HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011/06/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 13, 2011
(Councilmember Sanger Out)
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 20 and June 27, 2011
2. 6:35 p.m. Cavalia at West End
3. 7:05 p.m. Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures
4. 7:20 p.m. Eliot School Redevelopment
5. 8:05 p.m. Boulevard Tree Policy Discussion
6. 8:35 p.m. Storm Water/Surface Water Management
7. 9:05 p.m. Social Host Ordinance
8. 9:20 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
9. Beltline LRT Station Development Area – Stormwater Planning
10. MnDOT - City Cooperative Highway 7 Fiber Conduit Project Update
11. Recycling Program Update
12. Homes Within Reach: City Funded Revolving Line-of-Credit to Assist with Acquisition
and Rehab Costs of Affordable Homeownership Units
13. Recycling Bin Wheels Report
14. Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request.
To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at
952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: June 13, 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 – June 20 and June 27, 2011.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session
scheduled for June 20, a special City Council meeting on June 27, and the regularly scheduled
Study Session on June 27, 2011.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for a Special Study Session scheduled for June 20, a special City Council meeting on June
27, and the regularly scheduled Study Session on June 27, 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning June 20 and June 27, 2011
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 20 and June 27, 2011
Special Study Session, June 20, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. 2012 Budget – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Staff is starting preliminary work on the 2012 budget. This time will be used to review the
timeline with Council, provide general information on assumptions in budget preparation and
obtain feedback from Council on this process.
End of Meeting: 7:30 p.m.
Closed Executive Session and Study Session, Monday, June 27, 2011 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
6:30 PM – Closed Executive Session
1. Closed Executive Session to discuss pending Alberto Properties litigation with City Attorney.
2. Consideration of settlement agreement in the matter of Alberto Properties LLP v the City of
St. Louis Park
7:00 PM – Approximate adjournment time
Study Session Agenda – Immediately following Closed Executive Session
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Decision Resources Survey Results – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Decision Resources and staff will present results from the 2011 Community Residential Survey.
3. Human Rights Commission w/ Commissioners – Police (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, the Human Rights Commissioners will be present to
discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
4. Police Advisory Commission w/ Commissioners – Police (20 minutes)
As requested by the City Council, the Police Advisory Commissioners will be present to
discuss their Annual Report and Work Plan with Council.
5. Highway 100 Project Update – Public Works (45 minutes)
To evaluate public input obtained and to discuss options and next steps associated with the
proposed closure of the W27th Street Highway 100 southbound entrance ramp.
6. 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:
Park Nicollet Redevelopment Contract Amendment
Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar & Grill Food/Liquor Sales Report
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Creek Remeandering Update
May 2011 Monthly Financial Report
Mayor, City Council, and Economic Development Authority Compensation
End of Meeting: Approximately 9:35 p.m.
Meeting Date: June 13, 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:
Cavalia at West End.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council generally favor allowing Cavalia to hold its touring show on the vacant
West End office property this fall?
Is the City Council willing to consider amending the Temporary Uses section of the Zoning
Code to enable the City Council to approve this particular temporary use?
Is the City Council willing to enter into an Agreement with the City of Golden Valley
authorizing St. Louis Park to issue all necessary permits relative to the proposed show?
Representatives from Cavalia and Duke Realty have been invited to describe the show and its
impacts as well as explain its site requirements and answer questions. These representatives
would like to gauge the Council’s interest in having the city host the show.
BACKGROUND:
As noted in the staff report of June 6th, one of the world’s largest touring shows called Cavalia
wishes to hold its performance on the vacant, eastern portion of The West End owned by Duke
Realty. The production would be set up in August with shows running from September thru mid–
November.
City Approvals
Staff has been discussing with the City Attorney how Cavalia would be allowed to hold its
production within the city in conformance with the Zoning Code. The applicable section of the
Code under which such a show would be permitted is “Temporary Uses.” This section provides
conditions under which temporary uses may be allowed in order to ensure a minimum negative
impact to neighborhoods and neighboring uses. According to Section 36-82 (b)(4a) carnivals,
festivals, and promotional events are permitted for up to 14 days each year.
Staff and the City Attorney are crafting an amendment that would allow the City Council to
approve events longer than 14 days subject to specific conditions. Such an amendment would
require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and two readings by the City Council.
In addition a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) may be needed depending on the amount of material
that needs to be brought to the site. Should it be necessary, a CUP would require a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. The proposed ordinance
would add the following underlined language:
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Cavalia at West End
Sec. 36-82. Temporary uses.
(a) Purpose and effect. The purpose of this section is to provide conditions under which
temporary uses may be allowed in order to ensure a minimum negative impact to neighborhoods
and neighboring land uses.
(b) Authorized temporary uses. A structure or land in any use district may be used for one or
more of the following temporary uses if the use complies with the conditions stated in this chapter:
(4) Carnivals, festivals and promotional events.
a. Carnivals, festivals, and promotional events, including community art fairs, shall not be
permitted for more than 14 days in any calendar year except in public parks or closed
right-of-way as approved by the city or as specified by PUD approval. The City
Council may approve an event for longer than 14 days subject to:
1. Review of site plan items for conformance to zoning regulations including, but
not limited to: parking, signage, lighting and sound, and landscaping;
2. Plans for vehicle and pedestrian access, parking and traffic control;
3. Provision of appropriate utilities including sewer, water, waste disposal,
recycling, surface water drainage, power, etc.;
4. Provision of appropriate public safety measures, including adequate steps to
insure fire protection and security of the site;
5. A clean up plan;
6. Other conditions to address the public health, safety, welfare and community
impacts from the use.
b. Carnivals, festivals, and promotional events shall be permitted within required the front
yard, side yard, or rear yard; except where prohibited under section 36-76. Carnivals,
festivals, and promotional events shall not be allowed within the public right-of-way
unless such right-of-way will be closed for the event as approved by the city.
c. All signage must meet the temporary signage provisions found in Section 36-362(h)(3).
(Ord. No. 2250-03, 9-2-03; Ord. No. 2325-07, 5-7-07)
Given that a sizable portion of the subject site lies in the City of Golden Valley, it must provide
its approval as well. City Staff has been communicating with Golden Valley Staff who have
indicated that land use approval by the Golden Valley City Council will likewise be necessary.
Rather than having Cavalia obtain permits for other items from both communities, Golden
Valley Staff has expressed it would be most efficient to allow St. Louis Park to take the lead in
issuing permits, licenses, etc. Deferment of such authority could be accomplished through a
written agreement. If St. Louis Park was to draft such an Agreement, and assuming its terms
were acceptable, Golden Valley expressed willingness to favorably consider it.
Cavalia would like to begin marketing the show in St. Louis Park as soon as formal approvals
can be obtained. Therefore consideration of formal approvals is being scheduled within the next
month. The tentative schedule is as follows:
July 6th the Planning Commission holds a public hearing and considers the Zoning Code
Amendment.
July 11th the First reading of the Amendment is considered at a special meeting of the
City Council.
July 18th the Second reading of the Amendment and the Agreement with the City of
Golden Valley is considered at the regular City Council meeting.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Cavalia at West End
Golden Valley staff has expressed a willingness to expedite this matter along a schedule similar
to St. Louis Park’s with final approvals scheduled for July 19th.
Hosting the proposed show will also require a series of permits from nearly all City departments.
Permits will likely need to be obtained relative to: the show tents, electricity, sewer and water
hook-ups, temporary signage, truck hauling, erosion control, food preparation, noise, and traffic
control as well as food and alcohol sales.
Meetings with surrounding neighborhoods and businesses will be scheduled as well.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Cavalia will be responsible for paying for the municipal services it utilizes. Considerable staff
time will be needed in various departments to bring the show to fruition.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hosting Cavalia is consistent with the City’s vision of promoting and integrating arts, culture,
and community aesthetics in all City initiatives where appropriate.
Attachments: Staff Report of June 6, 2011
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Cavalia at West End
Meeting Date: June 6, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Cavalia - The West End.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council generally favor allowing Cavalia to hold its touring show on the vacant
Duke property this fall? Please contact staff with any questions, concerns or comments that you
might have. Note – staff is proposing that representatives of Cavalia attend a special study
session on June 20 to discuss this proposal further.
BACKGROUND:
Last Friday Staff was contacted by a major international travelling show called Cavalia that
wishes to bring its production to the vacant future office building site at The West End. The
property owner, Duke Realty, and the production company reached an agreement to use the site
on Wednesday. Officials with Cavalia indicated they originally intended to hold the production
in Minneapolis but were unable to find a site suitable to their needs. They considered the vacant
site north of Mall of America in Bloomington but preferred the highway access, visibility,
demographics and proximity to downtown Minneapolis afforded by the Duke site. They also like
the immediate proximity of restaurants, hotels and shops in the West End area.
About Cavalia
Cavalia, based in Quebec, is one of the largest touring shows in the world. It was created by
Normand Latourelle, one of the pioneers of Cirque du Soleil. The show has been described as a
unique combination of equestrian arts, multimedia, dance and acrobatics. The production
company describes Cavalia as:
A magical ballet between man and horse. It is a journey into a world of
profound beauty; an unforgettable adventure, visually breathtaking and charged
with pure emotion. Under the world’s largest touring Big Top, horses and
humans share the stage in dream-like virtual settings, created by panoramic
projections and special effects. Cavalia is a dream of freedom, complicity and
harmony; a moving and spectacular tribute to the bond between man and horse.
Cavalia has been touring for more than seven years and has visited 36 major cities in the US,
Canada and Europe. During that time it has held more than 1,600 performances and has been
seen by more than 2.5 million spectators. The show only visits a handful of cities each year and
the Twin Cities area would be the smallest market they have performed in to date. The show
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Cavalia at West End
features 33 artists, acrobats, dancers and riders from around the world and six musicians as well
as 62 horses, representing 13 different breeds.
Show Schedule
The production would be set up on the site in August with shows running from September thru
mid–November.
Each show draws approximately 2,000 people and there are a maximum of 7 shows per
week
Approximately 10 weeks of performances
The show lasts 2.5 hrs., including a 30-minute intermission
From Tuesday to Friday, the show is presented at 8 p.m. On Saturday, there are two
performances, one at 3 p.m. and one at 8 p.m. On Sunday, the show is at 2 p.m.
Ticket prices range from approximately $50 to $200. The show generally attracts an
affluent audience.
The Proposed Site
Cavalia has identified the vacant property on the eastern portion of The West End area (at the
southwest quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100) as an ideal location to hold its performances. The
site is owned by Duke Realty and is approximately 16 acres; ten acres of which are in the City of
St. Louis Park and six acres are in the City of Golden Valley. The Cavalia village includes nine
tents: the White Big Top, the Rendez-Vous tent, the General Entrance tent, two artistic tents, two
warm-up tents, the stables and a staff cafeteria. The White Big Top tent is 110 feet tall
(approximately 10 stories) and spans more than 26,264 square feet making it one of the world’s
largest. The stage is 160 feet wide (equivalent to a NFL football field) and requires 2,500 tons of
sand and dirt (100 truck loads) to build. Set-up takes 12 days and tear down generally can be
completed in three days. Four semi-trailers are utilized for offices and equipment. Once on the
site, the tour company expressed it is generally self-sufficient for all other equipment and
services.
City Approvals and Services
This is a unique and complicated undertaking. It touches on nearly every City department. The
fact that the site is divided between St. Louis Park and Golden Valley will require Golden
Valley’s approval and significant involvement as well.
Bringing the proposed show will require a series of approvals. Staff is currently working with the
City Attorney to determine how such a show could be allowed under the Zoning Ordinance.
Currently it is anticipated that the project would be handled as a PUD amendment or CUP. Staff
suggests holding a study session with representatives from Cavalia and Duke in the coming
weeks so as to allow them to further explain their site requirements and to gauge the Council’s
support for the project. Formal actions could then be scheduled for consideration in July.
In addition a series of permits will need to be obtained including (but not limited to): the tents,
electricity, sewer and water hook-ups, signage, truck hauling and traffic control as well as food
and alcohol sales.
Communication with the surrounding neighborhoods will also need to occur.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Cavalia at West End
Economic Impact
Hosting Cavalia would certainly have a significant stimulative effect on St. Louis Park and the
immediate area. The show is expected to draw approximately 70,000 spectators to the city. The
show itself plans to spend approximately $2 million in the metropolitan economy. The tour
employs 120 people on a permanent basis. An additional 200 people are expected to be hired
locally. Cavalia estimates the economic impact of their show on local tourism in excess of
$500,000. Between the tour company and visitors the show expects to generate approximately
3,000 room nights. Equally important, Cavalia would bring considerable visibility to St. Louis
Park in general and The Shops at West End in particular.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Cavalia, and or Duke, will be responsible for paying for the services the show utilizes.
Considerable staff time will be needed in various departments to bring the show to fruition.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hosting Cavalia is consistent with the City’s vision of promoting and integrating arts, culture,
and community aesthetics in all City initiatives where appropriate.
Attachments: Cavalia Presentation 2011
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: June 13, 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:
Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments and Mitigation Measures.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The attached comments and mitigation measures are for the City Councils review and comment
before they are submitted to MnDOT by the deadline of June 15.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any further comments on the MN&S EAW it wishes to include in
the City’s submittal?
BACKGROUND:
On June 6, 2011 the City Council approved a motion authorizing submittal of comments on the
MN&S Freight Rail Study EAW and recommended mitigation measures. The 30-day official
comment period extends through June 15, 2011. The City Council has expressed concerns in
relation to the proposed mitigation measures identified in the EAW. The Council has discussed
providing comments on the EAW to address in particular the inadequacy of the proposed
mitigation in the EAW and identify additional mitigation measures the City believes is
necessary.
Mitigation and Comments
At the May 16, May 31 and June 6, 2011 Study Sessions the City Council discussed mitigation
for the potential re-route of freight traffic from the Bass Lake Spur to the MN&S line; and, other
comments on the EAW. Attached is an updated list of proposed mitigation measures and
comments. These comments, along with the proposed mitigation measures, comprise the
comments to be formally submitted from the city.
June 15th is the deadline for submittal of comments on the MN&S EAW.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked to the City’s Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is a committed to
being a connected and engaged community. It is also related to the broader Vision elements
about the variety of transportation modes, sidewalk and trails and environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Final Draft MN&S EAW Comments
MN&S Mitigation Measures
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
Draft Comments on MN&S EAW from
St Louis Park
General Comments:
1) The original goal for the City was to minimize the time, noise and disruption that freight trains
have in the City of St Louis Park. The stated purpose of the proposed action is inconsistent with
the City’s goals as stated in Resolution 10-070 (see attached); and, the purpose of the proposed
action ignores the fact that a key purpose for the reroute of freight rail trains off of the
Kenilworth alignment is to accommodate SW LRT. : However, SLP has determined that
SWLRT and freight rail can both be accommodated within the Kenilworth corridor, with
certain modifications, at considerably less expense.
2) As stated on Page 2, the purpose of the Proposed Action is tied to the State Rail Plan.
“The purpose of the Proposed Action is to study how to provide the TC&W railway
with a relocated connection for operational and available freight movement to St.
Paul, while minimizing adverse impacts to the surrounding community, and providing
a system that is consistent with the State Rail Plan.”
And yet, there is very little reference in the EAW as to how the MN&S Freight Rail Study fits
into the broader system described in the State Rail Plan; nor is there any explanation as to how
the proposed reroute of TC&W trains furthers the implementation of the State Rail Plan.
3) If the MN&S EAW is to be consistent with the State Rail Plan, then the analyses and
calculations of impacts in the EAW should be based on projected train activity levels consistent
with the State Rail Plan’s 2030 planning horizon. The MN&S EAW calculations and
projections are based only on existing train traffic levels and make no provision for any increased
train activity, even though the State Rail plans projects a 25% overall increase. The MN&S
EAW also does not take into account in its calculations, any increased train traffic resulting from
the impact of the MN&S track improvements on the overall State Rail system. The improved
connectivity and the upgrading of tracks identified in the State Rail plan as part of a potential
CP bypass of the bottlenecks like University Junction could result in increased train traffic. The
fact that these factors have not be considered could mean that the EAW’s calculations under
estimate the potential impacts of improvements to the MN&S tracks.
4) Page 15 details that the elimination of the Skunk Hollow track is not part of the proposal even
though it is was a major goal of the City. The idea of rerouting coal trains west of the metro area
is also not a part of the proposed action.
5) There is reference to meeting with the three affected railroads but there is no documentation on
those meetings or the official position of the railroad on the design assumptions.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 2
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
6) There are no track profiles shown in the EAW. There are three major concerns about the lack of
information about the profiles:
a) The City is concerned that the track profiles match the existing road crossings to minimize
roadway work or the project would be required to pay for the extensive street work. The
Lake/Library area drainage is very sensitive to any grade changes.
b) The analysis assumes 25 mph for the trains. The profile is a critical component of speed and
noise. The grades will not allow a consistent 25 mph speed, how the varying train speeds
affects noise and vibrations is not explained.
c) The grades exceed mainline standards, and the EAW states that the grades over 1 percent are
relatively short and match the current track profile. The longer trains may have difficulty
with these grades. The City had requested earlier in the study for a speed profile analysis on
how the longer trains will be affected by these grades. No speed profile analysis has been
provided.
7) The EAW states that the track design will meet current CP standards, but the typical cross
sections do not reflect the wider sub grade standard.
8) There is no discussion on how this EAW meshes with the DEIS being conducted for the SW
LRT. The primary purpose of any MN&S reroute project is to gain space in the Kenilworth
Corridor for the SW LRT tracks. There are inconsistencies in the design factors in these
environmental studies such as whether freight rail tracks east of Beltline remain in place. These
two environmental documents should match each other.
9) There is no discussion about ownership and maintenance of the track and other improvements.
The CP and TC&W railroads have indicated to the City that they do not want to own the new
structures. In addition to the tracks themselves, who and how landscaping and the right of way
will be landscaped and maintained should be addressed.
10) The traffic analysis uses inadequate assumptions:
a) Railroad crossing signals are activated before the train arrives at the crossing and remain
down after the train exits the crossing. The time is normally about 30 seconds before the
train enters plus 5 seconds after the train exits the crossings. There is no reference in the
blockage computations that this time has been accounted for, and it appears this has not
been included. This will change the traffic analysis.
b) The length of the rail car varies by the type and commodity. The EAW used 85 foot length
for all cars. Coal cars are 55 to 60 feet long. Ethanol cars are about 60 feet. Grain cars are
65 to 70 feet long. Generally the length of trains is overstated.
c) The peak hour traffic near the high school is not the normal peak hour. Bus schedules are
sensitive to time and a train at the school’s peak hour would be a major disruption to the bus
system.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: so ho
Deleted: w
Deleted: does affect the analysis
Deleted: t
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 3
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
11) There is no discussion about potential derailments and how emergency personnel would develop
an evacuation plan.
12) There is only a 20’6” clearance between the bottom of the new bridge over the Bass Lake Spur
track and the Bass Lake Spur tracks; this does not meet the minimum State requirements.
13) Pages 19-21: Remediation of the Golden Auto National Lead site involved extensive processing
of a large volume of lead contaminated soils and concrete, much of which has been safely
contained on the site. A 10-18 inch impervious cap covers the bulk of the site. Excavation on
this site has the potential to encounter areas of contaminated soils and areas of crushed concrete.
The construction proposes to pierce the cap. Great care will need to be taken to ensure the
integrity of the impervious cap is maintained and any contaminated soils that must be removed
are handled properly. Geo-technical challenges may also be encountered due to the significant
deposits of crushed concrete on the site. The distribution of contained contaminated soils and
crushed concrete is not evenly distributed nor is it of a uniform thickness throughout the site.
Further analysis is needed to establish the extent of capped contaminated soils and crushed
concrete that will be encountered for construction of footings and foundations, or other
earthwork on the Golden Auto National Lead site. The EAW minimizes and does not fully
address these potential construction issues.
14) Page 77: In the Louisiana SW LRT station area it is noted the SW DEIS plans a facility for 250
cars – this is not the amount in the DEIS. It also states that this project will provide “optimal
developable land” for development in the station area, however there will be property taken
property off the tax rolls, and impacted greatly by the proposed rail bridge, leaving land
remnants that are not “optimal.” There would also be impact on the local road system.
Specific Comments:
15) Page 2: The proposed action statement makes no reference to the SW LRT project.
