active permits
for Native Vegetation given in our City. All Native Vegetation Permits are in effect for five
years. After that time, the application must be renewed. The proposed change to this ordinance
will allow for effective management and enforcement of noxious weeds while promoting native
vegetation.
Staff will continue to monitor and enforce all noxious weed/tall grass violations as done in the
past.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff does not anticipate a large number of property owners will apply for native vegetation
permits and proposed change will only clarify the ordinance for application and enforcement.
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: 1st Reading of Ordinance - Native Vegetation Planting
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This ordinance is consistent with our second strategic direction; “St. Louis Park is committed to
being a leader in environmental stewardship”. We will increase environmental consciousness and
responsibility in all areas of city business.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of September 19, 2011 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: 1st Reading of Ordinance - Native Vegetation Planting
ORDINANCE NO. _____-11
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF
THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
CONCERNING VEGETATION
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 34-116 of the City Code is amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 34 VEGETATION
ARTICLE IV. VEGETATION MAINTENANCE
Sec. 34-116. Lawn Maintenance Requirements.
(a) All lot areas not covered by buildings, designated parking areas, paths, driveways and
impervious surface shall have planted Turf Grass, Native Vegetation, or combined
ground cover of cultivated vegetation, garden, hedges, trees and shrubbery.
(b) No owner or occupant of any lot shall allow any noxious weeds to grow on any part or
portion of said lot.
(c) No owner or occupant shall allow any Turf Grass, Weeds, Native Vegetation or Rank
Vegetation to grow to a height greater than six (6) inches on any lot or parcel of land.
(Ord. No. 2355-08, 6-13-2008)
SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its
publication.
First Reading September 19, 2011
Second Reading October 3, 2011
Date of Publication October 13, 2011
Date Ordinance takes effect October 28, 2011
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 3, 2011
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney