HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/04/11 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
APRIL 11, 2011
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002
Recommended Action: Motion to designate 26 different contractors as the lowest
responsible bidders, as identified in the attachment to the staff report, and authorize
execution of contracts with those firms for the Fire Stations Project - Project Nos. 2008-
3001 and 2008-3002. The total value of the contracts recommended for award is
$8,275,651.00.
Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson and staff recommend delaying action for the
Asphalt Paving, Aluminum Entrances, Painting, and Mechanical work scope items for
each station.
3. Adjournment
Immediately following the Special City Council Meeting
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:50 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 25, 2011
2. 6:55 p.m. Reilly Superfund Site History and Information
3. 7:40 p.m. Review of Policies – Expenses that are City Responsibility vs. Property
Owner (Or Combination)
4. 8:25 p.m. Update on Freight Rail Listening Sessions –April 27th and 28th
5. 8:55 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:00 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
6. State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100
7. Benilde-St. Margaret’s School – Private Activity Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2011A
8. 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report
9. Carbon Baseline Measurement Update
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 Date: April 11, 2011
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate 26 different contractors as the lowest responsible bidders, as identified in the
attachment to the staff report, and authorize execution of contracts with those firms for the Fire
Stations Project - Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002. The total value of the contracts
recommended for award is $8,275,651.00.
Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson and staff recommend delaying action for the Asphalt
Paving, Aluminum Entrances, Painting, and Mechanical work scope items for each station.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with the construction phase of the Fire Stations Project?
BACKGROUND:
Project Information:
Fire Station No. 1 is located at 3750 Wooddale Avenue next to Center Park. The existing fire
station will be demolished. The new Fire Station No. 1 building will be 30,695 square feet in
area and two stories tall. The building will include Fire Department administration offices,
station administration, training room, kitchen/dayroom, fitness room, locker rooms, hose tower,
and eight apparatus bays of varying depths.
Fire Stations No. 2 is located at 2262 Louisiana Avenue next to Northside Park. The new Fire
Station No. 2 will be 16,760 square feet in area and one-story tall. The building will include
station administration, fitness room, locker rooms, kitchen/dayroom, and four apparatus bays.
Construction Manager Services:
The City is using an agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations.
With the CM approach, the City serves as the general contractor for the project and the
construction manager, Kraus-Anderson Construction, will act as the city’s advisor and represent
the City’s interests throughout planning, design and construction. Therefore, the City will be
entering into multiple construction contracts rather than a single contract with a general
contractor.
Bid Information and Analysis:
There were two bid openings held the last week of March 2011. One bid opening was for the
overall demolition and construction of the Fire Station Project that included many different work
scope items. The other bid opening was for just the asbestos and hazardous material abatement
work scope.
Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002
Demolition and Construction Bids:
There were a total of 49 work scope items (25 items for Station No. 1 and 24 items for Station
No. 2) for demolition and construction of the two new fire stations. Contractors were able to bid
on Station No. 1, Station No. 2, or both stations. City staff and Kraus-Anderson have reviewed
the bids and determined the lowest cost combination of bids.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 17, 2011 and
March 24, 2011. An ad was also published in the Construction Bulletin on March 21, 2011.
Bids were received and opened at 2:00 p.m. on March 31, 2011 for the Fire Stations Project.
Kraus-Anderson has provided a summary of the bids (see attached Bid Scope Analysis). The
summary lists the cost estimate, low bidder, low bid, variance from estimate, average bid,
number of bids received for each bid item, remarks, and the award amount with alternate bid
items. Complete bid tabulation of all bids, and copies of all the bids received are available for
review at City Hall.
Staff and its construction manager, Kraus-Anderson Construction, Inc., have reviewed all of the
bids submitted and tabulated the results. Kraus-Anderson Construction and staff recommend
awarding 27 contracts. The 27 contracts that Kraus-Anderson is recommending encompass a
total of 41 of the 49 work scopes. The total value of the 26 contracts recommended for award is
$8,246,886.00. The pre-bid cost estimate for these bid items was $8,563,676.00.
The total value of the 26 contracts includes costs for 3 alternates that are recommended by City
of St. Louis Park staff. The alternates are as follows:
FS-1 Alternate #1 – Vapor Mitigation System $37,750.00
FS-1 Alternate #2 – Provide Natural Gas Generator ILO Diesel $28,000.00
FS-2 Alternate #2 – Provide Natural Gas Generator ILO Diesel $20,700.00
At this time, there are 8 work scopes that Kraus-Anderson and City staff are not recommending
award at the City of St. Louis Park City Council meeting on April 11, 2011. These work scopes
include Asphalt Paving, Aluminum Entrances, Painting and Mechanical. We are not
recommending award of the above work scopes due to bid errors or discrepancies, and we will
continue to review and have further discussions with the low bidders. Kraus-Anderson and City
staff will bring those remaining work scopes for award at a future City Council meeting. The
pre-bid cost estimate for these remaining work scope items was $2,683,863.00. The bids
awarded for the remaining work scopes will be between $1,990,599.00 and $2,305,725.00
depending on whether the low bid or second low bid is used.
Asbestos and Hazardous Materials Abatement Bid:
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on March 17, 2011 and
March 24, 2011 for removing asbestos and hazardous materials from the existing fire station
buildings. Bids were received and opened at 11:00 a.m. on March 29, 2011.
Staff and its consultant, Braun Intertec Corporation, have reviewed all of the Asbestos and
Hazardous Materials Abatement bids submitted and tabulated the results. From the review,
Braun Intertec Corporation and staff recommend Dennis Environmental Operations as the lowest
responsible bidder (see attached bid recommendation letter).
Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002
The base bid award amount is $28,765.00. Alternates for this bid item will only be selected if
asbestos is found in the roofing or roof flashing. The cost of the alternates could range between
2,250 and 30,125, depending on their findings.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). The project budget for constructing both stations is approximately $15.5 million. The
sources of funds include $12.5 million in Build America bond proceeds issued in December
2010. The remaining portion will be paid with approximately $3 million from the Fire portion of
the Police and Fire Pension Fund.
Overall, the construction bids came in well below the overall construction cost estimate. City
Council may remember that the call for bids included several construction alternates to protect
the budget. Staff recommendations for the alternates are reflected in the proposed bid award.
In addition to the construction items, staff also had made reductions in the project budget for
furniture, fixture, equipment, and technology items prior to going out for bids based on Kraus-
Anderson’s construction estimate. The attached “Overall Project Budget – Post Bid” summary
fully restores the previous budget allowances for those line items.
The total project budget will be at least $391,339 under the $15.5 million Capital Improvement
Plan budget based on the bids received and staff’s recommendations regarding alternates, the
other budget adjustments described above, and the final determination of the award of the
remaining eight bid areas still under review.
NEXT STEPS:
Awarded contracts will be executed
Kraus-Anderson and Staff will continue the bid review on the remaining eight work scopes
and bring a recommendation to City Council at a later date.
A ground breaking ceremony is planned for 6:30 p.m. on May 2, 2011 at Fire Station No. 1
Fire Department will move out of Fire Station No. 1 on May 3, 2011
Construction will begin in May 2011 and should be completed in May 2012.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Engaging the community in the fire stations design process, minimizing negative impacts of the
stations on surrounding residents, designing energy efficient buildings that meet or exceed the
City’s green building policy, and building an aesthetically pleasing building relate to all four
Vision St. Louis Park Strategic directions.
Attachments: Kraus-Anderson Construction Bid Recommendation Letter
- Bid Scope Analysis
- Remaining Bid Scopes (To Be Awarded) Analysis
Braun Intertec Corporation Bid Recommendation Letter
- Bid Tabulation
Overall Project Budget – Post Bid
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002Page 4
Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002Page 5
KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Bid Scope AnalysisSt. Louis Park Fire Stations #1 and #23/31/2011DIV #DESCRIPTION ESTIMATELOW BIDDERLOW BIDVARIANCE FROM ESTIMATE AVG. BID# OF BIDS REMARKSAWARD AMOUNT W/ ALTERNATES1 FS-1Earthwork/Site Utilities/Demo731,131 Frattalone Companies1,111,400 380,269 691,2226Includes Alternate #1 Alternate makes them low 1,149,150 1 FS-2Earthwork/Site Utilities/Demo644,469 incl- (644,469) 673,8815 - 3 FS-1Concrete/Masonry1,399,715 Steenberg Watrud2,289,308 889,593 1,543,5878 2,289,308 3 FS-2Concrete/Masonry1,045,880 incl- (1,045,880) 986,5578combined bid with FS-1 - 4 FS-1Precast Structural Concrete107,781 Molin Concrete Products85,475 (22,306) 93,703 3 85,475 4 FS-2Precast Structural Concrete22,835 Hanson Structural Precast16,334 (6,501) 19,010 3 16,334 5 FS-1Steel Supply-Structural/Misc.379,000 Thurnbeck Steel Fabrication 593,000 214,000 409,869 4 593,000 5 FS-2Steel Supply-Structural/Misc.192,000 incl- (192,000) 243,6244combined bid with FS-1 - 6 FS-1Steel Erection121,000 AME Construction183,800 62,800 123,865 4 183,800 6 FS-2Steel Erection58,000 incl(58,000) 77,455 4 - 7 FS-1General Carpentry297,750 Crossroad Construction434,370 136,620 311,617 7 434,370 7 FS-2General Carpentry158,250 incl- (158,250) 183,5507combined bid with FS-1 - 8 FS-1Roofing/ Composite Aluminum Wall Panels251,758 Stock Roofing Company 442,300 190,542 306,048 10 442,300 8 FS-2Roofing/ Composite Aluminum Wall Panels144,904 incl- (144,904) 214,782 10combined bid with FS-1 - 9 FS-1Joint Sealers42,500 American Masonry Restoration 35,413 (7,087) 46,296 7 35,413 Page 1 of 3Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002Page 6
KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Bid Scope AnalysisSt. Louis Park Fire Stations #1 and #23/31/2011DIV #DESCRIPTION ESTIMATELOW BIDDERLOW BIDVARIANCE FROM ESTIMATE AVG. BID# OF BIDS REMARKSAWARD AMOUNT W/ ALTERNATES9 FS-2Joint Sealers18,500 incl- (18,500) 07combined bid with FS-1 - 10 FS-1Hollow Metal Doors/Frames Hardware105,000 Bredemus Hardware 148,735 43,735 150,575 3 148,735 10 FS-2Hollow Metal Doors/Frames Hardware52,000 incl- (52,000) 0 3combined bid with FS-1 - 11 FS-1Overhead/Coiling Doors121,000 Overhead Door Company139,180 18,180 94,8096Apparent low bid was not a specified product 139,180 11 FS-2Overhead/Coiling Doors72,000 incl- (72,000) 62,0576combined bid with FS-1 - 13 FS-1Drywall, Framing229,000 Zintl Inc.314,444 85,444 267,143 4 314,444 13 FS-2Drywall, Framing106,000 incl- (106,000) 118,4734combined bid with FS-1 - 14 FS-1Tile Work95,803 Dale Tile Company 149,700 53,897 131,644 5 149,700 14 FS-2Tile Work48,560 incl- (48,560) 54,9575combined bid with FS-1 - 15 FS-1Acoustical Ceilings42,794 Kirk Acoustics 50,400 7,606 41,844 5 50,400 15 FS-2Acoustical Ceilings18,985 incl.- (18,985) 15,1355combined bid with FS-1 - 16 FS-1Carpet/Resilient Flooring62,500 St. Paul Linoleum79,995 17,495 57,636 1 79,995 16 FS-2Carpet/Resilient Flooring24,300 incl- (24,300) 22,5951combined bid with FS-1 - 17 FS-1Quartz Flooring/Liquid Floor Coating81,352 Henkemeyer Painting64,500 (16,852) 74,501 9Apparent low bid had no bid security 64,500 17 FS-2Quartz Flooring/Liquid Floor Coating61,704 Twin City Tile43,130 (18,574) 55,766 9Apparent low bid had no bid security 43,130 19 FS-1Misc. Specialties-Supply30,100 BMSI53,283 23,183 35,9325Apparent low bid had no bid security 53,283 Page 2 of 3Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002Page 7
KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Bid Scope AnalysisSt. Louis Park Fire Stations #1 and #23/31/2011DIV #DESCRIPTION ESTIMATELOW BIDDERLOW BIDVARIANCE FROM ESTIMATE AVG. BID# OF BIDS REMARKSAWARD AMOUNT W/ ALTERNATES19 FS-2Misc. Specialties-Supply31,000 incl(31,000) 21,2455Apparent low bid had no bid security - 20 FS-1 Lockers20,000 Olympus Lockers22,272 2,272 35,158 4 22,272 20 FS-2 Lockers19,000 Olympus Lockers20,697 1,697 30,950 4 20,697 21 FS-1Elevator45,000 Schindler45,500 500 61,391 2 45,500 22 FS-1Fire Protection76,738 General Sprinkler42,600 (34,138) 60,000 5 42,600 22 FS-2Fire Protection46,090 Brothers Fire Protection26,800 (19,290) 32,820 5 26,800 24 FS-1Electrical835,000 Dynamic Electric1,050,000 215,000 1,089,8333Includes Alternate #2 for FS#1 1,078,000 24 FS-2Electrical573,000 Northern Air635,000 62,000 721,6285Includes Alternate #2 for FS#2 655,000 25 FS-1Landscaping94,145 Greenworks 49,100 (45,045) 64,038 15 49,100 25 FS-2Landscaping57,132 Greenworks34,400 (22,732) 41,617 15 34,400 TOTALS8,563,676 8,161,136 (402,540) 231 8,246,886 Page 3 of 3Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002Page 8
KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Remaining Bid Scopes (To Be Awarded) AnalysisSt. Louis Park Fire Stations #1 and #23/31/2011DIV #DESCRIPTIONESTIMATE APPARENT LOW BIDDER LOW BIDVARIANCE FROM ESTIMATENEXT POTENTIAL LOW BIDDER BID # OF BIDS2 FS-1Asphalt Paving72,515 Oman Bros. Paving62,721 (9,794) Oman Bros. Paving118,725 52 FS-2Asphalt Paving77,248 TA Schifsky & Sons38,000 (39,248) incl.512 FS-1Aluminum Entrances/ Windows305,000 Capital City Glass323,189 18,189 ACG362,000 612 FS-2Aluminum Entrances/ Windows159,000 incl- (159,000) incl- 618 FS-1Painting79,400 Fransen88,689 9,289 Wasche116,000 618 FS-2Painting39,900 incl- (39,900) incl- 723 FS-1Plumbing, Piping, HVAC1,200,000 Klamm1,478,000 278,000 Thelen1,090,000 823 FS-2Plumbing, Piping, HVAC750,800 incl.(750,800) Albers619,000 8TOTALS2,683,863 1,990,599 (693,264) 2,305,72551Page 1 of 1Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002Page 9
Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002 Page 10
Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002Page 11
Date: 4/5/2011
Revision #:
Revision Date:
Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: May-11
Project:Fire Stations #1 & #2
Location:St. Louis Park
Designer:DLR Group/KKE
Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks
Project Funds Available $0 $0 $15,516,197
Interest Earnings $0
Total Available Dollars $0 $0 $15,516,197
Construction Costs Budget
Building & Site Construction $0 $0 $10,552,611 Bids including Alt #1 and #2
Project General Conditions $282,992 $224,407 $507,399 Direct Cost Items
CM Site Services $0 $0 $502,335 Kraus-Anderson
CM Fee $0 $0 $157,500 Kraus-Anderson
Construction Contingency $289,682 $182,339 $472,021
Small Utility Relocation/New Service Charges $20,000 $25,000 $45,000 Based on Prelim Meetings
Interior Signage Allowance $9,000 $7,000 $16,000
Home Demo Contract For Fire Station #1 $38,083 $0 $38,083 Actual Contact including change order
Total Construction Budget $639,757 $438,746 $12,290,949
Soft Cost Budget
A/E Fees $0 $0 $498,750 DLR/KKE
A&E Project Reimbursable or Constr. Admin.$0 $0 $24,000 DLR/KKE
A/E Additional Services $0 $0 $70,676 DLR/KKE/Faithful Gould
Overall Project Budget - Post Bid
Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks
Project Commissioning / Validation $25,000 $15,000 $40,000
Phase 1 & 2 and Hazmat Environmental Study $0 $0 $43,970 Braun
Environmental Abatement Costs $50,000 $30,000 $80,000 Allowance
Geothermal Drilling / Report $11,367 $11,367 $22,734 Braun Reports
Storm Water Charges, Requirements $0 $0 $0
City Approval Fees & Park Ded.$0 $0 $0
City Administration Costs $1,283 $0 $1,283
Travel / Site Visits $0 $11 $11
Misc. Owner Expenses $71 $6,500 $6,571
Misc. Owner Expenses - Storage Costs $16,800 $16,800 $33,600 Belt Line Properties
Tree Replacement Fund $0 $0 $20,585 FS #1 & FS #2
Platting Costs $3,250 $3,250 $6,500
Builders Risk Insurance $0 $0 $8,260 Preliminary Quote
Total Owner Costs Budget $1,475,371 $441,928 $2,015,114
Total Project Costs $2,228,998 $978,396 $15,124,858 Constr. Cost + Soft Costs + Owner Costs
Project Balance Available $391,339
Value Engineering & Recommend savings $0 $0 $0
Adjusted Project Balance $0 $0 $391,339
SLP CD Budget Postbid - Owner-Project Budget Award Lett Page 2 of 2 Print Date: 4/7/2011
Special City Council Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2a)
Subject: Bid Tabulation for Fire Stations Project – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002 Page 13
Meeting Date: April 11, 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:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 25, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on
April 25, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on April 25, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning April 25, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – April 25, 2011
Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Meeting – April 25 at 6:15 p.m held prior to the
Study Session.
Study Session, Monday, April 25, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Storm Water Follow-Up – Public Works (30 minutes)
As a follow-up to the January 10, 2011 Study Session discussion on this subject, staff will
provide Council with information on water quality and projects associated with water bodies
and wetlands in the City including treatment options and costs.
3. Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition Plant Closing – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff wishes to discuss the impacts of the impeding closure of the Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition
Plant in St. Louis Park and discuss future uses for the land.
4. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
March 2011 Financial Report
Quarterly Investment Report
Listening Sessions – Freight Rail Meetings
End of Meeting: 7:40 p.m.
Meeting Date: April 11, 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:
Reilly Superfund Site History and Information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None - the purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with information about the history,
status, remediation strategy, and long term work plan at this site.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
What other, if any, information regarding the Reilly Superfund site does the Council desire?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council developed a priority list of 6 items to be discussed at future study sessions.
The list includes:
Construction/Project Management – January 24th
Review of Policies – Expenses City vs. Property Owner or combination – April 11
Storm Water/Surface water management – January 10th
BN Bridge Replacement – February 14th
City Council Meeting Audience Norms/Rules – March 28
Reilly Tar 101 - April 11
History
Much can and has been written regarding the history of the Reilly site. Staff has attached the
following documents providing historical information describing how this site was used for the
processing of sugar beets prior to 1905. From 1917 to 1972 Reilly used the site for refinery and
wood treating purposes. And, since 1972 the site has been cleaned and redeveloped into its
current condition which is primarily for residential housing and city park use:
Reilly History - Dorsey 1983
MPCA Reilly Fact Sheet - MPCA 1986
Superfund Health Facts - MDH 1992
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp - EPA 2007
Remediation Strategy and Responsibilities
The following is a brief summary of the Reilly Site Consent Decree, which regulates the Reilly
site for the 30 year period from 1986-2016. The parties to the Consent Decree are 1) the United
States of America on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of the Interior; 2) the State of Minnesota on behalf of the Attorney General, the
Department of Health, and the Pollution Control Agency; 3) Reilly Tar & Chemical Company;
4) the City of St. Louis Park; 5) the City of Hopkins; 6) the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of St. Louis Park; 7) Oak Park Village Associates; and, 8) Philip’s Investment
Company. The Consent Decree (CD) consists of three (3) parts:
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information
1. The CD provides the framework for an agreement which accomplished the
following:
resolved litigation
addressed environmental concerns
The CD identifies the Parties involved and provides the administrative details for
proceeding with the site remedy.
2. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) (Exhibit A to the CD) provides the technical
details of what actions are to be performed. This is a lengthy list of specific
activities - the remedy - which must be accomplished to address each
environmental concern at the site.
3. The City – Reilly Agreement (Exhibit B to the CD) provides an allocation of the
responsibilities between the City and Reilly for funding and performing the
remedies / activities identified in the RAP.
Strategy: The basic premise at the Reilly site is that the contamination is so extensive that
cleanup is neither possible nor practical with current known and available technology. The
strategy at the time of the CD-RAP agreement, today, and into the foreseeable future is simply to
contain the spread of the contamination, ensure adequate protective cover at the site, and to
provide safe drinking water to City residents. This is done by strategically locating pumping
wells (of various types) in the contaminated aquifers and operating the wells to the degree
necessary to achieve this strategy. The following table identifies aquifers of concern within the
City:
Drinking Approximate
Aquifer Water Source Depth to Center Contamination
Drift No 50’ Yes
Platteville No 100’ Yes
St. Peter Yes 150’ Yes
Prairie-du-Chien/Jordan Yes 400’ Yes
Ironton-Galesville No 750’ No
Mt. Simon-Hinckley Yes 900’ No
It appears at this point in time that all contamination has been contained except possibly that in
the Prairie-du-Chien/Jordan Aquifer. Recent Agency groundwater modeling indicates the
potential for contamination migration towards Edina. The Agencies have expressed a desire this
migration concern be evaluated further and addressed as appropriate.
Responsibilities: Responsibilities of the various parties were agreed to in the 1980’s and
are documented in the CD-RAP and the City-Reilly Agreement. In simple terms, Reilly
provided capital to finance specific improvements while the City implemented the improvements
and assumed daily operations and maintenance responsibilities; the State and Federal
Governments have administrative oversight responsibilities only (the Reilly CD-RAP and
Exhibits can be provided to Council upon request - they are quite lengthy). Should groundwater
contamination spread to Edina, any mitigation or remedy deemed necessary by the Agencies is to
be provided by Reilly.
Current Status
Current Operations and Costs: As described in the previous section, the City is
responsible for day to day site operations. This mainly consists of monitoring (groundwater
sampling, testing, and reporting); groundwater pumping, treating, and discharge; and,
administrative activities. Specific activities include:
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information
Aquifer
Well
Monitor
Pump
GAC
Treatment
Drink
Sewer
Discharge
Surface
Discharge
Drift/Platteville W420 x x x - - x
W421 x x x - - x
W422 x - - - - -
W434 x - - - - -
W439 x - - - - -
Others (29) x - - - - -
St. Peter W410 x x - - x -
SLP3 (WTP1) x * - * - -
Others (11) x - - - - -
Prairie-du-
Chien/Jordan W23 x x x - - x
SLP10/15(WTP1) x x x x - -
SLP4 (WTP4) x x x x - -
SLP6 (WTP6) x * - * - -
SLP14 (WTP10) x x - x - -
SLP16 (WTP16) x x - x - -
Others (15) x - - - - -
Ironton-Galesville W105 x - - - - -
Mt. Simon
Hinckley SLP11 (WTP1) x x - x - -
SLP12 (WTP6) x x - x - -
SLP13 (WTP10) x x - x - -
SLP17 x * - * - -
WTP - Water Treatment Plant
GAC - Granular Activated Carbon
* - Emergency Use Only
Water that is used for drinking water purposes is first treated using GAC technology at Water
Treatment Plants 1 and 4 as noted above. This costs, on average, $100,000 annually.
The City collects about 200 samples per year from wells in all five aquifers listed above. The
cost to collect and analyze these samples is approximately $50,000 per year.
A summary of RAP operations and costs is provided in the attachment – Historical Summary of
Expenditures - 1996 thru 2010.
A detailed description of the status of each RAP required activity is provided in the attached
2010 Annual Progress Report.
Future Site Activities
The work plans associated with this site of the 1980’s and 90’s were basically a response to
Agency directives (CD-RAP) along with day to day activities (Operations & Maintenance).
Since about 2000, in addition to day to day operations, staff has focused their efforts primarily on
well abandonments and the lowering of annual site O&M costs. The annual O&M costs
associated with this site were originally estimated in 1985 at $20,000, but have grown to about
$500,000 and have the potential to increase even further. Staff feels that it may be possible, with
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information
Agency cooperation, to reduce these costs by implementing some or a combination of some of
the following activities:
1. Elimination of unnecessary monitoring
2. Elimination of unnecessary pumping
3. Construction of a GAC plant to treat sewer discharged water
4. Revision of lab testing requirements
5. Surface discharge of pumped water without GAC treatment
6. Reduction in MCES sewer rates and add-on charges
Staff is prepared to begin this cost reduction effort with the Agencies this year. However, should
we be unable to eventually reduce O&M costs as described above, the city may want to consider
requesting financial aid (subsidies) from the State and Federal Governments.
Every five years the Agencies are required to do a review of each superfund site. The last review
was conducted in 2006 (Executive Summary attached) which identified, among several things,
the need to perform a soil gas vapor intrusion study at the site and to evaluate possible migration
of contaminants towards Edina. As Council is aware, the Agencies are currently conducting a
soil gas vapor study at the site. And, for the past several years the city has been working with the
Agencies on evaluating the possible migration of contaminated groundwater towards Edina. The
Agencies are currently conducting another five year review and it is possible that even more
additional needs may be identified by them.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
All city costs to operate the Reilly site are being funded by the Water Utility. Since 1986, staff
estimates these costs have totaled well over $10 million. And at a cost of about $500,000 per
year, these costs contribute to our water rates being about 10 - 15 % higher than they would
normally be.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Reilly History - Dorsey 1983
MPCA Reilly Fact Sheet - MPCA 1986
Superfund Health Facts - MDH 1992
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp - EPA 2007
Historical Summary of Expenditures - 1996 thru 2010
2010 Annual Progress Report
Exec Summary - Five Year Review 2006
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 5
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 6
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 7
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 8
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 9
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 10
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 11
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 12
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 13
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 14
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 15
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 16
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 17
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 18
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 19
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 20
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 21
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 22
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 23
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 24
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 25
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 26
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 27
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 28
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 29
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 30
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 31
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 32
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 33
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 34
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 35
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 36
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 37
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 38
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 39
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 40
Sites in Reuse
Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp. Superfund Site
Louisiana Street and Walker Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426
From left to right: A soccer field and recreation center, both at the new park; a baseball field and walking path; a storm
water pond.
Site size: 80 acres
Site Reuses: The site is now home to condominiums and town-
houses, a restaurant and bowling alley, an office building, and a
recreational park with athletic fields,walking paths, recreation
center, pond, playground, and parking lot.
St. Louis Park,
Minnesota
EPA Region 5 Reuse Fact Sheets August 2007
INTRODUCTION
According to Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities
for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, “everyone who
grew up in the City remembers the smell of creosote”
from the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation. The same
Superfund site that was responsible for the pervasive
creosote smell has been redeveloped, and now features
townhouses, a new office building, and a park, complete
with recreational fields, a playground, and walking trails.
SITE HISTORY
From 1917 until 1972, Reilly Industries operated a coal tar
distillation and wood preserving plant in St. Louis Park,
known as the Republic Creosoting Company. From 1917
until 1939, wastes containing coal tar and its distillation
byproducts were discharged into a ditch that ran the length
of the site. These wastes then flowedintoapeatbogonthe
southern portion of the site. A wastewater treatment facility
was installed in 1940, but Republic Creosoting Company
continued to discharge contaminated waste into the peat bog
for the duration of the Company’s operations at the site.
Coal tar and creosote dripping from leaky pipes, spilled
process materials, and wood-treating chemicals washed
off of treated lumber eventually resulted in contaminated
soil on the site. Chemical contaminants may have also
been released from a waste pond in the southeast portion
of the site. There were more than a dozen wells on the
site, with depths varying from 50 to more than 900 feet.
Republic Creosoting Company dumped creosote and
waste materials down several of these wells, eventually
contaminating the ground water.The City of St. Louis Park
purchased the site from Reilly Industries in 1972. At the
time, the State of Minnesota was suing Reilly Industries over
pollution discharge issues. The sales agreement included
a “hold harmless” clause for soil and water impurities,
indemnifying the City from liability. Creosote and creosote
wastes had migrated directly into four underlying aquifers,
contaminating the ground water with polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons. T he contaminants eventually spread to
private wells and municipal ground water sources.
After acquiring the site in 1972, the City of St. Louis Park
razed the Republic Creosoting Company buildings and
constructed residential buildings on the northern end of
the site over the next 8 to 10 years. A major north-south
boulevard and storm water drainage improvements were
also constructed. No redevelopment occurred on the site
from 1984 until 2002, due to delays associated with a lack of
a remediation plan for the site and the possibility that one
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 41
EPA Region 5 Reuse Fact Sheets August 2007
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:
agency might require massive soil excavation and removal.
Anderson said, “Fear of unknown remediation requirements
coupled with an inability to stop generating data and start
generating solutions were the biggest impediments to site
redevelopment.” Beginning in 1978, the State of Minnesota
shut down more than a dozen wells in the vicinity of the site,
and the City of St. Louis Park instituted a water conservation
program due to daily shortages of clean, drinkable water.
In 1979, 28 multi-aquifer wells were either reconstructed or
abandoned to prevent the spread of contamination in the
ground water. By this time, many citizens in the community
had become extremely concerned about the quality of
drinking water. Organized public protests over water quality
were not uncommon.
THE CLEANUP PROCESS
In 1982, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) provided funds to the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) to clean out two contaminated wells. The
site was listed on the National Priorities List in 1983. In
1984, a consent order was issued, requiring Reilly Tar, the
potentially responsible party as owner and operator of the
site, to construct a granular-activated carbon treatment
plant for two existing contaminated municipal wells, restore
drinking water, and contain the contaminant plume from
contaminating other municipal wells.
After some delay, Reilly Industries came forward with a
practical, cost-effective remediation plan that expedited the
cleanup and reuse process. Reilly’s plan led to settlement
of the lawsuit over liability and a 1986 agreement between
all parties for remediating the site. Under the settlement,
the City agreed to share the responsibility for operating
and maintaining the municipal water treatment plants
and performing long term ground water monitoring.
Construction of the required pump and treat wells was
finished in 1997. It is estimated that as of 1996, 6.2 billion
gallons of contaminated ground water had been pumped and
treated. Redeveloping the formerly contaminated property
was important to the city’s growth as a Minneapolis suburb,
primarily because St. Louis Park has little land available
for new construction other than previously used property.
Ultimately, a strong commitment to redevelopment and the
local government’s willingness to take risks by investing in
a contaminated property were key factors to overcoming
impediments to reuse.
$NEW RECREATIONAL PARK
In 2002, the City built a new commercial officebuildingand
recreational park, in addition to the residential housing that
was built before the site was cleaned up. The community
was able to preserve a significantportionof green space, in
addition to limiting unnecessary commercial or residential
development. Community members enjoy walking trails,
athletic fields, a new recreation center, and a pond that
provides wildlife habitats. A local high school soccer
team plays its games on the new fields. The site is now a
place where community members can gather to enjoy the
amenities that the City worked so hard to create.
EPA Region 5:
Darryl Owens
Remedial Project Manager
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
Phone: (312) 886-7089
Email: owens.darryl@epa.gov
Site Summary: http://www.epa.gov/region5/
superfund/npl/minnesota/MND980609804.
htm
A playground at the new park in St. Louis Park, MN.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 42
Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual YTD1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Personnel18,727$ 18,207$ 15,510$ 16,327$ 18,088$ 17,075$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 18,000$ 50,072$ 30,260$ 27,124$ 30,887$ 18,500$ Administration436$ 461$ 2,628$ 918$ 2,240$ $2,000 $2,100 513$ 1,059$ 32$ 1,708$ 1,330$ Capital Expense18,373$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 16,970$ -$ -$ Operations & Maintenance1,032$ 5,553$ 6,836$ 2,676$ 10,482$ 11,100$ 1,310$ 36,175$ 11,336$ 813$ 12,789$ 22,592$ 30,388$ 11,783$ 1,119$ Utilities16,410$ 13,291$ 18,087$ 17,820$ 14,250$ 16,801$ 17,047$ 14,509$ 18,880$ 20,975$ 20,446$ 14,626$ 25,947$ 20,883$ Permit Sampling1,462$ 1,745$ 700$ 1,655$ 1,222$ 1,333$ 3,505$ 4,186$ 5,130$ 5,685$ 2,446$ 6,768$ 2,177$ 3,180$ 4,387$ MCES & MPCA Charges 145,289$ 177,284$ 168,383$ 113,699$ 131,097$ 114,039$ 114,039$ 75,048$ 78,643$ 117,267$ 106,722$ 90,329$ 90,329$ 91,486$ 110,688$ MCES Add On Charge46,817$ 43,198$ 57,590$ 66,432$ 26,640$ 54,087$ 37,490$ $41,366 43,405$ 60,166$ 57,879$ 49,658$ 19,981$ 44,942$ 54,507$ GAC32,552$ 53,171$ 26,078$ 60,075$ 41,732$ 61,429$ 61,700$ 59,922$ 59,440$ 76,318$ 86,350$ 108,747$ 138,925$ 122,400$ -$ Consulting Services(ENSR) 99,901$ 94,825$ 105,743$ 143,144$ 167,256$ 103,929$ 115,530$ $106,669 89,544$ 116,499$ 113,231$ 102,942$ 145,271$ 195,177$ 189,000$ Studies63,530$ 48,411$ 30,934$ 27,756$ 58,177$ 10,650$ Shipping (Fed-X)11,353$ 14,191$ 12,874$ 9,736$ 12,448$ 11,506$ 11,983$ $9,264 11,517$ Sampling (Quanterra)178,640$ 174,695$ 123,500$ 125,620$ 86,020$ 85,300$ 58,540$ $59,800 52,325$ 49,250$ 47,050$ 44,050$ 44,300$ 52,600$ 37,888$ TOTAL536,209$ 618,113$ 533,133$ 558,369$ 532,584$ 474,048$ 440,898$ 429,577$ 384,362$ 526,408$ 545,924$ 524,755$ 540,909$ 638,287$ 448,951$ Total since 1995 536,209$ 1,154,322$ 1,687,455$ 2,245,824$ 2,778,408$ 3,252,456$ 3,693,354$ 4,122,931$ 4,507,293$ 5,033,701$ 5,579,626$ 6,104,381$ 6,645,290$ 7,283,577$ 7,732,528$ 2005 Fed-X included in ENSRFinal costs not yet determinedCity of St. Louis ParkReilly CD-RAP ExpensesAnnual Costs$-$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,0001996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010YearDollarsAnnual CostsG:\CITYWIDE\PREPARE\04-11 CC, SS, EDA\041111 SS\Approved\Reilly Report\5- Historical Summary of Expenditures - 1996 thru 2010.xls04/07/2011Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and InformationPage 43
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 44
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 45
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 46
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 47
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 48
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 49
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 50
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 51
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 52
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 53
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 54
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 55
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 56
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 57
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 58
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 59
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 60
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 61
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 62
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 63
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 64
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 65
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 66
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 67
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 68
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 69
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 70
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 71
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 72
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Reilly Superfund Site History and Information Page 73
Meeting Date: April 11, 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:
Review of Policies – Expenses that are City Responsibility vs. Property Owner (Or
Combination).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed. Council requested information on the City’s policies regarding expenses that
are city responsibility vs. property owner, or combination.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information regarding this topic?
BACKGROUND:
Council developed a priority list of 6 items to be discussed at future study sessions. The list
includes:
9 Construction/Project Management – January 24th
9 Review of Policies – Expenses City vs. Property Owner or combination – April 11
9 Storm Water/Surface water management – January 10th
9 BN Bridge Replacement – February 14th
9 City Council Meeting Audience Norms/Rules – March 28
9 Reilly Tar 101 – April 11
The City provides services to customers in a variety of methods. Council requested a list of
policies on expenses that are city responsibility vs. property owner or combination. The attached
listing outlines such programs. Also attached is the schedule of fees for other activities and/or
business licensing. If Council would like additional information, please inform staff of what
materials you would like to receive in a report and if an additional study session discussion is
requested on a specific area related to this topic.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Overview of programs that are city, property owner or combination
Fee schedules
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Assisted by: All Departments
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Review of Policies – Expenses that are City Responsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)
Overview of programs that are city responsibility vs. property owner or combination
3/2011
Community Development
Service: Architectural design - Housing
Description: Provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise awareness of design possibilities for
expansion. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in
conjunction with the American Institute of Architects and local architects.
Costs: Resident $25 co-pay
SLP Balance of cost
Fire Department
Service: Car seat installation education
Cost: $25 for the first seat, $10 each additional seat, covers program costs, paid by
individual
Service: Commercial Inspections, each business is inspected every three years
Cost: This is part of the Department’s Fire Prevention Program with costs borne by the
Department
Service: File of Life, medical information sheet available to responders during a medical
emergency
Cost: No cost, funded through grants and volunteers
Service: Special Sprinkler Assessments, used to retro fit fire sprinklers into structures
during remodeling
Cost: Money is repaid through special assessments over a period of years with interest.
Administration costs are paid up front.
Inspections
Services: Special Service Districts 1-6 – Facilities Maintenance
Administers the contracting, charges, annual budget, and coordination of
services within the districts.
Location of Districts:
• SSD #1 – Excelsior Blvd. from Quentin Avenue West to TH100
and North on Park Center Blvd to 36th Street and around on
Monterey Drive.
• SSD #2 – Excelsior Blvd. from Monterey Drive East to France
Avenue.
• SSD #3 – Excelsior Blvd from Quentin to Monterey Drive.
• SSD #4 – Excelsior Blvd west of TH 100 to Louisiana Avenue
South.
• SSD #5 – Park Place Blvd from Hwy 394 South to Cedar Lake
Road.
• SSD #6 – 36th Street from TH100 West to Wooddale Avenue.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Review of Policies – Expenses that are City Responsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)
City Policy: The City policy is to provide the Districts with the same level of service as
the rest of the City. If the District desires a higher level of service, then
the District will be responsible for any associated costs above the City’s
basic service.
Description: The following matrix outlines which services are provided by the City to
the individual districts without a direct charge. Where a contractor is
listed the district pays for that service which is performed by city staff or
contracted to a private firm. Listed under Pedestrian Lighting, districts 1,
2, and 3 are billed each month for specific lights.
Service SSD#1 SSD#2 SSD#3 SSD#4 SSD#5 SSD#6
Snow
Removal/Hauling
Contractor City Contractor City City City
Landscaping Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor
Banners Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor
Site Maintenance Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor Contractor
Street Lighting
(high level)
City City City City City City
Pedestrian Lighting
(low level)
District District District N/A N/A N/A
Decorative
Lighting
Contractor Contractor Contractor N/A N/A Contractor
Refuse Service City City City City City City
Irrigation System District District District District District District
City Contribution $15,355* $65 $937 $439 $0 $1,650
* Of the city contribution, $3,000 is for snow removal.
Management Fee collected from each district; revenue for city.
SSD#1 SSD#2 SSD#3 SSD#4 SSD#5 SSD#6
$4,500 $2,000 $2,500 $2,500 $3,250 $2,500
Service Overview:
• Snow removal in SSD #1 and #3 is consistent after first ½ inch,
hauling snow away as needed.
• Landscaping provides for maintenance of plants, trees and sod
within the districts.
• Banners are put up by City crew and the districts are charged for
time and materials.
• All site maintenance is charged back to the districts.
• Pedestrian lighting in Districts #1, #2 and #3 is beyond what the
City normally provides and is charged back to the districts.
• Decorative lighting (Tivoli) in Districts #1, #2, and #3 is
completed by contractor and up-lighting completed by City crew
with the districts being charged for all costs.
• Weekly refuse collection is done by City contractor and paid for by
the Solid Waste Fund. Additional service, if needed, is paid for by
the District.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Review of Policies – Expenses that are City Responsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)
Service: Property Maintenance
Description: A regulatory function that occasionally is resolved by assisting homeowners with
limited finances in cleaning up efforts.
Costs: Ordering a dumpster to be delivered for removal of house or yard accumulations –
invoice property owner for actual costs
Service: Property Maintenance correction of hazards or demolition.
Description: Court action is sometimes necessary for correction of hazards or demolition. The
City may be directed to hire a contractor and complete work.
Costs: Hiring contractor and possible attorney costs– invoice property owner or assess
the property.
Service: Hazardous Materials emergency response.
Cost: State statute allows for recovery of costs by the city with limitations.
Parks and Recreation
Service: Boulevard tree removal
Costs: 50/50% property owner and City
Service: Tree injection Private
Costs: 15% paid by City, remainder property owner
Service: Tree injection Public Boulevard
Costs: 15% paid by City, remainder to address
Service: Weed mowing
Costs: We bill the property owner or assess them. We pay for a contractor to mow
private weeds/tall grass and then invoice property for that amount plus our
costs/admin.
Service: Vision/Obstruction Notices
Costs: We invoice property for non-compliance of VO if VO emanates from private
property and we have to correct the violation (charge our costs plus admin fee).
Service: Private tree removal
Costs: 100% property owner, remainder property owner
Service: Tree Sale – trees for private property plantings
Costs: ($35.00/tree up to 2 per address) subsidized by City 35% of total cost/tree.
Service: Boulevard Tree Pruning
Costs: 100% City
Service: Boulevard Tree Planting
Costs: 100% City
Police
Service: We track false alarms by address and by ordinance each location is permitted one
false alarm per calendar year free.
Cost: A false alarm fee is assessed after the free alarm, and the revenue collected is
tracked in our budget. Officers make the determination on false alarms in most
cases at the time of the event. The fee is intended to recover the staff time of the
officers, dispatchers, and finance staff related to the response
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Review of Policies – Expenses that are City Responsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)
Public Works
Service: Solid Waste
Description: Garbage Carts
Costs: Broken from use, animal damage, stolen Replaced by City
Damaged by resident (i.e. burned by putting in fireplace ashes) Replaced by
resident
Description: Recycling Bins
Costs: Broken from use, stolen Replaced by City
Service: Operations
Description: Traffic Signals
Costs: All traffic signals are publicly owned (city/county/state) and maintained. Quite a
few installations since 1995 have been financed by developers to receive approval
for a development project. One, however, has a maintenance agreement whereby
Methodist Hospital reimburses the City for all maintenance and electrical costs
associated with the signal at the north Hospital entrance at Louisiana Ave and
Louisiana Circle. All signal maintenance efforts are funded out of the PW Ops
budget, replacement/upgrades are funded via CIP.
Description: Sidewalks:
Costs: Public sidewalks are repaired by the City at the City’s expense (PW Ops budget).
Approximately 50% of the public sidewalk system has been designated by council
resolution (via the Snow & Ice Policy) to be cleared by City Maintenance Staff.
Property owners do have the option to repair/replace sidewalks themselves but
they must get a permit and fund the effort themselves.
Description: Alleys:
Costs: All alleys are classified as either improved or unimproved. Improved alleys are
constructed of concrete with 100% of project costs assessed to the adjacent
property owners (Engineering uses a formal petition process to guide this effort).
Unimproved alleys are typically gravel (some are partially blacktopped to better
control runoff) and are graded spring/fall by maintenance staff. The City also
repairs major potholes on both improved and unimproved alleys to minimize the
City’s liability (safety related repairs only). All alleys are plowed by the City.
Description: Retaining Walls:
Costs: Retaining walls are both City and property owner owned and maintained.
Ownership is established by Council resolution adopted during the 1980’s. In
general, if a retaining wall is necessary for a public road/sidewalk, then it is
considered a publicly-owned wall and is repaired/replaced at the city’s expense
(PW Ops budget). If it has been installed as a private property enhancement, then
it is considered owned and maintained by the property owner. All existing
retaining walls in the City have been classified as to ownership (City or property
owner).
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Review of Policies – Expenses that are City Responsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)
Description: RR Crossings:
Costs: All RR crossings are owned/maintained by the RR company. The RR company will
repair/upgrade the crossings at their expense/timing. The City may request a crossing be
upgraded/repaired before the RR company would normally do so but it is typically at the City’s
expense (CIP effort). City maintenance crews, with RR approval, may conduct pothole repair
within RR right-of-way at our expense (PW Ops budget).
Service: Water/Sewer Lines (Scott Anderson)
Costs: Water and sewer lines are the responsibility of the property owner per ordinance.
Sec. 32-41. Cost of installation borne by consumer.
(1) The cost of original installation or repair of all plumbing between the main
and the meter shall be borne entirely by the consumer. Such plumbing shall at all
reasonable times be subject to inspection by the city. Any repairs found to be
necessary by such representatives shall be made promptly or the city will
discontinue service.
Secs. 32-101. Cost of installation and repair borne by consumer.
The cost of original installation or repair of all service lines up to and including
the connection to the city’s main sewer line shall be borne entirely by the
consumer. Any repairs found to be necessary shall be made promptly or the city
will discontinue water service.
(Ord. No. 2289-05, 3-9-2005)
The main domestic meter is owned and maintained by the City. If any plumbing
is required, it is the responsibility of the property owner.
The City does work on minor repairs of the curbstop/stopbox and charges resident.
Special Assessments are offered to residents for all water and sewer service line
repair or replacement. It is their option to participate. We request they get
competitive quotes from our list of contractors or they can choose a contractor
that is licensed and bonded. We offer assistance in how to select a contractor if
they request.
Other
See Fee and Licensing Schedules
Sewer back up reimbursement program administered by LMCIT
Recreation programs
Franchise fees
Antenna lease
2011 Fee/Charge
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine
Copies No Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50;
$0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pages
Liquor Licenses:
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $150
Brewer's Off-sale Malt Liquor $200
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+$3,000
New License Applicant (non-refundable)$500 in-state applicant; actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be billed up to a maximum
of $10,000
New Store Manager $500
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $150
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S. 340A.480, Subd. 3(c )$280
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,500
On-sale license renewal per 340A.412, Subd. 2 $500
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200
On-sale Wine $2,000
Temporary On-sale Liquor Investigation Fees $100/day
Proclamations
Framed Proclamation $15
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Amendment Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
Amendment Time Extension $75
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 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
Registration of Land Use $50
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
2011 Fees Page 1
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 7
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (continued)
Sign Permit
Erection of Temporary Sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $30
Installation of Permanent Sign $75 without footings
$100 with footings
Special Permits
Major Amendment $2,000
Minor Amendment $1,000
Subdivision Dedication Fee
Park Dedication Fee (in lieu of land)
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5 percent of current market value of 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 plus $50 per lot
Final Plat $300
Combined Process and Replats $750 plus $25 per lot
Exempt & Administrative Subdivisions $300
Tax Increment Financing Application Fee $2,000
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
Solid Waste Service Charge
(Garbage Collection) per quarter
30 gallon service $47.13
60 gallon service $59.94
90 gallon service $72.74
120 gallon service $85.56
150 gallon service $98.37
180 gallon service $111.18
210 gallon service $123.99
240 gallon service $136.80
270 gallon service $149.61
360 gallon service $188.05
450 gallon service $226.48
540 gallon service $264.90
Solid Waste Service (Garbage Collection)
Additional 30 gallon cart $60
Additional 60 gallon cart $60
Additional 90 gallon cart $60
2011 Fees Page 2
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 8
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
FINANCE DEPARTMENT (continued)
Extra Refuse Stickers $2/sticker
Recycling Bin No charge
Yard Waste Opt-Out $3 credit/quarter
Record Deed Transfer with Hennepin County $120 + Recording Cost
Returned Check Fee $25
Search: Special Assessment $10
Sewer and Service Charges
MN Dept of Health state testing fee
Residential and multi-family $1.59 per quarter
Commercial $0.53 per month
Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate $2.43 per unit
Sanitary Sewer Base Charge
Residential and multi-family $12.54 per quarter
Commercial $4.18 per month
Storm Sewer Rate
Residential $15 per residential equivalent unit
Commercial $25 per month
Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 14.50 * 5) = quarterly rate
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $300
Water Meter Charges
Residential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee
Meter Size
5/8" meter $10.15
3/4"$10.15
1"$14.21
1.5"$18.27
2"$29.44
3"$111.65
4"$142.10
6"$213.15
2" compound $29.44
3" compound $111.65
Commercial Monthly Fee
Meter Size
5/8" meter $3.38
3/4"$3.38
1"$4.74
1.5"$6.09
2"$9.81
3"$37.22
4"$47.37
6"$71.05
Water Rates per unit (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 750 gallons)
Tier 1, 0-40 units (0-30,000 gallons)$1.35
Tier 2, 41-80 units (30,001-60,000 gallons)$1.69
Tier 3, >80 units (>60,000 gallons)$2.53
Commercial All units $1.35
Irrigation All units $2.53
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Burning Permit $0
Car Seat Inspections $25.00 for the first car seat or base inspection
and a $10.00 fee for each additional car seat or
base inspection
2011 Fees Page 3
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 9
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
FIRE DEPARTMENT (continued)
Fire Alarms (False)See Police Department section on alarms
Fire Protection Permits (sprinkler systems, etc.)See Inspections Department - Construction
Permits
Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
Service Fees
Service Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck
$325 per hour for full-size fire truck
$255 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour
Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft.$75.00
Canopy over 400 sq. ft.$75.00
INFORMATION RESOURCES
Cable TV
Duplicate DVD, 1 to 4 copies $15/each
Duplicate DVD, 5+ copies $10/each
GIS Services
Custom Mapping Fee - per hour minimum $25.00
Custom GIS Analysis Fee - per hour minimum $50.00
Digital GIS Data Requests
2ft Contours - per sq. mile $10.00
2006 Aerial Photography - per section $25.00
Base Map Data - citywide data (Parks, Lakes, Trails, Roads, Zoning, City
Limits, Neighborhoods, Benchmarks)
$60.00
Printing
8.5 x 11 (per copy)$0.25
17 x 22 $5.00
24 x 36 $10.00
36 x 36 $15.00
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
Unit Fee $9.25
Massage Therapy
Massage Therapy Establishment $325
Massage Therapist $95
Massage Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $25
2011 Fees Page 4
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 10
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT (continued)
Pawnbroker
Investigation Fee $1,000
License Fee $2,000
Penalty $50 per day
Per Transaction Fee $1.50
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
Parking Ramp $155
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
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
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical,
plumbing, pools, utilities)
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
Up to $500 Base Fee $42.25
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $42.25 plus $1.80 for each additional
(or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $69.25 plus $14.00 for each additional
(or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $391.25 plus $10.10 for each
additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over
$25,000.01
2011 Fees Page 5
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 11
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT (continued)
Construction Permits
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $643.75 plus $7.00 for each additional
(or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $993.75 plus $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 plus $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 plus $4.25 for each
additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over
$1,000,000.01
Electrical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 + 1.75% of job valuation
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
Single family, one applicance $43
Erosion Control Permit
Application and Review $150
ISTS Permit
(sewage treatment system install or repair)$125
Mechanical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 + 1.75% of job valuation
Construction Permits
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnance, boiler or furnance/AC $60
Install single fuel burning applicance with piping $60
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $43
Plumbing Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $43
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, Replacement, Repair $43 + 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
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
2011 Fees Page 6
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 12
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT (continued)
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-side 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 permenant sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit table
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued has not been corrected within
2 subsequent inspections
$130
Insurance Requirements
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability
Insurance Requirements
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
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business
license
Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)
License Reinstatement Fee $250
Transfer of License (new ownership)$75
Plan Review
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Public Sanitary Facilties - Swimming Pools, Whirlpool, Sauna (Dry or
Steam), Public Bath or Shower, Training Beds or Similar Facilities
Class I $820
Class III $450
Class III $285
2011 Fees Page 7
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 13
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT (continued)
Rental Housing License
Condominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative $75 per unit
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $145 per duplex
Multiple Family
Per Building $160
Per Unit $11
Single Family Unit $95 per dwelling unit
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
PARKS & RECREATION
Aquatic Park
Daily Entrance Rates:
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 5 years old $5
6 to 54 years old $9
55+ years old $5
Twilight (after 5 p.m.)$5
Gazebo Rental
(Daily entrance rate/season pass required)
Non-resident $50
Resident $40
Private Aquatic Park Rental $350/hour
Season Pass (Non-Resident & Purchased before May 4th)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 5 years old $52
6 to 54 years old $57
55+ years old $42
Twilight (after 5 p.m.)$42
Caretaker/Nanny $57
Season Pass (Resident & Purchased before May 4th)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 5 years old $42
6 to 54 years old $47
55+ years old $32
Twilight (after 5 p.m.)$32
Caretaker/Nanny $47
Season Pass (Non-Resident & Purchased after May 4th)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 5 years old $57
6 to 54 years old $62
55+ years old $47
Twilight (after 5 p.m.)$47
Caretaker/Nanny $62
2011 Fees Page 8
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 14
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
PARKS & RECREATION (continued)
Season Pass (Resident & Purchased before May 4th)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 5 years old $47
6 to 54 years old $52
55+ years old $37
Twilight (after 5 p.m.)$37
Caretaker/Nanny $52
Tuesday Night Discount 1 free child admission (under 15) with each
paying adult
Facility Rental
Amphitheater
Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60/hr
Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50/hr
Amphitheater & Pavilion
Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$65/hr
Resident (2 hr. minimum)$75/hr
Park Pavilion Rental
Browndale
Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$55
Resident (2 hr. minimum)$45
Louisiana Oaks
Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60
Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50
Nelson Park
Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$55
Resident (2 hr. minimum)$45
Oak Hill Park
Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$55
Resident (2 hr. minimum)$45
Wolfe Park
Non-Resident (2 hr. minimum)$60
Resident (2 hr. minimum)$50
Picnic Shelter Rental (per hour)
Additional Hours (before 11 a.m.)
Non-resident $20/hr
Resident $20/hr
Oak Hill Park
Central (non-resident)$85
Central (resident)$65
Main (non-resident)$120
Main (resident)$90
Rustic (non-resident)$50
Rustic (resident)$40
Wolfe Park
East (non-resident)$75
East (resident)$55
West (non-resident $75
West (resident)$55
Rec Center
Banquet Room Rates
Non-resident Sun-Thurs. rental (2 hr minimum)$60/hr
Non-resident Saturday rental - 8 a.m. to midnight $600
Police Officer (after 9 p.m. events where alcohol will be served)$235
Resident Sun-Thurs. rental (2 hr minimum)$50/hr
Resident Saturday rental - 8 a.m. to midnight $500
2011 Fees Page 9
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 15
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
PARKS & RECREATION (continued)
Farmer's Market Application $50
Gallery Rates
Non-resident $50/hr
Residents & Non Profit Groups (2 hour minimum)$40/hr
Mobile Stage Rental (per hour)
Basic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (non-resident)$210/hr
Basic Unit - 4 hr. minimum (resident)$185/hr
Additional Staging Unit (non-resident)$75/hr
Additional Staging Unit (non-resident)$70/hr
Large Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (non-resident)$70/hr
Large Mixing Board w/Additional Speakers (non-resident)$60/hr
Recreation Programs
Sand Volleyball Court Reservations
Non-resident $13/hr
Resident $10/hr
Skate Park Free admission
Skating (Indoor)
Indoor Ice Rink Rental $170/hr
Indoor Ice Skating Party - 2 hr room rental
Non-Resident $60
Resident $50
Skate rental $2
Skating Admission - adult $4
Skating Admission - child $3.50
Ten Punch Pass - adult $35
Ten Punch Pass - child $30
Special Equipment Rental
15 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (resident)$130
15 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)$100
Picnic Table rental/delivery up to 4 $50
Portable P.A. System (resident)$45
Portable P.A. System (St. Louis Park organization)$25
Tennis Court Rental
Non-resident $13/hr
Resident $10/hr
Westwood Nature Center
Birthday Party (12 or fewer children)
Each additional child $6
Non-Resident $85
Resident $80
Wood Chips
2 cubic yards (residents only)$60
6 cubic yards (residents only)$120
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
2011 Fees Page 10
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 16
2011 Fee/Charge
City of St. Louis Park - 2011 Fees
Service
POLICE DEPARTMENT (continued)
Copies & Reports
Accident Photo $10/disk
Arrest Synopsis Report $5
Audio Recording $10
Police Report $0.25 page
Weekly Accident Report $0.50/page
Crime Free Multi-Housing Training $25/class
Criminal Background Investigation
Volunteers & Employees $5
False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $100
Late payment fee 10%
Fingerprinting
For St. Louis Park residents and business needs $25
Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150
Vehicle Forfeiture
Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Block Party Application (MSC at 7305 Oxford)No Charge
Cone deposit (refundable)$10/cone
Fire Hydrant Use Permit (MSC)$125/year
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
Permit Parking - High School & Medical Need No Charge
Service Fees (Stop Box Repairs, Water Shut-off Service) - MSC Utility Shop
Public Service Worker
Regular Business Hours $101.56
After Hours $150.99
Winter Parking Permit
Caregiver parking $25
No off-street parking available No Charge
Off-street parking available $125
Utility Fee
RPZ (Reduced Pressure Zone) Registration Fee $25 for 5 years
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)
2011 Fees Page 11
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Review of Policies - Expenses that are City Reponsibility vs. Property Owner (Or Combination)Page 17
Meeting Date: April 11, 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:
Update on Freight Rail Listening Sessions –April 27th and 28th.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests the City Council provide feedback on the information contained in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the approach being proposed for the Listening Sessions in accordance with City Council
expectations?
BACKGROUND:
On March 21, 2011, the Council directed staff to organize listening sessions on April 27 and 28
regarding the freight rail issue. Staff is taking the necessary steps to arrange for these meetings.
This report is to intended to provide information on some of the planning that has taken place
and the proposed process for the two meetings.
Who: City Council Listening Sessions – Freight Rail
What: Council will hold Listening Sessions to allow for a presentation, information sharing
and opportunity for residents to be heard.
When: April 27 & 28, doors open at 6pm, meeting starts at 6:30pm and is planned to end at
approximately 9:30pm each evening. (same meeting times and format on both nights)
Where: St. Louis Park Junior High, 2025 Texas Avenue
Will the meeting be facilitated?
It is proposed that Organizational Development Coordinator Bridget Gothberg facilitate the
listening sessions. Having a process facilitator will allow the Mayor and Council to give full
attention to the speakers and not have to handle the structure of a process. Given an assumed
large turnout, and to insure as many people as possible can speak, we will have a system
developed for speaking cards allowing for approximately 3 minutes for each speaker to take their
turn in an orderly manner. We will also have write in comment cards for those who do not wish
to speak. There will also be an information handout for those in attendance with instructions on
how to participate or write in comments at the meetings.
What is the proposed order of the meeting?
The same information will be presented at both meetings.
6:00 pm Doors open
6:30 pm Council meeting officially starts
6:30 – 6:45 Call to Order and general information
6:45 – 7:15 Presentation from consultant
7:15 – 7:30 Council questions on presentation (if any)
7:30 – 9:30 Listening Session (no action taken by the City Council)
9:30 pm Adjourn meeting (unless the Council desires to extend the meeting time)
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No.4) Page 2
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Listening Sessions –April 27th and 28th
Will there be meeting guidelines for the Listening Sessions?
To make sure the same process is used both evenings, and to allow all in attendance to have time
to speak and be heard, guidelines for the meeting have been prepared and are attached. Staff will
review this document at the study session and answer any questions the Council might have.
Will a staff report be prepared?
The plan is to have the staff and consultant report available for Council review by April 25th.
These reports will also be placed on our web site.
How are the meeting dates being communicated?
A comprehensive process of communication is being implemented including the use of the
City’s web site, neighborhood associations, Sun Sailor, Patch.Com, social media, Cable TV and
direct mail.
How will the meetings be recorded?
The City’s Recording Secretary will be available both nights. City cable staff will record the
meeting for replay starting on Saturday, April 30 on the City’s web site and Cable Channel 17.
Will there be greeters or others to help with this event?
Yes, staff from other departments will help with parking, directions and other assistance to those
attending both evenings.
Can comments be provided via the City’s web site or email?
Arrangements are being made whereby interested parties will be able to send in comments
electronically vs. a paper comment card.
Will there be a follow-up discussion with the City Council?
Information from these meetings will be prepared and presented to Council for their review at
the May 9th Study Session. Please see attached “Freight Rail Community Involvement
Schedule” which was reviewed with the City Council on March 21.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost to notify the community and undertake these meetings can be covered within existing
budget parameters.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked directly to the Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is committed to
being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: - City Council and Audience Information and Guidelines – Listening Sessions –
Freight Rail
- Freight Rail Community Involvement Schedule
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council and Audience Information and Guidelines
April 27 and 28th Listening Sessions – Freight Rail
The City Council, as a representative body of the City of St. Louis Park, invites all citizens to
express interest and concern for issues facing the city. The City Council is committed to
considering all viewpoints and to conduct the public’s business in a responsible manner.
Because this is a listening session, we will limit our agenda to a staff and consultant report on the
freight rail issue followed by no more than 15 minutes of City Council questions.
We will then move on to the Listening section of the meeting. We want to learn what you, our
citizens, have to say. We also want you to know that tonight the City Council’s primary job is to
listen. The City Council will not be answering questions or engaging in discussion. It truly is to
let all of your voices be heard. No action will be taken by the City Council at the listening
sessions. The input provided at these listening sessions will be used in part to help the City
Council make decisions in the future regarding freight rail issues facing the City.
To ensure an effective meeting whereby this can happen, we have put two systems into place.
1. We have asked Bridget Gothberg to be our process facilitator. She will be responsible for
keeping us on time, facilitating the listening session and for seeing that all participants
stay within these Listening Session Guidelines.
2. We have set these guidelines to make sure we can hear as many people and be as
productive as possible.
Individuals or groups who wish to address the Council regarding the matter at hand will be
recognized in an appropriate manner. This evening, these guidelines govern citizen
presentations:
Prior to the meeting, people who wish to speak must fill out a blue card which is
located on the table outside the meeting room. The blue card should be given to a
staff member.
People who don’t wish to speak but want to comment can fill out a comment card and
put it in the comment card box.
Speakers will be called upon to speak by the process facilitator or Mayor.
Given the large number of people expected to wish to speak, each presentation is
limited to no more than 3 minutes. The process facilitator or Mayor may shorten
the length of presentation time in order to hear as many residents as possible.
Speakers will not be able to speak twice until all who wish to be heard have a chance
to speak once. Then, the process facilitator or Mayor may permit a second
opportunity to speak.
In the event that a large number of people wish to address the City Council on the
same topic, the Council may request that spokespersons be appointed to speak on
behalf of a group.
Speakers should try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers
and should limit testimony to the matter under consideration.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Listening Sessions – April 27th and 28th Page 3
The process facilitator or Mayor may limit the number of speakers on the same point
in the interest of time and to allow as many people as possible to speak.
In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of
signs, clapping, and side-conversations, cheering or booing is not allowed.
Citizens are requested to direct all comments to the Mayor and City Council as a
body, to maintain proper decorum at all times, and treat everyone with respect.
Disparaging comments about individuals will not be tolerated.
The Mayor has the prerogative to determine whether or not a speaker is acting within
these guidelines. The Mayor may call upon the Process Facilitator to assist.
The Mayor may terminate the remarks of any speaker who does not follow these
guidelines. If a speaker persists after being asked to stop, that person’s privilege to
address the City Council will be terminated.
Council members will listen and may occasionally ask clarifying questions. The City Council
reserves the right to limit or restrict presentations as necessary in order to provide an orderly,
efficient, and fair opportunity for those present to be heard.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Listening Sessions – April 27th and 28th Page 4
A Proposed Process for Community Involvement
on Freight Rail Route Comparison
Tentative Dates
April 25th City Council
Study Session
Draft SEH Comparison Analysis
Freight Rail Routes Comparison report
provided in a written staff report.
Week of
April 25th
Community
Meetings/City
Council
Listening
Sessions
SEH Comparison Analysis,
Presentation by SEH, and then
opened up for questions and
comments.
May 9th City Council
Study Session
Freight Rail Update and Discussion
Debrief on community meetings and
general update and discussion.
May 16th City Council
Meeting
Public Hearing on freight rail routing
issue – a chance for anyone to make
comments directly to City Council. No
Council action.
May 23rd City Council
Study Session
Council Policy Discussion on freight
rail and MNS EAW.
May 31st
(Tuesday)
City Council
Meeting
Adopt Resolution updating freight rail
policy and approving comments for
submission on MNS EAW.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Listening Sessions – April 27th and 28th Page 5
Meeting Date: April 11, 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:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: April 11, 2011
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting: Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None - the purpose of this report is to provide Council additional information regarding changes
in Mn/DOT’s noisewall installation practice as requested at the Council workshop held Saturday,
March 12, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council desire to discuss the Mn/DOT noisewall installation practice or have Mn/DOT
staff attend a future study session to answer questions on this subject?
BACKGROUND:
History
Mn/DOT installs noisewalls (barriers) in two situations (see attachment - Mn/DOT Noisewall Policy):
1. Type I - construction of a new highway or the physical alteration of an existing highway;
and,
2. Type II - a highway project for noise abatement on an existing highway; essentially a
retrofit project
Because the Mn/DOT policy is highly technical and rather difficult for most to understand,
Mn/DOT has created several handouts for the public to more easily understand how noisewalls
are considered, installed, and funded (please see attachments - Mn/DOT Noisewall FAQs and
Mn/DOT Noise Brochure).
With either Type I or Type II barriers, the City Council had the responsibility, based on
respective public input, to decide whether noisewalls would be built or not. The costs of
required noisewalls (Type I projects) were included as a part of the overall project so there was
no city cost participation. However, the city could request and pay for noise walls in areas where
noise levels did not exceed federal or state levels requiring their installation.
Type II noisewalls were provided statewide through Mn/DOT’s noise abatement program
wherever noise levels exceeded state standards. These noisewalls were optional and at the
discretion of the city. This program has been minimally funded for the past 15 years.
The above policy has been applied several times the past few years in St. Louis Park as follows:
Location or Project Type
Hwy 100 - east side south of Excelsior Blvd II
Hwy 100 - west side south of Excelsior Blvd II
Hwy 7 / Wooddale Interchange Project I
Hwy 7 / Louisiana Ave Interchange Project (note follows) I
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100
Note - the above noisewall policy is being followed on the Hwy 7 / Louisiana Ave Interchange
Project, even though not yet constructed, since project development was started prior to
Mn/DOT considering changes to their policy. As a part of the project’s Environmental
Assessment, the need for a Type I noisewall was identified along the north side of Hwy 7 west of
Louisiana Ave. As a result, staff has been hosting meetings to obtain property owner desire to
install this noisewall. Once final input has been obtained, staff will report results to all parties
concerned and request Council to decide if the noisewall should be included as a part of the
project. Staff has attached a project handout (Hwy 7 Noisewall Analysis Handout - Jan 2011)
which is being used to inform residents / owners about this and the process being followed.
Changes
In the past, Council was delegated the authority by Mn/DOT to decide as described above
whether Type I or Type II noisewalls were to be constructed. This will still be the case for Type
II noisewall projects which are “optional retrofits” for noise exceedance areas. However, the
Mn/DOT policy for installation of Type I noisewalls is currently being revised so property
owners in the noise impact / mitigation areas will be allowed to decide whether noisewalls will
be included in a project or not. That will be done by Mn/DOT giving each property owner
subject to noisewall mitigation their own vote on the matter. So, for the planned Hwy 100
reconstruction project, individual property owners benefitting from (being mitigated by)
noisewall installation in noise impact areas will vote to let Mn/DOT know if noisewalls are to be
installed as a part of the project; the City Council will not decide on the installation of Type I
noisewalls on this project. This determination will occur during or near the end of the Layout /
Environmental Analysis phase of the project (what we have been calling phase III) once
noisewall needs and designs have been identified - assuming few project delays, possibly by the
end of 2012 or sometime in 2013 at best.
So, as a final note on the proposed Hwy 100 project, noisewall input and desires by area property
owners will likely be received by the city, but will be meaningless as the determination for
noisewall installations will be made by property owners in noise mitigation areas later on based
on their own wishes in this matter. This is a definite change from the past practice and may seem
confusing until we have gone through the process once.
Lastly, the other change to Mn/DOT’s noisewall policy involves cost participation by local
agencies (city). Type I noisewalls will still be installed by Mn/DOT as a part of a project (should
area owners so choose) at Mn/DOT cost. However, funding for the installation of Type II
noisewalls has been changed so Mn/DOT will only pay for 90% of the cost and the city will be
required to pay the other 10% of the cost. Council was informed of this new cost sharing
requirement at the study session held on March 14, 2011 when the Mn/DOT proposed Hwy 169
noisewall project (Type II barriers) was discussed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Mn/DOT Noisewall Policy
Mn/DOT Noisewall FAQs
Mn/DOT Noise Brochure
Hwy 7 Noisewall Analysis Handout - Jan 2011
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Mn/DOT Noise Policy for Type I andType II
Federal-aid Projects as per
23 CFR 772
Purpose:
The document sets forth procedures for noise studies and noise abatement measures to help
protect the public health and welfare, to supply noise abatement criteria, and to establish
requirements for information to be given to local officials for use in the planning and design of
Federal-aid highways approved pursuant to Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.).
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(h), 109(I): 42 U.S.C. 4331, 4332; and 49 CFR 1.48(b).
Definitions:
Existing noise level The highest hourly noise level caused by existing conditions in a particular
area.
Future noise level The highest hourly traffic noise level predicted using the noise model
named "Minnoise", or a methodology approved by Mn/DOT. The traffic
volumes used for the prediction shall be traffic volumes expected to occur
20 years after the completion of a new highway facility.
L10 The sound level that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (the 90th percentile)
for the period under consideration.
L10(h) The hourly value of L10.
L50 The sound level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (the 50th percentile)
for the period under consideration.
L50(h) The hourly value of L50.
Noise barrier Any device, which reduces the transmission of highway traffic noise from a
highway to an adjacent receptor, including, but not limited to, earth berms,
walls made from timber, metal, concrete, or any combination thereof.
Noise level The sound level obtained through use of A-weighting characteristics. The
unit of measure is the decibel (dB), commonly referred to as dBA when A-
weighting is used.
Receptor An outdoor place where frequent human use occurs and a lowered noise
level would be of benefit.
Residence The official location of a household.
Retrofit project A proposed project for the construction of noise barriers along an existing
highway.
Type I Projects A proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway project for the construction of a
highway on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway
which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or
increases the number of through-traffic lanes.
Type II Projects A proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway project for noise abatement on
an existing highway. Essentially a retrofit project
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 3
Information and Clarification:
1. Mn/DOT is in the position of having to deal with two sets of noise level limits that
determine what noise levels are acceptable and what noise levels are unacceptable. Table
1 (pg. 4) lists Minnesota's noise level standards. Table 2 (pg. 5) lists the FHWA's noise
abatement criteria. Also, no standards adopted by any state agency for limiting levels of
noise in terms of sound pressure which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere shall apply
to (1) segments of trunk highways constructed with federal interstate substitution money,
provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures are employed to abate
noise, (2) an existing or newly constructed segment of a highway, provided that all
reasonably available noise mitigation measures, as approved by the commissioners of the
department of transportation and pollution control agency, are employed to abate noise
and (3) except for the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, an existing or newly constructed
segment of a road, street, or highway under the jurisdiction of a road authority of a town,
statutory or home rule charter city, or county, except for roadways for which full control
of access has been acquired. On Federal-Aid Highways the FHWA noise abatement
criterion for category C supersede Minnesota's noise level standards in industrial areas, as
they're lower (FHWA NAC 75 dBA versus Minnesota's standard 80 dBA). The FHWA
interprets their noise abatement criteria as guideposts for the need of noise abatement,
rather than absolute and definite limits. Minnesota's noise level standards are regarded as
absolute limits which carry the weight of law. Due to the guidepost interpretation of their
criteria, the FHWA requires that states give numerical meaning to the phrase "approach
the criterion". Mn/DOT defines a level as "approaching" the criterion level when it is 1
dBA, or less, below the criterion level.
Applicability:
1. The provisions of this policy shall apply to all Federal-aid highway projects under the
jurisdiction of Mn/DOT.
2. This policy is to be applied so as to avoid conflict with obligations of Mn/DOT to comply
with criteria and standards of federal agencies for obtaining and using federal funds.
3. Future development shall be considered as planned, designed and programmed on the
date of Plat Approval, contingent on Mn/DOT having had ample opportunity to do a plat
review in order to anticipate possible Federal-aid highway project noise impacts.
Noise Barrier Criteria and Policies:
1. Noise barriers shall be designed to provide protection primarily to receptors located in
outdoor areas.
2. For Mn/DOT to consider constructing noise barriers (Type I) on new Federal-aid
highway projects or projects where major reconstruction is planned, the following criteria
shall be met:
A) The receptors shall have predicted future noise levels which exceed the levels in Table
1 (except for Industrial areas where FHWA category C criteria in Table 2 apply) or
exceed existing noise levels by 5 dBA or more.
B) The cost effectiveness of the barrier shall not exceed $3250/dBA/residence in 1997
dollars for residential receptor's. A receptor's inclusion in the cost effectiveness
calculation shall be contingent on the receptor receiving a minimum 5 dBA reduction due
to the construction of the barrier. Mn/DOT may annually adjust this cost effectiveness
figure up or down based on changes in the construction price index after 1997.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 4
C) The barrier project shall have been found feasible and reasonable using Mn/DOT's
rating system. (See attachment 1)
3. For Mn/DOT to consider a location for retrofit (Type II) noise barrier construction, the
location shall meet the following criteria:
A) The receptors shall be exposed to existing noise levels which exceed the levels in
Table 1 (except for Industrial areas where FHWA category C criteria in Table 2 apply).
B) The receptors shall have been ranked and included on Mn/DOT's retrofit barrier
priority list (dated 2/1/97) compiled for the state legislature.
C) The noise barrier(s) are proposed along lands where land development or substantial
construction predated the existence of any Federal-aid highway. The granting of a
building permit, filing of a plat plan, or a similar action must have occurred prior to right-
of- way acquisition or construction approval for the original highway on new location.
D) The cost effectiveness of the barrier shall not exceed $3250/dBA/residence in 1997
dollars for residential receptor's. A receptor's inclusion in the cost effectiveness
calculation shall be contingent on the receptor receiving a minimum 5 dBA reduction due
to the construction of the barrier. Mn/DOT may annually adjust this cost effectiveness
figure up or down based on changes in the construction price index after 1997.
E) The barrier project shall have been found feasible and reasonable using Mn/DOT's
rating system. (See attachment 2)
Table 1
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
State Noise Standards
Land Use Code Day (7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.)
dBA
Night (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.)
dBA
Residential NAC-1 L10 of 65* L50 of 60 L10 of 55* L50 of 50
Commercial NAC-2 L10 of 70 L50 of 65 L10 of 70 L50 of 65
Industrial NAC-3 L10 of 80 L50 of 75 L10 of 80 L50 of 75
* To see exceptions, refer to the Information and Clarification paragraph on page 2.
Table 2
Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria
Category L10 dBA Land Use
A 60 Special areas requiring serenity
B 70 Residential and recreational areas
C 75 Commercial and industrial areas
D NA Undeveloped areas
E 55* Residential, hospitals, libraries, etc.*
* Applies to interior noise levels. All other land uses are exterior levels.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 5
Local participation:
1. Mn/DOT shall ensure local participation in the locating of noise barriers through the
following:
A) Public notification of proposed Federal-aid highway construction be sequent to the
NEPA process being completed, that a public hearing has occurred or municipal approval
of a staff approved geometric layout has occurred.
B) Mn/DOT shall hold one or more informational meetings in the municipality(s)
affected by the proposed noise barrier, to provide an opportunity for local participation in
the selection and development of the noise barrier installation project. Mn/DOT shall
give the highest consideration to the concerns and noise reductions of persons owning or
leasing residences in the 1st row and possibly, if determined necessary by Mn/DOT, the
2nd row of affected residences.
C) For a proposed noise barrier project to be considered for construction, the local
government, prior to completion of the final design of a proposed noise barrier, shall
furnish Mn/DOT with:
1. A formal city council resolution supporting the proposed barrier project or a city
council approval of a staff approved layout.
2. Documentation of its land use controls which:
a) Apply to land adjacent to Federal-aid highways,
and
b) Would reasonably eliminate the need for state-funded noise barriers in highway
rights-of-way adjacent to future developments.
2. Informing of Local Officials:
A) Mn/DOT informs local officials of the best estimation of future noise levels for both
developed and undeveloped lands or properties in the immediate vicinity of a project by
means of the environmental documentation process (EIS, EA, Plat reviews), public
hearings, public information meetings and direct contact.
B) Mn/DOT informs local officials of anticipated highway traffic noise levels that will be
useful in keeping future land development from becoming incompatible with existing and
future highways because of traffic noise by means of the environmental documentation
process (EIS, EA, Plat reviews) and direct contact.
C) Mn/DOT informs local officials of the eligibility requirements of Mn/DOT (See
Attachment 2) and the FHWA whenever a Type II project is being considered on a
Federal-aid highway.
Program:
Mn/DOT, upon receiving an individual's/community's request for construction of a retrofit noise
barrier, shall check to see if the location appears on the legislative priority list (dated 2/1/97). If
the location is on the list it will be dealt with in the order of its ranking and as available funding
allows. If the location is not on the priority list, Mn/DOT will decide whether or not to evaluate
and rank the noise barrier project. Mn/DOT's decision of whether or not to evaluate and rank a
location will depend on several factors. Factors considered in this decision include, but are not
limited to, safety considerations, access control, available right-of-way, highway type,
construction feasibility, estimated cost of the project, date of adjacent development along the
proposed location, traffic noise levels, number of benefiting receptors, community acceptance of
the proposed noise barrier, and predicted noise level reduction.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 6
Mn/DOT
FAQs
NOISE ABATEMENT
Q. Why does Mn/DOT build noise walls?
A.. In 1972, the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring the states to provide mitigation for
highway noise (considered an environmental impact) as a part of all Type I Federal Aid projects
at impacted locations where it was found to be reasonable and feasible. Mn/DOT also builds
noise walls for Type II projects, which are ranked in priority by the Highway Noise Abatement
Study, directed by the Minnesota Legislature in 1996 and updated in 2002.
Q. What is a Type I project?
A. A proposed project for the construction of a highway at a new location or the physical
alteration of an existing highway that significantly changes either the horizontal or the vertical
alignment or increases the number of through traffic lanes (1 mile or greater).
Q. What is a Type II project?
A. A proposed federal or federal-aid project for noise abatement on an existing highway.
Restrictions on the eligibility of Type II projects for federal funding means that retrofit noise
mitigation projects will have to rely entirely on state funding.
Q. What is an impacted location?
A. A “noise sensitive receiver” (defined as homes, parks, schools, businesses, etc.) is considered
impacted by noise if either the future (generally a 20-year traffic projection) noise levels exceed
the State Noise Rules/ FHWA noise abatement criteria, or if there is a substantial increase in
future noise levels over existing noise levels from a proposed Mn/DOT project as described
above. These are the noise levels that are experienced at commonly used exterior portions of the
property.
Table 1 lists Minnesota's noise level standards. Table 2 lists the FHWA's noise abatement
criteria.
Table 1
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
State Noise Standards
Land Use Code Day (7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.)
dBA
Night (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.)
dBA
Residential NAC-1 L10 of 65 L50 of 60 L10 of 55 L50 of 50
Commercial NAC-2 L10 of 70 L50 of 65 L10 of 70 L50 of 65
Industrial NAC-3 L10 of 80 L50 of 75 L10 of 80 L50 of 75
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 7
Table 2
Federal Highway Administration Noise Abatement Criteria
Category L10 dBA Land Use
A 60 Special areas requiring serenity
B 70 Residential and recreational areas
C 75 Commercial and industrial areas
D NA Undeveloped areas
E 55 Residential, hospitals, libraries, etc.
In addition, Minnesota Statute 116.07 states ”that no standards adopted by any state agency for
limiting levels of noise in terms of sound pressure which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere
shall apply to (1) segments of trunk highways constructed with federal interstate substitution
money, provided that all reasonably available noise mitigation measures are employed to abate
noise; (2) an existing or newly constructed segment of a highway, provided that all reasonably
available noise mitigation measures, as approved by the commissioners of the department of
transportation and pollution control agency, are employed to abate noise; and (3) except for the
cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, an existing or newly constructed segment of a road, street, or
highway under the jurisdiction of a road authority of a town, statutory or home rule charter city,
or county, except for roadways for which full control of access has been acquired.” On Federal-
Aid Highways, the FHWA noise abatement criterion for commercial and industrial areas
(category C in table 2) supersedes Minnesota's noise level standards in industrial areas, as the
federal standards are lower (Federal Criteria of 75 dBA versus Minnesota's standard 80 dBA).
The FHWA interprets its noise abatement criteria as guideposts for the need of noise abatement,
rather than absolute limits. Minnesota's noise level standards are regarded as absolute limits
which carry the weight of law. Due to the guidepost interpretation of its criteria, the FHWA
requires that states give numerical meaning to the phrase "approach the criterion." Mn/DOT
defines a level as "approaching" the criterion level when it is 1 dBA, or less, below the criterion
level.
Q. Why was the Minnesota daytime residential standard set at an L10 of 65 dBA and an L50 of
60dBA?
A. These standards are based on the present body of knowledge for the preservation of public
health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech intelligibility and annoyance
requirements for receivers within the impacted areas.
Q. How does Mn/DOT determine where to place noise walls?
A. A computerized noise model program is used for all Type I and Type II projects to predict
design year (usually twenty years in the future) traffic noise levels. All locations that are
predicted to have impacts are then considered for noise mitigation. Analysts make every attempt
to qualify these impacted locations for noise walls based on the reasonable, feasible and cost
effectiveness criteria. For Type II projects, areas are identified by their ranking in the Highway
Noise Abatement Study. Noise Walls are not placed along highways that have uncontrolled
access points due to the loss of effectiveness from numerous openings in the walls.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 8
Q. How does Mn/DOT determine if a noise wall is feasible, reasonable or cost effective?
A. Some of the factors that Mn/DOT uses to determine if a noise wall can be placed are:
Does Mn/DOT have the required right of way to construct the wall?
Safety concerns such as sight distances.
Will the wall meet a cost effectiveness factor of $3250 per residence per dBA of
reduction?
Will the wall provide a substantial (at least 5 dBA) reduction in noise?
Soil types and wetland areas in the proposed project area.
Will hydraulics or drainage features on Mn/DOT right of way be impacted?
Buried utilities or utility relocation needs.
Q. How is the height of the wall determined?
A. Noise walls are generally designed to provide noise reductions of 8 dBA or more. However, a
minimum reduction of at least 5 dBA is required in order for the noise wall to be considered
minimally effective. The goal is a 10 dBA reduction in the average traffic noise levels for the
majority of the first row of residences located directly behind the wall. The reasonableness
criteria places a practical limitation on the height of any noise wall. The maximum allowed
average height is 20 feet.
Q. Why not plant trees instead of putting up a wall?
A. When highway noise mitigation strategies were first being researched there was some thought
that dense plantings of vegetation might provide effective blocking of sounds from the highway.
However, to be effective at blocking sound there must be complete blockage of the line of sight
from the receiver to all noise sources and a great enough mass density to stop the transmission of
sound. Most vegetative plantings near highways have not been found to meet these prerequisites.
Q. How effective are noise walls?
A. Generally the effectiveness of a noise wall depends on (1) the distance between the listener
and the noise source, (2) the distance between the listener and the noise wall and (3) the height of
the noise wall above the line-of-sight between the listener and the noise source. Typically, the
benefit due to the noise reduction by a noise wall will be greatest for the listeners nearest the
noise wall. For residences located directly behind a 20 foot noise wall a reduction of about 10
dBA would be typical. This benefit decreases as the listener moves farther away from the wall
and is barely perceptible at distances greater than 500 feet.
Q. How much do concrete post/wood plank noise walls cost?
A. Current construction costs on an average are $18.50 per square foot. This translates into a 20-
foot high wall costing approximately $1.95 million dollars per mile.
Q. Does Mn/DOT have a program to provide insulation of private residences?
A. Adding sound insulation (windows and sound deadening materials or acoustical insulation)
achieves interior noise attenuation only and does not address exterior receptor areas where
Minnesota’s noise standards apply. The costs for acoustical insulation of typical single
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 9
residences are considered disproportionate for the amount of attenuation achieved and the
number of receptors affected. There may be cases involving schools, hospitals, nursing or
convalescent homes, or other public buildings where the number of receptors and the noise
sensitivity of the receptors may justify the expense of insulating for noise mitigation.
Q. Who pays for the noise walls?
A. For Type I projects, noise walls are built alongside Trunk Highways and Interstates, in which
case the federal government pays the majority, and the State of Minnesota pays the remainder. In
the case of Type II projects proposed for construction after 2013, the cost of constructing the
noise wall is paid 90% by the State of Minnesota (Mn/DOT).
Q. What types of barriers are there?
A. Noise wall materials used by Mn/DOT include earth berms, concrete and wood. Earthen
berms work the best and are the least expensive, but a lack of available right-of-way usually
makes noise walls the most practical solution.
Q. Does the public have any input?
A. The design and planning offices will work closely with the impacted residents and city staff
through the public involvement process to ensure that reasonable requests regarding the design
of the walls are considered for the project plan.
Q. Can a municipality build it's own noise wall?
A. If a municipality wishes to construct a wall on Mn/DOT’s right of way, they must submit
plans certified by a registered engineer or landscape architect to be reviewed by Mn/DOT before
constructing. Per State Statute 429.021 subdivision 1, the municipalities are given the power to
make these improvements.
Q. How many miles of noise walls have been constructed?
A. As of December 2008, Mn/DOT has constructed approximately 105 miles of noise walls and
berms located throughout the state.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 10
Traffic noise is an important consideration that must be takeninto account when the Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT) embarks on environmental studies that involve majorhighway improvements. For these projects, a noise study isrequired to assess existing noise levels and predict future noiselevels (usually 20 years into the future) to determine noiseimpacts.All traffic noise studies and analyses prepared for Mn/DOTprojects must adhere to procedures and requirements asestablished by Federal law, U.S. Department of Transportationregulations, MN Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and Mn/DOTnoise analysis guidelines.This assures that thepolicies are uniformlyand consistently appliedand provides equitabletreatment for thoseimpacted by highwaytraffic noise.If noise impacts areidentified during a trafficnoise analysis, Mn/DOT isrequired to examine andconsider noise mitigationmeasures. If thesemeasures are found to befeasible and reasonablein accordance withMn/DOT defined criteria,they must be included aspart of the project.How are noise level changes perceived?Studies have shown that changes in noise levels of three decibelsor less are not typically detectable by the average human ear. Anincrease of five decibels is generally readily noticeable by anyone,and a 10-decibel increase is usually felt to be “twice as loud” asbefore.How do changes in traffic or roadway geometryaffect noise levels?Due to the nature of the decibel scale, a doubling of traffic willresult in a three-decibel increase in noise levels, which in and ofitself would not normally be a perceivable noise increase. Trafficwould need to increase at least three times to result in a readilyperceivable (five decibel) increase in noise.Using the same reasoning, if a highway is moved half as closeto existing homes (i.e. 200 to 100 feet), the noise levels willincrease by three decibels. Conversely, if a highway is moveddouble the distance from existing homes, the noise levels willdecrease by three decibels. Noise level increases due to highwayprojects are usually due to a combination of increased traffic andchanges in the roadway alignment.When is a noise analysis required?A noise analysis is required for a proposed Mn/DOT project if thatproject consists of:· A new highway built on a new location,· An existing highway is significantly altered by substantially changing the horizontal or vertical characteristics of the road, or,· The number of through traffic lanes is being increased.Minor projects, such as normal roadway resurfacing or minoralterations (without adding new lanes), usually do not require a noiseanalysis.Does Mn/DOT analyze noise levels on existinghighways?In the absence of a major highway project as described above,Mn/DOT would base any determination for future noise barriersby it's 1997/2002 Highway Noise Abatement Study.What constitutes a traffic noise impact?A “noise sensitive receiver” (defined as homes, parks, schools,businesses, etc.) is considered impacted by noise if either the future(generally a 20-year traffic projection) noise levels exceed the StateNoise Rules/ FHWA noise abatement criteria, or if there is a substantialincrease in future noise levels over existing noise levels from aproposed Mn/DOT project as described above. These are the noiselevels that are experienced at commonly used exterior portions ofthe property.For residences, schools, and parks, impact is defined when thefuture noise levels would exceed the State Noise Standardsof 65 dBA L10 daytime or 55 dBA L10 nightime for residentialareas and 70 dBA L10 for commercial. For Federal aid type projects,a substantial increase impact occurs when there is a projected 5decibel increase over existing levels. Impacts such as theserequire mitigation consideration and analysis, which may result in theconstruction of noise barriers if they are determined to be feasible andreasonable.What does Mn/DOT consider “feasible andreasonable”?A noise barrier must be both feasible and reasonable if it is to beconstructed with the highway project. Feasibility andreasonableness are determined by criteria that are quantifiable butflexible, and judgments for special and/or unusual circumstancesare made on a case-by-case basis. As a result, noise mitigation isnot automatically provided where noise impacts have beenidentified.Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100Page 11
A barrier is feasible if it can be constructed without majorengineering or safety issues and provide a substantial noisereduction to the adjacent receivers. Reasonableness deals withwhether or not the barrier can be constructed in a cost-effectivemanner, the percentage of residential-type development, overallnoise levels and noise level increases, and the desires of thecommunity.What is a “substantial noise reduction”?A noise barrier must provide at least a readily perceptibledecrease in noise levels to adjacent receivers to be effective.This is defined as a noise decrease of at least five decibels. Asnoise level changes of three decibels or less are not generallyperceivable, it is not prudent to construct a noise barrier that onlygives a one- or two- decibel benefit to adjacent properties.What types of noise barriers are constructed?Noise barriers are commonly constructed as walls, earthenberms, or a combination of the two. Walls are most common,and are usually constructed out of dense material, such aswood, concrete or block materials. Earth berms are a naturalalternative to walls, but require much more land to construct.Walls can be constructed on top of berms in order to raise theoverall height of the barrier.How do noise barriers work?Noise barriersreduce noise byblocking the directtravel of soundswaves from asource (highway)to adjacent homesor businesses,forcing them overthe top or aroundthe barrier. The barrier must be high enough and long enough toblock the view (line of sight) of the highway. This is the phenom-enon that allows a noise barrier to provide a perceivable noisereduction. Noise barriers do very little good for homes on ahillside overlooking a road or for buildings which rise above abarrier. Openings or gaps in barriers for driveway connections orstreet intersections reduce barrier effectiveness.Noise barriers are most effective for the first one or two rows ofhomes at distances up to 400 to 500 feet from the barrier. Asnoise levels decrease with distance, there is a point away fromthe highway at which noise barriers are no longer effective. Theyare not designed to eliminate or block all noise.Will planting vegetation help reduce noise levels?Vegetation is only effective for reducing noise levels if it is at least100-200 feet deep, high enough that it cannot be seen over, anddense enough that it cannot be seen through. It is not feasible toplant enough vegetation along a highway to achieve this type ofreduction, however, planting trees or shrubs can provide aestheticbenefit and visual screening.How does pavement type affect noise levels?Research regarding the influence of pavement surface texture on thetire/pavement sound source has been ongoing throughout the yearsand continues to this day. The benefits of new advances in paving, suchas rubberized asphalt, the use of designed surface texturing etc. are noteasily determined. As a result pavement type, in and of itself, cannot beconsidered as an alternative to conventional noise mitigation at this time.Highway TrafficNoise:Assessment andAbatement Does Mn/DOT analyze noise mitigation for new developments? For a major highway reconstruction project, Mn/DOT will analyze an area if the final plat was approved prior to Mn/DOT's environmental review process. If development occurs after this date, any noise mitigation is the responsibility of the municipality as per MN State Rule 7030.0030. Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100Page 12
HIGHWAY 7/LOUISIANA AVENUE
INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Noise Analysis
The Federal funding involved in the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue
Interchange Project requires completing an Environmental Assessment
(EA). The EA considers a broad range of social, economic, and
environmental issues, including highway traffic noise impacts. The
proposed interchange project is a Type 1 project under the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) noise regulation 23 CFR 772 and
as a result requires detailed evaluation of traffic noise impacts. All
traffic noise studies and analyses prepared for projects involving
Mn/DOT must adhere to procedures and requirements as established
by Federal law and State noise guidelines administered by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Mn/DOT. The Highway 7
and Louisiana Avenue traffic noise study will assess existing noise
levels and predict future noise levels to determine if impacts occur
on sensitive receptors (e.g. residences, churches, businesses) in the
project area. The noise analysis process requires the following
steps:
• Identify Noise Study Area and Receptors: the study area has been
defined by the limits of the roadway improvements along Highway 7
and Louisiana Avenue. Receptors in the study area were identified
using aerial photography and field surveys.
• Collect Traffic Data: the traffic noise study relies on existing and
forecast traffic volumes, vehicle type, and travel speeds in order
to predict noise levels. Detailed traffic data collected for the
project area has been utilized in the noise analysis.
• Conduct Background Monitoring: existing noise level measurements
were conducted in June 2010 and were used to validate the noise
model.
• Develop Noise Model: noise levels are being predicted using a
federal and state approved computer model (STAMINA 2.0/
MINNOISE).
• Consider Noise Mitigation: if noise impacts are identified, the
City and Mn/DOT will be required to examine and consider noise
mitigation measures. If these measures are found to be feasible
and reasonable in accordance with FHWA and Mn/DOT defined
criteria, they must be included as part of the interchange project.
Typical mitigation measures include construction of barriers/walls.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 13
analysis process and to provide
them an opportunity to state their
preference. It is anticipated these
meetings will occur during
the first few months of 2011.
Additional information can be found
at the following web sites:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
environment/noise_analysis/
index.html
http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/edms/
download?docId=614361
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
environment/noise_analysis/
policy.html
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
environment/pdf_files/
noise_brochure.pdf
It is anticipated that highway noise levels surrounding the
proposed interchange will exceed state and federal noise
standards. As a result, noise barriers/walls will be evaluated
as a potential means for mitigating noise impacts. The analysis
will consider the feasibility and reasonableness of implement-
ing the mitigation. A barrier is feasible if it can be constructed
without major engineering or safety issues and if it provides
a substantial noise reduction to adjacent receivers. A substan-
tial reduction is defined as a five or more decibel reduction in
noise levels. Reasonableness deals with whether or not the
wall can be constructed in a cost-effective manner, the
percentage of residential-type development, overall noise
levels and noise level increases, and the desires of the
affected landowners. Again, Federal and State criteria will
be followed in conducting the mitigation analysis.
Lastly, prior to concluding the environmental review process
for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project, the
City and Mn/DOT will need to verify that the majority of the
property owners adjacent to a particular proposed noise
wall support the construction. The City will host information
meetings for affected property owners in order to provide
them with an opportunity to learn more about the noise
Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Noise Analysis
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: State Noisewall Policy - Hwy 100 Page 14
Meeting Date: April 11, 2011
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School – Private Activity Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2011A.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on a request from Benilde-
St. Margaret’s School to refund the private activity revenue bonds that were issued on August
31, 2000 for the construction of improvements to the school facility.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed process is consistent with the City’s approved policy for issuing/refunding private
activity revenue bonds. Does the City Council have any questions or concerns with refunding the
private activity revenue bonds as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park issued private activity revenue bonds on behalf of Benilde-St.
Margaret’s School on August 3, 2000. The proceeds were applied to finance the construction of
improvements to the school facility, including a new performing arts center, additional
classrooms, a new library, new administrative offices, the replacement of existing bleachers, and
the equipping and remodeling of existing classrooms and office areas, which is located at 2501
Highway 100 South in St. Louis Park.
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School is requesting that the City of St. Louis Park issue private activity
revenue bonds for the purposes of refunding the entire existing debt from the 2000 bond issue of
approximately $8.4 million. Since we anticipate issuing up to $3 million of additional bonds
during the course of 2011, the City can only provide up to $7.0 million of Series 2011A bank
qualified bonds to the School. In order to obtain sufficient funds to redeem and prepay all of the
outstanding Series 2000 Bonds, the School is requesting that the City of Deephaven issue the
remaining amount of obligations, up to an amount of approximately $1.5 million. This is an
acceptable joint effort for Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, and the cities of St. Louis Park and
Deephaven to participate in.
The synopsis of the process for issuing these bonds will include this Study Session report on
April 11, 2011. Next, if the City Council has no objections based on the report, a public hearing
which is proposed for the regular City Council meeting of April 25, 2011 will be conducted.
After the public hearing is closed, the City Council will be asked to consider a resolution
authorizing issuance of the bonds. If the City Council approves the resolution, this would allow
the bonds to be issued on a date agreed upon by the parties.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s School will provide the City with a new application, which will be on file
in the City Clerk’s office, along with the required fee of $2,500 in accordance with our policy.
These bonds are not obligations of the City in any respect, but rather are payable solely from
revenues of Benilde-St. Margaret’s School. They will also pay a fee of 1/8th of one percent in
two semi-annual payments to the City on based on the amount of bonds outstanding each year.
These monies will be deposited in the City’s Housing Rehabilitation fund.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s School – Private Activity Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2011A
VISION CONSIDERATION:
By working with other entities such as Benilde-St. Margaret’s, the City of St. Louis Park is
demonstrating its commitment to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachment: Letter from Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, outlining entire process
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Kennedy
Graven
C H A R T E R E 0
Offices in
Minneapol is
Saint Paul
St. Cloud
Tuesday,i\pril05,2011
Brian Swanson
Controller
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
470 U.S. Bank Pl:u:a
200 So uth Sixth Srree c
Minneapolis , M N 55402
(612) 337-930 0 telephone
(6 12 ) 337-9310 fax
www.ke nnedy-gravcn.com
Affirmativ e Acri on, Equal Oppo rtunity Employer
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2216
Re: City of St. Louis Park Minnesota, Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding Note
(Benilde-St. Margaret's School Project), Series 2011A
Benilde-St. Margaret's School, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "School")
operates a secondary school facility located at 2501 Hwy 100 South in the City of St. Louis Park
(the "School Facility"). On i\ugust 31, 2000, the City of St. Louis Park (the "City") issued its
Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (Catholic Finance Corporation/Benilde-St. Margaret's
School Project), Series 2000 (the "Series 2000 Bonds"), in the original aggregate principal
amount of $10 ,345,000, and currently outstanding in the principal amount of $8,400,000. The
proceeds derived from the sale of the Series 2000 Bonds were loaned to Catholic Finance
Corporation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("Catholic Finance") pursuant to the terms of a
Loan i\greement, dated as of i\ugust 1, 2000, between the City and Catholic Finance. Catholic
Finance loaned the proceeds derived from its loan to the School pursuant to the terms of a Loan
i\greement, dated as of August 1, 2000, between Catholic Finance and the School. The School
applied the proceeds derived from such loan to the construction of improvements to the School
Facility, including a new performing arts center, additional classrooms, a new library, new
administrative offices, the replacement of existing bleachers, and the equipping and remodeling
of existing classrooms and office areas.
The School has proposed to enter into a refunding transaction to redeem and prepay the
outstanding Series 2000 Bonds by requesting that the City and the City of Deephaven
("Deephaven") issue separate tax-exempt "qualified 501(c)(3) bonds" under the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152-469 .165·, as amended (the "i\ct"), and Section 145 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and that each city loan the proceeds
derived from the sale of their respective tax-exempt obligations to the School. The School will,
in turn, apply the proceeds of such loans to the redemption and prepayment of the Series 2000
Bonds. The School has entered into negotiations with Bremer Bank, N .A., a national banking
association (the "Bank"), and expects to obtain a commitment from the Bank to purchase the tax-
exempt qualified 501(c)(3) bonds proposed be issued by the City and Deephaven.
Under Section 265(b)(1) of the Code, banks and other financial institutions generally may
not deduct the portion of their interest expense that is allocable t o tax-exempt interest. This
provision normally precludes banks from purchasing tax-exempt bonds. Under Section 26S(b)(3)
of the Code, however, there is an exception to the general rule for obligations which constitute
"qualified tax-exempt obligations" (commonly referred to as "bank-qualified bonds"). Bank-
-1-
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret's School - Private Activity Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2011A Page 3
qualified bonds can be issued only by political subdivisions which do not reasonably anticipate
issuing more than $10,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of governmental bonds (commonly
general obligation bonds) and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds in a calendar year. If a political
subdivision reasonably anticipates issuing no more than $10,000,000 of such obligations in a
calendar year then it may designate up to $10,000,000 of such obligations as bank-qualified
bonds in such calendar year. Because the City anticipates issuing up to $3,000,000 of general
obligation bonds later in 2011 , it can only provide up to $7,000,000 of bank-qualified bonds to
the School. In order to obtain sufficient funds to redeem and prepay all of the outstanding
Series 2000 Bonds, the School is requesting that Deephaven issue the remaining amount of
obligations, currently expected to be approximately $1,500,000.
The School is requesting that the City issue an Educational Facilities Revenue Refunding
Note (Benilde-St. Margaret's School Project), Series 2011A (the "Series 2011 Note"), in the
approximate principal amount of $7,000,000 and loan the proceeds derived from the sale of the
Series 2011 Note to the School under the terms of a Loan Agreement between the City and the
School (the "Loan Agreement"). The proceeds of the loan will be applied by the Borrower to:
(i) the redemption and prepayment of a portion of the outstanding Series 2000 Bonds; and (ii) the
payment of the costs of issuing the Series 2011 Note.
The Series 2011 Note is proposed to be issued as a bank-qualified bond the interest on
which will not be includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes and, to the same
extent, will not be includable in net taxable income of individuals, estates, and trusts for State of
Minnesota income tax purposes. The Series 2011 Note is proposed to be issued as a revenue
obligation under the Act. As such, the Series 2011 Note will be payable solely from payments
received from the Borrower under the Loan Agreement and any additional security provided by
the Borrower. The Series 2011 Note will not be a general or moral obligation of the City and will
not be secured by the full faith and credit or taxing powers of the City. No assets, revenues, or
other property of the City will be pledged or available to be applied to the payment of the
principal of or interest on the Series 2011 Note.
If acceptable to the City, it is proposed that the City Council of the City conduct a public
hearing (in accordance with the requirements of the Code) on Monday, April25 , with respect to
the proposed issuance of the Series 2011 Note. Following the public hearing, it is proposed that
the City Council consider a resolution authorizing the issuance of the Series 2011 Note and
approving the Loan Agreement and related documents with respect to the issuance of the
Series 2011 Note.
Please contact the undersigned with any questions regarding the foregoing.
SA140-109 (JU)
384597v.l
-2-
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret's School - Private Activity Revenue Refunding Note, Series 2011A Page 4
Meeting Date: April 11, 2011
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the solid waste customer
service survey conducted in the fall of 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any concerns or questions relating to the City’s solid waste program
or services? If so please contact staff for assistance.
BACKGROUND:
History
On October 1, 2008 the City entered into a 5-year contract with Eureka Recycling for collection
and processing of recycling materials and with Waste Management for the collection and
disposal of garbage and yard waste.
Each year staff conducts a solid waste survey to measure resident satisfaction with the service
they receive from the haulers and city, as well as to find what concerns or issues residents may
have. The annual survey alternates between a “program survey” and a “customer service
survey”. In November 2010, a customer service survey was conducted. The target audience for
this survey was all solid waste customers in the City’s residential collection program (single
family to 4-plex).
Questions were asked to gauge customer service satisfaction with Eureka Recycling, Waste
Management, and City staff (survey report attached). The report includes: executive summary;
methodology, response rates; results; conclusions; and recommendations (report attached).
Executive summary - Customer Service Survey
The Solid Waste Customer Service Survey was conducted in November 2010 and sent to 933
randomly selected solid waste customers throughout the City. Analysis of the survey data
identifies key points about customer service that can be used to strengthen and identify where
program improvements are needed. Some of the observations include the following:
• Most residents indicated they are very satisfied overall with the customer service they
received from the City, Waste Management, and Eureka.
• Many residents indicated they would like to see more plastics collected for recycling.
• Many residents have positive experiences with their drivers and view them favorably.
• A few residents commented on their dissatisfaction with city's overfilled cart policy.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report
Simply put, survey results indicate that most residents are very satisfied overall with the
customer service they received from all parties. Residents also provided some program related
suggestions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the
City Council: “We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of
city business.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations. “
Attachments: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2010
Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Results
March 14, 2011
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................2
RESPONSE RATE................................................................................................3
RESULTS..............................................................................................................3
Eureka Recycling ..........................................................................................3
Waste Management ......................................................................................3
City of St. Louis Park.....................................................................................4
Overall Comments ........................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................4
RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................5
APPENDIX A: Survey Mailed to Residents / Business Reply Envelope
APPENDIX B: Annotated Survey
APPENDIX C: Summary of Comments
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 4
2010 SW Customer Service Survey
March 14, 2011
Page 1 of 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Solid Waste Customer Service Survey was conducted in November 2010 and sent to 933
randomly selected solid waste customers throughout the City. Analysis of the survey data
identifies key points about customer service that can be used to strengthen and identify where
program improvements are needed. Some of the observations include the following:
Most residents indicated they are very satisfied overall with the customer service they
received from the City, Waste Management, and Eureka.
Many residents indicated they would like to see more plastics collected for recycling.
Many residents have positive experiences with their drivers and view them favorably.
A few residents commented on their dissatisfaction with city's overfilled cart policy.
INTRODUCTION
A Solid Waste Customer Service Survey was conducted in November 2010. The Solid Waste
Customer Service Survey is conducted every 2 years. The purpose of the survey is to gauge
resident satisfaction with the service they receive from the haulers and city.
Surveys were mailed to 933 solid waste customers during the first week in November. Surveys
were addressed to 'Resident'. Of the surveys sent, 368 were completed and returned and 565
were not returned. The survey packet included a cover letter, a 4-page survey, and a postage
paid return envelope (Appendix A). Participants were asked 12 solid waste customer service-
related questions. The questions were broken down into sections for Eureka, Waste
Management, St. Louis Park, and Overall Comments. Participants were asked to fill out the
survey and mail it back by December 3, 2010.
Results of the survey will be used to identify areas of strength and identify where improvements
to the solid waste customer service is needed.
A new incentive was added this year to increase the response rate. If respondents filled out and
returned the survey, they were entered into a drawing for a chance to win a 2011 Chinook Book
($20 retail value). Of the 368 surveys that were sent back, 185 respondents chose to enter the
contest, and 3 winners were randomly chosen by Public Works staff.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 5
2010 SW Customer Service Survey
March 14, 2011
Page 2 of 5
METHODOLOGY
The target audience for this survey was all solid waste customers in the City’s residential
collection program. Customers are defined as residents who set their garbage, yard waste and
recycling out for collection regardless of who pays the utility bill. Customers are tracked using a
GIS point layer that is based on Utility Billing information and updated when customers or
addresses change. GIS data shows there were 12,359 customers as of December 2010. 1
Distribution of solid waste customers between Wards is fairly consistent, with the largest
percentage living in Ward 1.
Solid Waste Customers by Ward
Housing Type Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Total
Apartments (4- to 8-plex) 16 55 8 0 79
Commercial 10320 15
Condos 44 5 0 13 62
Duplexes 60 207 105 14 386
Townhome 34 0 0 112 146
Single Family 3,417 2,480 3,164 2,610 11,671
Total Units 3,581 2,750 3,279 2,749 12,359
Percent of City 29% 22% 27% 22% 100%
* Housing types are provided in number of units (customers), not number of buildings.
Customers were selected using a GIS tool that randomly selected parcels within each Ward.
Parcels that did not have residential garbage service were excluded from the selection.
The sample size was determined by choosing a 95% confidence level with an error of 5% (e.g.
you can be 95% sure that the survey results fall within 5% of the true value if you had surveyed
all solid waste customers). Based on the desired confidence and error level, 933 solid waste
customers were randomly selected and mailed surveys. A 40% response rate was desired (373
surveys) to ensure the 95% confidence level.
1 Utility Billing records showed 12,297 customers and GIS data showed 12,359 as of December 2010. The
difference of 62 customers is due to multi-unit dwellings (e.g. a 4-plex has 1 billing customer and GIS shows 4
customers).
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 6
2010 SW Customer Service Survey
March 14, 2011
Page 3 of 5
RESPONSE RATE
368 solid waste customers (participants) returned surveys, resulting in a 39% response rate and a
nearly 95% confidence level. Ward 4 had the highest response rate and Ward 3 had the lowest
response rate. Detailed results are available upon request.
Response Rate by Ward
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Total
# of Surveys Mailed 270 208 247 208 933
# of Surveys Received 115 77 83 93 368
Response Rate 43% 37% 34% 45% Avg. 39%
RESULTS
The results of this survey are projectable to all solid waste customers within %5 in 95 out of
100 cases. The annotated survey provides a snapshot of the results (Appendix B).
Eureka
Part A of the survey asked four recycling-related questions. The first question asked how many
times respondents called Eureka Recycling in the past year. A majority (82%) said they have
never called and of those that had called most had called less than 2 times. The second question
asked if respondents to rank, on a scale of 1 to 5, how satisfied they were with Eureka's customer
service in several different categories. Of those that had called, a majority indicated they were
Very Satisfied. The third question asked respondents to rate the collection service they have
received in the past year from Eureka Recycling. Of those that called, 54% indicated collection
service was Excellent and 36% indicated it was Good and the remainder rated it as Average,
Poor or left it blank. The last question asked respondents to rank on a scale of 1 to 5 how
satisfied they were with Eureka's collections services in several different categories. Of those
that had called, a majority said they were Very Satisfied.
Overall, respondents rated the service provided by Eureka as Excellent or Very Satisfied.
Waste Management
Part B of the survey asked five garbage-related questions. The first question asked how many
times respondents called Waste Management in the past year. A majority (72%) said they have
never called and of those that had called most had called less than 2 times. The second question
asked if respondents to rank, on a scale of 1 to 5, how satisfied they were with Waste
Management's customer service in several different categories. Of those that had called, a
majority indicated they were Very Satisfied. The third question asked respondents to rate the
collection service they have received in the past year from Waste Management. Of those that
called, 55% indicated collection service was Excellent and 35% indicated it was Good and the
remainder rated it as Average, Poor or left it blank. The fourth question asked if respondents had
contacted Waste Management in the past year to schedule a pickup of large items or appliances
and if that service was performed to their satisfaction. Of the 28% of respondents who had
scheduled a pickup, 18% said it was performed to their satisfaction and 7% said it was not, and
3% left it blank. The last question asked respondents to rank on a scale of 1 to 5 how satisfied
they were with Waste Management's collections services in several different categories. Of
those that had called, a majority said they were Very Satisfied.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 7
2010 SW Customer Service Survey
March 14, 2011
Page 4 of 5
Overall, respondents rated the service provided by Waste Management as Excellent or Very
Satisfied.
City of St. Louis Park
Part C of the survey asked two customer service-related questions. The first question asked how
many times respondents called the city in the past year. A majority (84%) said they have never
called and of those that had called most had called less than 2 times. The second question asked
if respondents to rank, on a scale of 1 to 5, how satisfied they were with the city's customer
service in several different categories. Of those that had called, a majority indicated they were
Very Satisfied.
Overall Comments
The final question in the survey asked respondents to provide overall comments as they relate to
customer service from Waste Management, Eureka Recycling, and the City of St. Louis Park.
190 comments were made and categorized into themes (subjects) so they were more manageable.
Waste Management received 30 direct comments:
8 general comments
9 yard waste comments
1 litter comment
12 overfilled cart comments
Eureka received 57 direct comments:
19 general comments
30 comments about collecting more plastics
4 litter comments
5 comments wanting single sort recycling
The City received 5 direct comments and 98 miscellaneous comments were made.
Miscellaneous comments also include comments that a respondent made about both haulers.
These comments were kept together instead of repeating separately under each hauler. A list of
all the comments made can be found in Appendix C.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Eureka, Waste Management and the City are generally well regarded as service
providers. Although a majority of respondents have never called or emailed, those that
have called are very satisfied with the service they received. Less than 2% of the
respondents who called were not satisfied.
2. Eureka, Waste Management and the City are generally regarded as being friendly, helpful
and able to answer questions and resolve issues to the caller's satisfaction. Again, less
than 2% of callers were not satisfied.
3. Overall satisfaction rates were high for Eureka, Waste Management and the City.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 8
2010 SW Customer Service Survey
March 14, 2011
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The 2012 survey should review the satisfaction scales and determine if a 3-point or 5-
point scale should be used. Either way, Somewhat Satisfied should come before
Satisfied.
2. Continue educating residents on why only certain plastics can be recycled at this time.
3. Continue educating residents about the city's overfilled cart policy.
4. Provide more education and information to residents about calling the hauler hotlines.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 9
APPENDIX A
(Deleted)
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 10
APPENDIX B
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 11
2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey
Recycling, Garbage, and Yard Waste
Solid Waste Program Overview
St. Louis Park provides weekly curbside recycling, garbage, and yard waste collection for single-family homes,
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and several small businesses. You are receiving this survey because your address
is listed as being part of the city's solid waste program.
Purpose of Survey
St. Louis Park conducts a solid waste customer service survey every two years. This survey asks for feedback on
issues related to solid waste customer service.
Your address was randomly drawn from a list of over 12,300 solid waste customers. *** Only 1 in 13 customers
are participating in this survey; therefore, your answers and feedback are very important. ***
Survey results will be used to identify areas of strength and identify where improvements to the Solid Waste
Program are needed.
Instructions to Respondents
1. Please provide only one answer per question unless instructed to do otherwise.
2. Please use a ball-point pen to complete the survey.
3. A self-addressed stamped envelope is provided with each survey. Fold completed surveys into the
envelope, seal it, and drop it in the nearest mailbox.
4. If your envelope gets lost, send completed surveys to the following address:
City of St. Louis Park
Department of Public Works
7305 Oxford St.
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
5. Questions? Contact Shannon Hansen or Scott Merkley in Public Works at (952) 924-2555.
6. Your answers will remain anonymous and be given full consideration by the Solid Waste Program staff.
7. Please complete and return this survey by December 3, 2010.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 12
PART A: EUREKA RECYCLING
CUSTOMER SERVICE
A1. How many times in the past year have you called Eureka Recycling?
82% None (go to question A3) (302)
15% 1-2 times (55)
1% 3-5 times (5)
1% More than 5 times (2)
1% Blank (4)
A2. Please rank on a scale of 1 to 5 how satisfied you are with Eureka's customer service in the following
categories. Please leave blank if not applicable or you are unsure.
Blank Not at all
Satisfied
Not Very
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
0 1 2 3 4 5
Service you received over the phone 81% (299) 0% (0) 2% (6) 7% (25) 2% (8) 8% (30)
Service you received by email 94% (346) 0% (0) 0% (1) 3% (10) 0% (1) 3% (10)
Friendliness of Eureka staff 80% (295) 0% (1) 1% (5) 6% (23) 3% (9) 10% (35)
Helpfulness of Eureka staff 80% (295) 0% (0) 2% (6) 5% (18) 3% 10) 11% (39)
Ability to answer questions/resolve
issues 81% (298) 1% (2) 2% (6) 5% (20) 2% (7) 10% (35)
Overall satisfaction with Eureka's
customer service 78% (288) 1% (2) 2% (6) 7% (27) 2% (6) 11% (39)
COLLECTION
A3. Please rate the collection service you have received in the past year from Eureka Recycling (pickup
of recycling at the curb or alley).
54% Excellent (198)
36% Good (132)
6% Average (22)
2% Poor (6)
3% Blank (10)
A4. Please rank on a scale of 1 to 5 how satisfied you are with Eureka's collections services in the
following categories. Please leave blank if not applicable or you are unsure.
Blank Not at all
Satisfied
Not Very
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
0 1 2 3 4 5
Safe driver 30% (111) 1% (2) 1% (3) 21% (78) 7% (24) 41% (150)
Friendly and helpful driver 35% (127) 1% (3) 1% (4) 18% (66) 7% (26) 39% (142)
Service area left clean after
collection 4% (15) 1% (3) 4% (14) 27% (99) 12% (45) 52% (192)
Recycling bins placed back neatly in
original location 4% (13) 3% (10) 8% (29) 23% (85) 16% (58) 46% (167)
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 13
PART B: WASTE MANAGEMENT
CUSTOMER SERVICE
B1. How many times in the past year have you called Waste Management?
72% None (go to question B3) (264)
24% 1-2 times (89)
3% 3-5 times (10)
0% More than 5 times (1)
1% Blank (4)
B2. Please rank on a scale of 1 to 5 how satisfied you are with Waste Management's customer service in
the following categories. Please leave blank if not applicable or you are unsure.
Blank Not at all
Satisfied
Not Very
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
0 1 2 3 4 5
Service you received over the phone 71% (261) 1% (2) 2% (7) 9% (32) 4% (14) 14% (52)
Service you received by email 90% (333) 0% (0) 0% (1) 4% (16) 1% (5) 4% (13)
Friendliness of Waste Management
staff 70% (257) 0% (1) 1% (5) 9% (34) 4% (14) 15% (57)
Helpfulness of Waste Management
staff 71% (262) 1% (4) 1% (3) 8% (29) 3% (10) 16% (60)
Ability to answer questions/resolve
issues 72% (264) 2% (6) 1% (4) 7% (26) 4% (14) 15% (54)
Overall satisfaction with Waste
Management's customer service 70% (256) 1% (2) 2% (7) 8% (28) 4% (16) 16% (59)
COLLECTION
B3. Please rate the collection service you have received in the past year from Waste Management (pickup
of garbage and yard waste at the curb or alley).
55% Excellent (204)
35% Good (130)
7% Average (24)
2% Poor (8)
1% Blank (2)
B4. If you have contacted Waste Management in the past year to schedule pickup of large items or
appliances, was the service performed to your satisfaction?
18% Yes (66)
7% No (25)
72% Not Applicable (did not contact for special pickup) (264)
3% Blank (13)
B5. Please rank on a scale of 1 to 5 how satisfied you are with Waste Management's collections services in
the following categories. Please leave blank if not applicable or you are unsure.
Blank Not at all
Satisfied
Not Very
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
0 1 2 3 4 5
Safe driver 31% (113) 1% (2) 1% (2) 21% (77) 41% (151) 41% (151)
Friendly and helpful driver 33% (120) 1% (3) 2% (6) 17% (61) 6% (23) 42% (155)
Service area left clean after
collection 6% (21) 1% (2) 4% (15) 25% (91) 15% (55) 50% (184)
Garbage carts placed back neatly in
original location 5% (20) 3% (10) 7% (26) 25% (91) 15% (56) 45% (165)
Yard waste containers placed back
neatly in original location 21% (77) 2% (6) 4% (14) 21% (78) 11% (40) 42% (153)
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 14
PART C: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
CUSTOMER SERVICE
C1. How many times in the past year have you called the City of St. Louis Park for solid waste related
issues?
84% None (go to question B3) (308)
14% 1-2 times (50)
1% 3-5 times (2)
0% More than 5 times (1)
2% Blank (7)
C2. Please rank on a scale of 1 to 5 how satisfied you are with the City's customer service in the following
categories. Please leave blank if not applicable or you are unsure.
Blank Not at all
Satisfied
Not Very
Satisfied Satisfied Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
0 1 2 3 4 5
Service you received over the phone 80% (295) 0% (0) 1% (4) 7% (24) 3% (12) 9% (33)
Service you received by email 93% (341) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (11) 1% (4) 3% (12)
Friendliness of City staff 80% (295) 0% (0) 0% (1) 7% (25) 3% (10) 10% (37)
Helpfulness of City staff 81% (297) 0% (0) 1% (3) 7% (24) 3% (10) 9% (34)
Ability to answer questions/resolve
issues 80% (293) 0% (0) 2% (6) 7% (27) 3% (10) 9% (32)
Overall satisfaction with the City's
customer service 77% (284) 0% (0) 1% (2) 7% (27) 3% (10) 12% (44)
C3. Please share any overall comments as they relate to customer service from Waste Management,
Eureka Recycling, and or the City of St. Louis Park.
190 comments were made and categorized into themes (subjects) so they were more manageable.
Waste Management received 30 direct comments,
Eureka received 57 direct comments,
The City received 5 direct comments, and
98 miscellaneous comments were made.
.
Enter to win a 2011 Chinook Book - a $20 retail value!
Public Works Solid Waste Program staff will randomly draw 3 names from completed surveys for a chance to win
a 2011 Chinook Book. The Chinook Book (formerly Blue Sky Guide) includes coupons for savings up to $3,000
with over 400 local coupons in the Twin Cities region.
If you would like to participate in the drawing, please fill out the following information:
Name: 185 survey respondents participated in the drawing.
Address: 3 winners were chosen and sent a copy of the Chinook Book.
Phone:
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 15
APPENDIX C
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 16
COMMENTS
This section includes all the comments to last question on the survey. 190 comments were made by
respondents. The comments were categorized into manageable 'themes'. Themes allow a more structured
way to analyze the data and find significant patterns within the comments. The sections follow the layout
of the survey starting with Waste Management, Eureka, the City, and ending with miscellaneous
comments. Survey respondents most frequently commented on their being very satisfied with collection
services, wanting to recycle more materials, and the friendliness of the drivers.
Waste Management = 30
General = 8
1. The note postcards from Waste Management are very helpful!
2. The squirrels in my neighborhood eat right through plastic bins and I can’t keep them out of
it. In the winter I can keep it in the garage but all summer it was a huge mess. They replaced
my can once and the next week, by the time they picked up (about 2 hrs) they had eaten
another hole & they haven’t replaced it since. All the cans on our block have holes.
3. Garbage can provided in poor shape. Need better notification regarding changes in garbage
pickup policy.
4. Waste Management services have been excellent.
5. WM could use some help as far as friendly service. They seem very bothered when asked a
question, and very disturbed if any requirement is outside of “their routine.” I have received
terrible service when I’ve called for special pick-ups, they did not relay the info to the driver.
Only to receive a nasty note from the collectors.
6. WM is good except they keep smashing green bin into our siding.
7. Waste Management is great, too; Last week they didn’t completely empty my garbage can
(sad face).
8. There have been a couple of occasions when I have put an “extra refuse” sticker on bags of
waste & they were not picked up & a tag was left saying I needed a sticker. I felt the
collector did not look at the bags at all.
Yard Waste = 9
1. I would like to see the yard waste go longer than it is currently, weather permitting. 1st week
of December maybe. With the new bags, what’s going to happen with the one’s not being
picked up? Just an idea, you asked.
2. We have 3 heavy plastic containers and 2 large non ressicable [sic] (recyclable?) bags-during
the heavy leaf drop we filled everything we had and got back the non recylibal [sic] bags
complete with leaves - wouldn't it s…(seem?) reasonable to empty the leaves from the bag in
the trucks "hopper" and put the mom recyctem [sic] bags - with note - in the other
containers?
3. Yard waste pick up is horrible! I have a neat container that they cannot lift and they leave the
waste I need pick up every week. Figure out a way to handle this. We pay enough money hire
stronger employees!!
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 17
4. I do not like that w/the advent of compostable bags, it is still “OK” to tie up twigs w/non-
compostable wire and plastic which is dangerous for wildlife and environment.
5. Paper bags for leafs don’t seem to hold much. Maybe a larger bag should be tried? I haven’t
seen the clear plastic bag which might hold more leaves.
6. Other nearby cities (Golden Valley) handle yard waste so much better – particularly large
branches. There must be a better way to deal w/the yard waste if other cities are doing it.
7. No problems experienced – the switch to paper bags for leaves was a good move!
8. Very happy with all waste issues – love that you pick up leaves and yard waste!
9. My only issue is sometimes the pick up of yard waste (leaves) is messy after collection.
Litter = 1
1. A little disappointed when I see some garbage on ground after pickup. Not a whole lot of
extra effort to pick up fallen items.
Overfilled Carts = 12
1. Waste Management – Trouble – did not pick up my garbage 1 time. I had to jump on it to
close – they said it was completely closed.
2. WM very strict rules, is anything is hanging out or pushing up door, they won’t pick up any
garbage. What are you supposed to do with 2 weeks worth of garbage? Overall service is
satisfactory.
3. How can a company be allowed to charge for service it doesn’t provide? A person has to pay
for up to 5 wks of non-pickup. However, if your lid doesn’t close your garbage doesn’t get
picked up at all. Do you expect less garbage the following week? The drivers “inspect” my
garbage each week. They could move through the neighborhood faster if they didn’t.
4. We have had Waste Management not take our garbage because the lid on the can wouldn’t
close all the way and that was a hassle. Otherwise, we can’t complain.
5. I was disappointed that one time the cover didn’t go all the way down by about 4” and they
refused it – even though I don’t even put the thing out a third of the time.
6. Waste Mgt. is pretty darn picky about taking items that might make the lid “stick up”. Also, I
accidentally had light bulbs in the can and instead of leaving just the bulbs, they left all the
garbage, too. So I had a full can for a week (sad face).
7. Only issue I had was my lid didn’t close all the way and they didn’t take my garbage. So I
was stuck with my garbage for 2-3 weeks before I could get rid of it all. Had to keep in my
garage entere? Time. Not good! (summer too – yuck).
8. I think they are too picky if container is slightly too full – they should collect and leave a
note not skip the pickup.
9. I’m very happy with the recycle/yard service. My tenants have had problems with Waste
Management. It seems like the company is looking for reasons to not collect garbage. The
trash then builds up. I have seen excessively loaded cans, but I think they should still pick up
if the lid is slightly open (flinch).
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 18
10. Refusal to take canister when lid was ajar by 2 inches.
11. Some weeks my trash can is empty and the next week my lid on trash can may be a little
open (2 or 3 inches) - they won’t take trash – makes me mad as “hell” and I get a bad boy
letter in the mail from St. Louis Park.
12. The “we won’t collect your trash if your lid is not completely closed” rule is
ridiculous/bogus.
Eureka = 57
General = 19
1. Satisfied with the service.
2. Was better before Eureka took over.
3. It would be neater and easier for collectors if plastic & glass could be left in a plastic bag.
Now I dump them into a green box with the papers.
4. I’m very pleased recycling doesn’t need to be separated by glass/plastic like Mpls.
5. We appreciate the notes left in our recycling bin when we’ve done a good job or when we’ve
put something in there that is not recyclable!
6. There have been several occasions when our recycling was not picked up when they (bins)
were placed correctly out on the curb. No notes left so I presume they were missed.
7. Bigger bins for recycling. Thanks for doing a great job!
8. Thank you for all you do! I value the printed information (was it USPS mailed?) about pick
up dates (holidays) and recycling types. They are an easy size to post in closet and garage
areas where trash is collected.
9. I really like the fact that Eureka collects old clothes but I think it would be helpful for people
to know what happens to them. My understanding is that some clothes are sent on as
donation if they can still be worn and that the rest is reused for fibers. I think if people
understood that, they would put out more to be recycled instead of adding to their trash.
10. Helpful notes are left when we put non-recycle items in.
11. No complaints. We are satisfied with the services provided and hope City retains weekly
recycling pickup and does elect to change to a bi-weekly recycling pickup schedule.
12. Didn’t call Eureka recycling, but did use their website a number of times including email
comments.
13. Regarding Eureka Recycling. It is my understanding that Eureka is one of the most expensive
services. They do have the time to go through the recycling to ensure something is not
included that does not meet their narrow acceptance of items. Why does the City continue
with the more expensive service?
14. Eureka Recycling is doing a bad job, I think the City needs to get a new company to pick up
recycling.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 19
15. My recycling bin appears to have been hit by a car, but I think it may have been because of a
windy day. Besides that, I have had no problems.
16. Why do we have Eureka Recycling with their big green truck? Waste Management did a
good job.
17. Eureka is good but sometimes didn’t pickup.
18. Eureka Recycling – They are OK. Recycle waste was dumped out because they could not
pick up this item.
19. Like Eureka Recycling a lot – should continue using them. Missed recycling 3 weeks in a
row, so I called.
Expand Recycling = 30
1. I do not like that lots of plastics w/ recycle numbers are not recyclable.
2. Questionable items, food containers, send out rules and regulations.
3. Eureka Recycling is almost draconian about sorting, and there are many types of plastics that
they won’t accept.
4. Eureka does not accept all containers with a #1 designation. Are we taking full advantage of
our recycling efforts?
5. I wish Eureka would expand their list of plastic items they will accept.
6. Could you be able to expand the variety of plastic recycling? At least all the #1 plastic
materials. Because more merchandise come in this type of packaging.
7. Would like more recycle opportunities such as plastic bowls, tubs, etc. Would like fee
structure to “reward” recycling.
8. I would like to be able to recycle more plastic items like yogurt containers.
9. Wish more plastics could be recycled.
10. Confused about which plastic food carts Eureka will collect (ex. They take milk plastic
bottles but throw out other dairy products).
11. I would like to be able to recycle additional plastics. It is too limiting to know what can be
recycled and what can’t.
12. Wish we could recycle more food plastic containers.
13. Wish they weren’t so strict as to what recycling will be accepted. Other cities seem to accept
more types of plastic.
14. I inquired as to why many plastic and paper items that are recycled in other municipalities are
not recycled by Eureka. The question remains unanswered. I find them no better (or worse)
than Waste Management. Come on SLP!! Let’s get progressive with our recycling!! I’m
disappointed.
15. Wish they would recycle more plastic items.
16. Eureka Recycling needs to recycle more plastic containers other that #1 and #2. Coming
from another city, I was surprised as how limited they are with the accepted materials.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 20
17. Please offer recycling to more plastics.
18. No problems. *Request: broader allowances for plastic recycling, please.
19. Why are some plastic and cardboard items not recyclable. Minneapolis has better recycle
services.
20. It seems like Eureka recycling should be able to pickup a wider variety of plastic recyclables.
Only # 1 bottles…Prior Recycling took a much wider variety. Throwing away a bunch more
w/Eureka.
21. Would like to have more plastic recycled. Thanks for what you do.
22. To dam pickee [sic] on the plastics either take all the plastic or not at all.
23. Overall satisfied – hope they (in the future) collect more items.
24. I would like to be able to recycle more materials.
25. Eureka recycling doesn’t accept many items that should be recycled. I’d rather have a
recycling cart instead of bins since I recycle a lot of stuff (and wish I could recycle more).
My friend in Westby, WI (small town) can recycle more than I can (and I live in a metro
area.)
26. I would like to be able to recycle more types of items, including batteries and electronics.
27. Recycling is too limited. They refuse too much stuff.
28. The City and Waste Management have met or even exceeded my expectations. Eureka
Recycling, however, has not. More than a few times they would leave items & a slip of paper
that listed the items they do take. The problem is, the stuff they leave were items they were
supposed to take. Also, they do not recycle as many items as other companies.
29. More recycling options would be great.
30. Just wish Eureka would take more varied types of plastics and batteries.
Litter = 4
1. Recycling could do better job of making sure stray pieces of paper aren’t left lying near bins.
2. Overall, I’m happy with the services. May only concern is they are not always good about
“cleaning up.” For example, I will find a bottle in my driveway or alley. Or my bins will be
left in my driveway (blocking garage access) instead of where I left them for pickup.
3. Sometimes bottles/cans/paper miss the truck & are left in the street. They need to be more
careful & keep streets clean.
4. Just one time broken glass bottles in front of driveway. They are good. Thanks!
Single Sort =5
1. Would prefer to put all recyclables in one container instead of separating.
2. Instead of sorting recycling – I recommend that you go with combined recycling. It works
great at our other house and we recycle more because of it. This recycling company (Eureka)
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 21
does not accept some items that are truly recyclable. We should be able to combine paper,
plastic, glass, and cans all into same recycling container.
3. The only frustration we have is the sorting requirement for recyclables. Other cities allow
you to mix recyclable materials in one bin – which would encourage more recycling.
4. Eureka Recycling – can we just put everything together instead of sorting? A lot of cities
have this policy.
5. Please switch to single-sort recycling.
City of St. Louis Park = 5
1. Two areas of dissatisfaction: couldn’t get a call back from City on yard waste question (2-3
times).
2. The City out to (or employees of City who answer phone) be informed about what Waste
Mgt/Eureka accept.
3. Satisfied with the service, but not how much everything costs. You need to keep your
increases to what your customer's raises are – 0 to 2%. Work harder to trim costs!
4. I am a new resident. Five additional coupons couldn’t possibly deal with all the moving
materials. Some of City staff were very helpful – others were less than helpful. I physically
went to City offices.
5. It has always been a pleasure to work with City Reps.
Miscellaneous Comments = 98
General = 7
1. Snowplowing – drive too fast – push snow over bank onto walks – most overall services
good. What can be done about electrical lines – power outages too often. Plant better trees
on Avenue!
2. I would like, for how much we pay, to get a few complimentary “extra waste” stickers each
year. There are always a couple of times a year (after a party, for example) where the bin
isn’t big enough. I don’t think that’ asking too much! Thanks! I appreciate the great work
you do.
3. Really only need pickup every two weeks, would be nice to be charged accordingly.
4. EUREKA – Accept a wider range of recyclables than WM did. Eco-friendly. SLP resident of
26 years, best City Govt. on earth. I love SLP….keep up the good work!
5. I think utility rates have increased dramatically in the last three years – don’t like that!
6. Lower the price
7. Wish all charges were less.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 22
Overall Satisfied = 48
1. I am incredibly pleased with the garbage and recycling service in St. Louis Park, it is the best
I’ve had in the 5 states I’ve lived.
2. Happy
3. Satisfied with service.
4. I really have no complaints at this time.
5. All have been satisfactory in the past.
6. I have had excellent service!
7. Good
8. Overall, we have been very satisfied with our service.
9. Service has been very good.
10. Everything seems to be working well. No issues.
11. Overall, we’ve been very pleased w/both these services.
12. Happy with the opportunities (fall and spring) to recycle or dispose of larger items and
hazardous waste items.
13. Very Satisfied.
14. I like the service of both. They have been clean, and forthright in providing info about how
they pick-up, what they will and will not pick up. I tend to get more irritated with stupid
neighbors who get the same info I did, but still mess up on what they, not Waste Mgmt or
Eureka should do!! .
15. We are lucky to be living here where we have your help.
16. All fine.
17. Good service.
18. I am fully satisfied with waste pickup and recycling.
19. Good.
20. The City of SLP, along with Waste Management & Eureka Recycling, provide the best
service I have ever had in any city in which I have lived.
21. (Smiley Face)
22. No problems. I never called. Not sure which company I use.
23. Overall – extremely satisfied.
24. Very happy with recycling and garbage pickup. Also, yard waste pickup is very convenient.
25. All good!!
26. No complaints!
27. I am well satisfied with received service.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 23
28. The service has been very good.
29. I can’t find anything wrong with their service. I wish everything in our system worked as
well. “Thanks for the steady service”.
30. I think Waste Management & Eureka both do an Excellent job.
31. So far it’s been great.
32. We are very satisfied with our city and services! (smiley face)
33. All do a wonderful service!
34. No problems, service has been fine!
35. They are doing an OK job. There have been a couple of times when they didn’t pick up my
recycles or trash.
36. No contact has been needed. Thank you for caring.
37. They do perform well. They are mostly on time. Always well picked up. Never any refuse in
the area.
38. We appreciate the excellent work being done by the City staff and the contractors – Waste
Management and Eureka Recycling.
39. They do a good job.
40. We have been pleased.
41. Very pleased with everyone’s service.
42. Very satisfied with the services – phone person GREAT!
43. We have been very satisfied with their services.
44. Eureka and City staff are all terrific. “NEVER” an unpleasant experience.
45. Thank you for all you do. St. Louis Park is a great place to live.
46. Other than the squirrels that eat through our garbage containers, we seem satisfied.
47. Both companies do the job. Both have friendly and helpful drivers. I am satisfied, and that’
fine – I don’t know what would make me “very satisfied” with the overall service.
48. Excellent service. Prompt response when recently skipped (only twice).
Survey Form = 4
1. Why is #4 “Somewhat Satisfied” ranked higher than #3 “Satisfied”?
2. I think that the answer columns should be re-titled: 1) Very Unsatisfied; 2) Unsatisfied; 3)
Somewhat Satisfied; 4) Satisfied; 5) Very Satisfied.
3. Thank you for asking our opinions! (Please see my comments on the design of this survey
inside. I am a former Editor and current proofreader.)
4. Survey is poorly worded.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 24
Cart / Bin Placement Comments = 17
1. I wish they could get people to go by the rules by putting their containers out the night before
or early morning instead of the day before pick up. Also putting them away ASAP. It makes
the neighborhood look pretty junkie.
2. Please have them return containers to the position left out vs. just anywhere.
3. Services are probably “good enough”. My biggest “problem” with them is the drivers don’t
make much of an effort to return the containers to the location that I had placed them. I have
a very small lot and it has caused me more work.
4. My trash can is 50/50 put back where I left it; sometimes in driveway, blocking so I cannot
drive my car into my driveway.
5. Often leave receptacles in yard instead of driveway
6. I have only a single driveway, so container must not be returned to driveway. Then I need to
get out of the car if I’ve been gone. Parking is okay. People helpful.
7. Would appreciate if green waste receptacle would be put back on pedestal since I am in a
wheelchair. And it should be obvious with the ramp in back. Thank you.
8. Frequently the garbage bins are placed in the driveway after being emptied, not on the
boulevard or snow bank where they were prior to emptying.
9. The only thing that is a little inconvenient is during the winter our garbage can sometimes
gets put so it blocks the driveway. I have to hop out of the car & move it so I don’t hit it.
(We have a single car driveway.)
10. Overall good service. At one point we left our trash bin close to the garage & they even
picked up the trash. However, there have been times when the trash cans were placed in
strange spots or not close to our garage.
11. Every so often my garbage container is in my driveway when I come home, which is
annoying. I have to get out and move it before driving in my driveway.
12. One of my major annoyances is coming time to find my garbage can blocking my driveway.
This happens at least once a month. It’s especially frustrating in winter when we’ve gone
through the effort to clear a space in the snow (off the driveway) for the garbage container.
This applies to WM.
13. My garbage can is not always placed on the side where it belongs – have a hard time getting
in driveway. At least I don’t have to get out of my car, before I entered the driveway. Not yet
anyway.
14. Waste Management: My neighbors put their yard waste cans outside my house. I have asked
the drivers to place the empty cans street side against the curb rather than in my yard because
the leftovers fall into my yard. I am disabled and it is easier to sweep than rake.
15. If Waste Management tags my garbage can and tells me I cannot put in my driveway or in
the street, then they should not leave it in the driveway or street when they are done with it!!!
16. Have been very satisfied with all services. There have been 5-10 instances where garbage
cans were placed in driveway blocking my car from getting in. Annoying, yes, but still happy
with services.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 25
17. Recently, Waste Management put our garbage can up in the snow, we had it on the driveway.
Driver Comments = 22
1. The recycle and waste pick up drivers are very friendly, helpful and courteous. In the past
(2+ years ago), we had drivers that entered our alley too fast, drove over curbs, etc. Very
unsafe, especially in summer when children are out of school. Please remind drivers
occasionally about above. We are watching!
2. We have found the drivers and service we’ve received to be very good. We are very satisfied
with services received.
3. Drivers sometimes get off pavement in alley leaving deep tire tracks in ground.
4. I have been very pleased with all of my services. If I am in the yard, the drivers have always
greeted me with a friendly comment. Thanks.
5. Good, very nice guys – they should all get a raise.
6. Our alley has a sharp turn. Between City snow plows & garbage trucks, all I see is mud.
Let’s rock this area.
7. Eureka’s schedule of pickups is somewhat irregular – sometimes comes late in the day.
8. Over all, service is good. Recycling is always late. Never know when they come. First was
early in morning not late afternoon. I recycle all things; bagged cans, papers, cardboard, and
catalogs. I’m 80 years & one fixed income. Keep on thinking of ways that make it easier for
resident to recycle.
9. Waste Management came hours before Eureka. Eureka often came after dark, making me
decide to leave container at curb over night. This makes pickup chores grow to 3 days – a
quality of life issue.
10. I really appreciate Eureka’s drivers answering my questions. They are very knowledgeable,
patient, and friendly.
11. Waste Management drivers are super nice, helpful, and friendly. I have seen them getting out
of the car helping elderly neighbors or helping people when the car is stuck in snow. They
are awesome.
12. Not sure which service is doing it, why do they have to leave tire skid marks on our roads!
13. The man who collects our garbage is THE BEST. The man who collects our garbage is a real
gentleman and helpful – always has a friendly smile and a kind word. He noticed that I was
on crutches for awhile after a n injury and would take the container from the street after it
was emptied and bring it up the driveway to its place by the garage (A very nice man).
14. When my alley was paved, it was made too narrow for the garbage trucks. Therefore, the
curbs are broken and the trucks hit my lawn. Oh well, when my kids are playing outside, the
drivers are careful [and] often wave.
15. When I was pregnant and in labor, I could only get my trash can ½ way down. The driver
came and got my can for me. Very nice.
16. 1 - In the past I’ve called Waste Mgmt. for a special pick up and I found them to be great –
they make the process so easy. 2 – I did get one weird little note from the Waste Mgmt.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 26
Page 11 of 11
driver regarding something in our garbage can that needed a special pick up – it wasn’t nasty
but it turned out that someone else put it in our receptacle (those scoundrels!) – point –
communication was pleasant and meant to instruct.
17. Waste drivers drive fast and break fast. Leave black skid mark. Squeak brakes.
18. The Waste Management collection guys are the greatest. They have a big smile on their faces
and they do their job perfectly. It’s a joy to see them come to our neighborhood.
19. My garbage men are great, happy-go-lucky guys. They are my G-Men. Very helpful and
efficient.
20. 1) The drivers are very friendly! I have an 18 month son who loves garbage day plus they are
so good to him! 2) One of the yard waste collectors is great! He empties my paper leaf bags
so we can reuse them the following week! We really appreciate the extra time he takes so we
don’t constantly have to buy more bags!
21. WM – Super Friendly, regular collectors.
22. Waste Management route persons have improved somewhat in recent months. They still
carry an “attitude.”
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 8)
Subject: 2010 Solid Waste Customer Service Survey Report Page 27
Meeting Date: April 11, 2011
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Carbon Baseline Measurement Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the Carbon Baseline Measurement that was
recently completed.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This report is informational and no policy consideration is necessary at this time.
BACKGROUND:
In 2009 the City participated as one of five pilot cities in the Mn Pollution Control Agency’s
(MnPCA) GreenStep Cities Demonstration Project. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) under the
auspice of the Regional Council of Mayors assisted the MnPCA in implementing the GreenStep
Cities demonstration project.
At the September 13, 2010 Study Session the Council was presented with the Environmental
Activities Update 2008-10. At this session the Council supported the next step in the MN
GreenStep Cities demonstration project; measuring the Community’s carbon footprint.
Calculating our carbon emissions creates a baseline from which the impact of future efforts to
reduce this carbon footprint can be measured.
An estimate of the City’s carbon footprint was prepared by the Urban Land Institute’s consultant
Rick Carter of LHB. A summary of Rick Carter’s analysis is provided below.
The St. Louis Park Community-Wide Carbon Baseline Assessment
Methodology
This study measured green house emissions as tons of CO2 produced within the city’s
boundaries.
First, data was collected from: the utility companies, Met Council, City of St. Louis Park
Utilities, Mn Department of Transportation, Mn Pollution Control Agency, Mn Climatology
Office, and Hennepin County.
The data included the amounts of solid waste processed (including recycling), water pumped,
natural gas and electricity consumed, and vehicle miles traveled for the two year period of
2008 and 2009.
Finally, Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software developed by ICLEI –Local
Governments for Sustainability, was used to convert the measured amounts of waste, water,
gas, electricity and vehicle miles traveled to tons of CO2 produced citywide and per capita.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement Update
Findings
Following is a chart which shows the quantities of waste produced, miles traveled and gas and
electricity used per St. Louis Park resident per day, along with the corresponding estimated
amount of CO2 produced annually. During the two year period an average of 16.1 tons/year of
CO2 was produced for each St. Louis Park resident, with a decline from 2008 to 2009 as
highlighted.
St. Louis Park Community -Wide Carbon Baseline Measurement - 2008 and 2009
2008 2009 Average of 2008-2009
Quantity
Person/Day
Tons CO2
Produced
Annually
Quantity
Person/Day
Tons CO2
Produced
Annually
Quantity
Person/Day
Tons CO2
Produced
Annually
Waste 7.1 pounds 0.23 6.5 pounds 0.21 6.8 pounds 0.22
Vehicle Miles Traveled 1 27 miles 5.6 27 miles 5.6 27 miles 5.6
Electric & Gas kBtu
Residential 118 kBtu 3.6 114 kBtu 3.4 116 kBtu 3.5
Electric & Gas kBtu
Commercial/Industrial 77 kBtu 7.0 75 kBtu 6.5 76 kBtu 6.8
Annual tons/ person 2 16.5 15.7 16.1
Annual tons/
residential equivalent 3 12.7 12.1 12.4
Total Tons–Citywide 731,186 696,192 713,689
Behind the measurements:
1 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is calculated as all cars, trucks, buses and train trips within the
city boundaries. This means all cars, buses, etc passing through the city are included as
VMT for the citywide carbon measurement. On the flip side, VMT by residents driving
outside the city boundaries are not included.
2 The population of St. Louis Park in 2008 was estimated at 44,221, in 2009 at 44,293.
3 The “residential equivalent” population includes residents, as well as workers, movie goers,
hotel guests, etc. that come into the city. The residential equivalent population in 2008 was
57,626 and in 2009, 57,511.
Notes:
To address the effects of temperature and energy, gas and electric use was normalized for
heating and cooling degree days.
Water use was not included in the calculation of CO2 produced since most of the CO2
production related to water use is already included in the energy use measurement. Water
use in gallons/day/capita was 124 gallons in 2008, 126gallons in 2009, for an average of 125
gallons per day per resident.
Bike Counts were measured based on actual counts on the bike trail at Belt Line Blvd on
given days. In 2008 there were 382 bike trips a day, in 2009, 364 bike trips a day, for an
average of 373 bike trips per day.
Although air travel has an impact it was not included due to the difficulty of measuring this
for SLP.
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement Update
Carbon Produced in St. Louis Park
Not surprisingly the use of natural gas and electricity are the major contributors of carbon
production as the following charts illustrate.
Natural gas and electricity account for over 63% of SLP’s carbon footprint.
Transportation/travel accounts for over 34% of SLP’s carbon footprint
It is significant to compare the commercial-industrial use of gas and electricity to the
residential use.
Two thirds of the carbon produced from energy use is associated with commercial,
industrial activity and only a third from residential use.
Comparisons of Green House Gas Emissions Per Capita
St. Louis Park is lower than the state and national averages and well above the world average for
production of CO2 per capita. Reasons for St. Louis Park’s lower production rate:
SLP has virtually no agriculture industry which is a significant producer of CO2.
The study did not include contribution from food consumption within the city.
Since measurements are per capita, denser communities generally have lower CO2
production than more sparsely populated communities.
5
16.1
2020
0
10
20
World US Minnesota St. Louis ParkAnnual Tons of CO2 Produced Per Capita
Carbon Produced by Catagory
Waste, 1.4%
Travel,
34.7%
Energy,
63.9%
Carbon from Energy
Commercial-
Industrial,
66.0%
Residential,
34.0%
Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement Update
NEXT STEPS
Mr. Carter has been asked by ULI, Regional Council of Mayors to present findings from the
cities of Falcon Heights and St. Louis Park at its April 28, 2011 meeting. St. Louis Park, Falcon
Heights and Edina are leaders in establishing their citywide carbon footprints. Only a handful of
cities have prepared this tool to use for future educational outreach, planning and evaluation. At
the April 28th meeting, Mr. Carter will be using the findings from St. Louis Park and Falcon
Heights to illustrate the process and benefits of establishing the carbon baseline for cities.
Now that a baseline has been documented, the information can
Deepen the understanding of opportunities to save energy and money, mitigate climate
change, and manage risk in the face of future green house gas (GHG) emission
regulations and oil insecurity.
Assist in promoting public understanding of the cities’ effects on climate change and
increasing awareness of activities that can reduce carbon footprints.
Inform subsequent analyses, plans, and policy decisions by the cities and others
The E-Group will develop a strategy for sharing this information with the Council and
community that will be consumable and actionable and a presentation will be made to Council if
so requested.
.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
City of St. Louis Park through Vision St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. The City of St. Louis Park strives to increase environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Development of the carbon
baseline assessment will be a valuable tool to assist the City in demonstrating and promoting its
environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Mr. Carter’s Carbon Baseline Measurement Power Point Report
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Performance Driven DesignGreen Step CitiesRick Carter, FAIA, LEED AP BD+CMarch 14, 2011St. Louis Park, MNStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 5
Performance Driven DesignScopeEstablish the feasibility of this approach.Collect the last two years of data for benchmarking.Establish a process for collecting data for the next two years.Evaluate the specific best management practices (BMP) selected by each city and correlate them to the outcomes being measured.Produce a final report that measures each metric individually (i.e. kBTUs, gallons, vehicle miles traveled, etc.) as well as in total dollars and tons of carbon. The report will include data on a per-capita basis as well.2Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 6
Performance Driven DesignScaleCity wide versus organization wide dataEverything, inside of boundary.3Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 7
Performance Driven DesignData ComparisonsActual 2009123To same city over time 2000 125g/person/dayTo other cities132U.S. averages150To the world 5To projections1224Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 8
Performance Driven DesignUnitsBtu’s – Energy (includes therms and kW’s)Gallons – WaterVMT – Vehicle Miles TraveledPounds – WasteAll can be converted to $ and CO2All are normalized per capita5Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 9
Quality Bicycle ProductsYear Designed: 2004LEED®– NC Gold Certified+ $750,000In additional building costs to achieve energy efficiencies- $75,000In reduced annual costs from achieved energy efficiencies10 Year payback 10% Return on investment6Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 10
Quality Bicycle ProductsFeatures:Dual-flush toiletsLow-flow showerheadsWaterless urinalsSensor-operated water faucets225,940 gallon reduction in water use$868/yr in SavingsProjectedActual7Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 11
Performance Driven DesignWhy Measuring MattersNatural Competition (examples)Relationship to strategiesCarbon projections and goals8Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 12
Performance Driven DesignSt. Louis Park Community‐Wide Carbon Baseline Assessment 2008 and 2009Completed November 2010Updated 01‐04‐112008 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132009 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132010 MetricCO2e (tonnes)13PopulationResidents (Capita)144,22144,293Resident Equivelant (Eq. Captita)257,62557,511Area (10.7 square miles)Res/sq.m4,1334,1400Water (gallons)3Inches Rainfall426.227.3Water usage in summer294,011,250360,303,000Sanitary wastewater1,702,133,2501,680,394,500Total1,996,144,500 N/A2,040,697,500 N/AWater (gallons/day) per Capita Total124N/A126N/A9DataStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 13
Performance Driven DesignSt. Louis Park Community‐Wide Carbon Baseline Assessment 2008 and 2009Completed November 2010Updated 01‐04‐112008 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132009 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132010 MetricCO2e (tonnes)13PopulationResidents (Capita)144,22144,293Resident Equivelant (Eq. Captita)257,62557,511Area (10.7 square miles)Res/sq.m4,1334,1400Waste (pounds)5Recycled46,220,00043,904,000Incinerated40,062,000 4,72734,408,000 4,060Landfill28,362,000 5,40327,206,000 5,183Total114,644,000 10,130105,518,000 9,243Waste (pounds/year) per Capita Recycled1,045.2991.2Incinerated905.9776.8Landfill641.4614.2Total2,592.5 0.232,382.3 0.21Waste PPD (pounds/person/day)7.16.50.010DataStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 14
Performance Driven DesignSt. Louis Park Community‐Wide Carbon Baseline Assessment 2008 and 2009Completed November 2010Updated 01‐04‐112008 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132009 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132010 MetricCO2e (tonnes)13PopulationResidents (Capita)144,22144,293Resident Equivelant (Eq. Captita)257,62557,511Area (10.7 square miles)Res/sq.m4,1334,1400Travel (VMT)6435,664,806 249,153434,088,660 246,926Travel (VMT) per Capita/day Tonnes CO2e per‐capital/year275.6275.65.6Bike Counts7Bikers/day38236411DataStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 15
Performance Driven DesignSt. Louis Park Community‐Wide Carbon Baseline Assessment 2008 and 2009Completed November 2010Updated 01‐04‐112008 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132009 MetricCO2e (tonnes)132010 MetricCO2e (tonnes)13EnergyCooling Degree Days8932812Electricity (MWh/yr)9Res146,276 83,961141,167 76,598C&I360,155 209,757350,128 192,778Total506,431 293,718491,295 269,3760Heating Degree Days88,2737,798Therms (Dth/yr)10Res1,409,542 76,9481,362,587 74,385C&I1,854,443 101,2361,763,345 96,263Total3,263,985 178,1843,125,932 170,6480Total Energy (MBtu/yr)11Res1,908,636 160,9091,844,249 150,983C&I1,247,393 310,9931,212,270 289,041Total3,156,029 471,9023,056,519 440,0240Total Energy (kBtu/yr) per Capita/day12Res1183.61143.4C&I777.0756.5Total19610.71899.900.0Total CO2e (tonnes)CO2e Total731,186696,192CO2e/yr Total per Capita16.515.7CO2e/yr Total per Eq. Capita12.712.112DataStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 16
Performance Driven DesignKeyed Notes on Sources:1. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/data_download/DD_start.aspx2. City residents plus employement 2009 values (averaged 8 hours/day). Employment values from Metropolitan Council Community Profile for St. Louis Park, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/data_download/DD_start.aspx3. City of St. Louis Park4. Minnesota Climatology Working Group, State Climatology Office ‐DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources5. Source: County Certification/Annual Report, 2008 and 2009 for Hennepin County.6. Minnesota Department of Transportation7. Saint Louis Park Fall Bike Count, Location 902 ‐Larpenteur Ave, east of Cleveland8. Heating and Cooling Degree Days from Minneapolis Airport Weather Station (93.22W,44.88N). www.degreedays.net9. Source for electrical consumption data for residential, commercial & industrial: Xcel Energy. 10. Source for natural gas consumption data for residential, commercial & industrial: CenterPoint Energy. 11. Sum of total energy consumed in city in MBtu (10^6 Btu)12. Total energy consumed in city per capita, based on annual population13. Sources for CO2e estimates are as follows:a) Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software, 2009, developed by ICLEI‐‐Local Governments for Sustainability, as reported in Dakota County's county‐wide carbon baseline assessment.b) Final Report, Statewide MSW Composition Study: A Study of Discards in the State of Minnesota, Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 2000.c) CO2emission factors for electricity from Xcel Energy. Emission factors for other greenhouse gases from theInternational Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocolproduced by the United Nations, ICLEI ‐Local Governments for Sustainability and The Climate Registry.13SourceStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 17
Performance Driven DesignGHG per Capita14Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 18
Performance Driven DesignGHG by Sector15Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 19
Performance Driven DesignCarbon by Category16Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 20
Performance Driven DesignCarbon from Energy17Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 21
Performance Driven Design1. Public Buildings18MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES, ACTION OPTIONS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS5 Buildings & Lighting Best Practices(1) Enter baseline information into the Minnesota B3 databaseand continue entering monthly energy use data from city-owned buildings.(2) Audit (or when cost-effective, recommission) all city-owned buildings in the bottom third of the B3 energy performance ranking and implement a majority of energy efficiency opportunitiesthat have a payback under 5 years.(3) Complete energy efficiency improvements in at least one city, school or park district building (in addition to buildings addressed in action 2) via retrofit and retro-/re- commissioning, with financing at attractive interest rates under MN’s PBEEEP program or related lease-purchase financing, energy performance contracting, or other cost-justified program.(4) Participate in other state or utility programs that provide rebates or co-fundingfor energy efficiency improvements to public buildings.(5) Renovate and operate at least one city-owned building to meet or qualify for a green building standard.(6) Create an internal loan fundfor making public building improvements based on an energy or green building standard. (7) Install in at least one public building at least one of the following energy efficiency measures:a. A distributed energytechnology: micro-turbine, fuel cell, reciprocating engine.b. A ground-source, closed loop geothermalsystem where net greenhouse gases are less than those generated by the system being replaced.Completed? In process? Planned? Responsible person/entity?Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 22
Performance Driven DesignMinnesota GHG Targets19Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 23
Performance Driven DesignPopulation, Household, and Employment Projections20Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 24
Performance Driven Design21Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 25
Performance Driven DesignNext StepsCorrelate Dakota County Data for sample sitesPresent to St. Louis Park and Falcon Heights City CouncilPresent to ULI ForumSecure commitment from two other cities22Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 26
Performance Driven DesignAPPENDIX23Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 27
Performance Driven DesignAmerican Community Survey Share of Bicycle Commuters2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Minneapolis, MN1.89% 2.42% 2.50% 3.80% 4.27% 3.86%ID LOCATIONMode Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10*902 Larpenteur Ave, Bike 52 27 27 24east of Cleveland Walk 91 26 20 21901 SW LRT Trail, Bike 297 382 364 336east of Beltline Blvd Walk 47 67 44 44* Unconfirmed result24Bike CountsStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 28
Performance Driven Design2009St. Louis Park Tonnage ReportCurbside Tons - Paper2347.91Curbside Tons - Containers1153.28Total Tons - Total3501.19CompositionTonsCommodityby TypeCollectedPAPERNews Mix83.30% 1955.81Cardboard8.44% 198.16Boxboard7.04% 165.29Wetstrengh1.12% 26.30Phone Books0.04% 0.94Textiles0.03% 0.70Residual0.03% 0.70Subtotal100.00% 2347.91CONTAINERSAluminum Cans5.19% 59.86Steel Cans8.57% 98.84HDPE NAT3.34% 38.52HDPE Col2.94% 33.91PET8.40% 96.88Flint Glass10.69% 123.29Amber Glass7.85% 90.53Green Glass16.97% 195.71Mix Glass33.61% 387.62Tetra Pak0.00% 0.00Residual2.44% 28.14Subtotal100.00% 1153.28Totals3501.1925Residential Recycling SLPStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 29
Performance Driven Design2009Garbage Yardwaste Service DaysJan-09 615.88 54.5 22Feb-09 551.22 0 20Mar-09 644.68 0 22Apr-09 700.05 387.33 22May-09 720.85 417.26 21Jun-09 744.99 359.46 22Jul-09 774.99 246.49 23Aug-09 725.89 239.33 21Sep-09 748.01 212.76 22Oct-09 717.37 530.13 22Nov-09 694.61 1214.75 21Dec-09 665.31 1.13 23Totals 8,303.85 3,663.14 26126Residential Waste SLPStudy Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 30
Performance Driven DesignGHG History27Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 31
Performance Driven DesignGHG Projections28Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 32
Performance Driven Design2. Private Buildings29MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES, ACTION OPTIONS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS(1) Create a marketing and outreach programwith the local utility and/or the local Community Action Program to promote residential energy use reduction and energy efficiency.(2) Integrate green building information into the building permit process.(3) Develop a (or modify an existing) truth-in-housing inspection programfor homes being sold, to include a blower-door test and energy-use rating. (4) Partner with an assistance providersuch as a utility, EnergySmart, MNTAP or ReTAP, and document at least one of the following:a. Building energy improvements in businesses.b. Use of Energy Star’s Portfolio Manger by businesses.c. Operation of a least three buildings to meet or qualify for a green building standard.(5) Take action to conserve drinking waterresources through at least one the following:a. Implement a robust watering ordinance.b. Implement a conservation rate structure.c. Adopt, with modifications as necessary, a model landscaping ordinance to allow for low water-use landscaping.d. Create a rebate or feebate program to promote purchases of WaterSense- and Energy Star-rated appliances.(6) Provide a meaningful and significant incentiveto builders, homeowners, businesses or institutions who renovate to a green building standard: a. Building permit fee discountb. Grant, rebate or tax breaks (e.g., property tax abatement)c. Expedited permit reviewd. Green building design assistancee. Density bonus(7) Customize a model sustainable building policyand adopt language governing commercial renovation projects:a. Receiving city financial support, and/orb. Requiring city regulatory approval (conditional use permit, rezoning, PUD status). (8) Arrange for on-bill financing, using either utility or property tax bills, to make home/building sustainability improvements easier and more affordable. Completed? In process? Planned? Responsible person/entity?Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 33
Performance Driven Design3. New Green Buildings30MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES, ACTION OPTIONS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS(1) Require, by ordinance, new city-owned buildingsand substantial remodels to meet or qualify for a green building standard.(2) Work with the local school or park district to ensure that all schools or park buildingsmeet or qualify for a green building standard.(3) Customize a model sustainable building policyand adopt language governing new development projects:a. Receiving city financial support, and/orb. Requiring city regulatory approval (conditional use permit, rezoning, PUD).(4) Provide a meaningful and significant incentiveto residents, builders or developers who build to a green building standard: a. Building permit fee discountb. Expedited permit reviewc. Green building design assistanced. Grant, rebate or tax breaks (e.g., property tax abatement)e. Density bonus(5) Adopt covenant guidelines for common interest communitiesaddressing issues such as stormwater, native vegetation, clothes lines and renewable energy.(6) Work with local financial institutions to use energy-efficient mortgagesfor buildings seeking a green building certification.Completed? In process? Planned? Responsible person/entity?Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 34
Performance Driven Design4. Outdoor Lighting & Signals31MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES, ACTION OPTIONS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS(1) Require energy efficient, Dark-Sky compliant new or replacement outdoor lightingfixtures on city-owned buildings and facilities.(2) Require all new street lighting and traffic signalsto be Dark-Sky compliant, energy efficient lighting technologies.(3) Modify any city franchise or other agreement with a utilityto facilitate rapid replacement of inefficient street lighting.(4) Synchronize traffic signalsso as minimize car idling at intersections yet maintain safe and publicly acceptable vehicle speeds.(5) Install solar powered lightingin a street, parking lot or park project.(6) Work with a utility program to relamp exterior building lightingfor at least 30% of city-owned buildings with energy efficient, Dark-Sky compliant lighting. (7) Replace at least 50% of the city’s parking lot lightingwith Dark-Sky compliant, energy efficient, automatic dimming lighting technologies.(8) Replace at least one-third of the city’s traffic signalswith energy efficient LED lighting technologies.Completed? In process? Planned? Responsible person/entity?Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 35
Performance Driven Design5. Building Reuse32MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES, ACTION OPTIONS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS(1) Develop and adopt an historic preservationordinance to encourage adaptive reuse, with attention to energy and resource conservation, indoor air quality and other green building practices.(2) For cities with traditional downtown areas, implement the Main Street model for commercial revitalization with attention to green building practices.(3) Work with a local school to either add-on space, or to repurpose space into non-school uses, with attention to green building practices.(4) Create/modify a green residential remodeling assistance/financing program to assist homeowners in adding space to their existing homeswhile retaining historic architectural elements.(5) Adopt development and design standards that facilitate infill and redevelopment, such as developing strip/big box commercial areas into more livable/walkable neighborhoods and gathering places.Completed? In process? Planned? Responsible person/entity?Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 36
Performance Driven Design12. Mobility Options33MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES, ACTION OPTIONS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS5 Land Use Best PracticesCompleted? In process? Planned? Responsible person/entity?(1) Promote walking, biking and transit use by one or more of the following means:a. Produce/distribute a map(s) and/or signage and/or a web site that shows (by neighborhood if a larger city) key civic/commercial sites, best bike and pedestrian routes, and transit routes and schedules.b. Increase the number of bike facilities: racks, bike stations, showers at city offices.c. Increase the number of bus facilities: signage, benches, and shelters.d. Increase the number of employers who offer qualified transportation fringe benefits instead of only a tax-free parking fringe benefit.e. Launch an Active Living campaignin concert with your local community health board.(2) Launch a Safe Routes to Schoolprogram with educational, public health and other partners.(3) Prominently identify on the city’s web site mobility options for hire: transit services; paratransit/Dial-A-Ride; cab service(s); rental car agency(s).(4) Promote carpooling or on-demand ridesharingamong community members, city employees, businesses, high schools and institutions of higher education.(5) Launch an eWorkPlace Minnesota campaign, working with business and transportation management organizations, or help bring telemedicine technology to a local health care provider.(6) Accomplish at least one of the following, working with other units of local governments as needed:a. Add/expand transit service.b. Launch a car sharing or bike sharingbusiness.Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 37
Performance Driven Design22. Solid Waste Reduction34MINNESOTA GREENSTEP CITIES BEST PRACTICES, ACTION OPTIONS AND PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS9 Environmental Management Best PracticesCompleted? In process? Planned? Responsible person/entity?(1) Adopt percentage reduction goals for waste and toxicity generated from city operations (including schools, libraries, parks, municipal health care facilities). Accomplish reduction goalsin at least three of the following areas:a. Overall waste generationb. Paper use and junk mailc. Pesticide/herbicide used. Water use/waste water generation(2) Adopt and meet aggressive goals for the overall percentage diversionof currently disposed waste from city operations into recycling and organics collection.(3) Document signing of at least one resource management contractwith a waste hauler for one or more of:a. City government operations.b. Schools, libraries, parks, or municipal health care facilities.c. A commercial or industrial business.(4) Publicize, promote and use the varied businesses collecting and marketing used and repairedconsumer goods in the city/county.(5) Arrange for a residential or business/institutional organics collection/managementprogram (food-to-people, food-to-animals, composting, anaerobic digestion, and backyard composting). (6) Organize residential solid waste collectionby private and/or public operations to accomplish multiple benefits.(7) For cities that provide direct or contract waste collection services, offer volume-based pricingon residential garbage and/or feebates on recyclingso that the price differences are large enough to increase recycling/composting but not illegal dumping.(8) Adopt a construction and demolition ordinancefor projects over a specified size that mandates levels of recycling and reuse for materials and soil/land-clearing debris and is tied to demolition permits.Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 38
Performance Driven Design35Study Session Meeting of April 11, 2011 (Item No. 9) Subject: Carbon Baseline Measurement UpdatePage 39