16) Page 8: Closure of 29th Street is a City decision. The closure is proposed because the proposed
track profile would be about 4 feet higher than the existing crossing making it difficult to
construct a roadway approach that works. There are no details on how much of 29th Street is
proposed to be removed or how the dead end streets resulting from closure of 29th Street’s rail
crossing will be handled. No cul de sacs or other means for vehicles, including street
maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles, to turn around is provided.
17) Page 12- track grade erroneously stated as .80%; should be .86% - which exceeds TCW’s stated
acceptable maximum incline. If MNDOT, County or other entity has agreed or intends to
provide compensation to railroad due to operational difficulties, such compensation must be
publicly and promptly disclosed.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Font color: Black
Deleted: ¶
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 4
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
18) Page 16: No timeline explaining how and when this project will proceed is provided. This
uncertainty adversely impacts residents, businesses and property owners within the MN&S area.
19) Page 16: The list of permits is incomplete. There needs to be a series of agreements with the
three railroads and Hennepin County as well as between the railroads; these may not easily be
achieved. Approvals are also needed from Three Rivers Park District for the trail revisions.
20) Page 20 – There is no discussion of the potential impacts or mitigation regarding the impacts of
construction or increased train traffic on vapor intrusion in the MN&S Section.
21) Page 24-25 – Net loss of wetlands, no replacement identified.
22) Page 28- More detail is needed regarding the changes to the floodplain and whether nearby
property owners will be affected. What is impact to Sungate West townhomes on Alabama Ave,
which I believe are in floodplain?
23) Page 30- 70,400 cubic yards of material will be moved in the MN&S Section of the project area
and 14,050 cubic yards will be moved in the BNSF Section. The EAW does not specify how
they plan to move such massive amounts of soil, particularly given the lack of road access into
the Iron Triangle. What will be the erosion impact?
24) Page32-33 Existing soil and groundwater contamination may limit how stormwater ponds are
constructed and where they are located.
25) Page 30 – It should be noted that today the short trains on the MN&S occasionally stop to get
food at McDonalds; if this practice were to occur with the longer rerouted TC&W trains, severe
traffic congestion and safety issues could occur.
26) Page 39 – Only the St. Louis Park High School and Park Spanish Immersion schools are noted
as within close proximity to the MN&S tracks. Metropolitan Open School, Holy Family School
and Dakota School are equally as close to the tracks as the Park Spanish Immersion school and
should be referenced as well. Also, only the school bus movements at the schools are noted and
analyzed. Parents dropping off and picking up children will also be affected by increased train
activity on the MN&S tracks.
27) Page 40: 28th and 29th Streets are classified as local streets. The 2011 traffic count for 29th is 190
ADT. The impact on Minnetonka Blvd from closing 29th street is not discussed. This is
especially important because it is anticipated that the 27th street access onton Hwy 100 is
expected to be closed in the future meaning neighborhood traffic seeking to go south of Hwy
100 will need to access Minnetonka Blvd to access Hwy 100 in addition to traffic diverted to
Minnetonka Blvd because 29th Street is closed.
28) Page 40-41; Page 47 – Blockage of intersections by trains will cause diversion of traffic into the
Bronx Park, Birchwood, Lenox and Sorenson neighborhoods. These impacts are not considered,
nor is the air quality impacts of this delayed and diverted traffic.
29) Page 42 – At-grade crossing times table, shows the length of time single and multiple
intersections would be blocked by trains. It shows the time 5 intersections could be blocked by
the longest trains (80 and 100 car trains), however it does not show how long 3 intersections
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Font: (Default) Adobe
Garamond Pro
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt, Line
spacing: single
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 5
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
could be blocked by these longer trains. This under represents the potential disruption, traffic
diversion and delay impacts of rerouting trains to the MN&S; these impacts should be identified
and analyzed.
30) Page 54 – References Table 4, it appears it should really reference Table 14.
31) Page 56 - Under represents the potential severity of noise impacts do to coal night trains (long
trains) passing through residential neighborhoods. It is assumed that coal trains will be traveling
at 25 mph. In reality trains may much more likely be traveling at 10 to 15 mph. The nighttime
trains should be considered to be a severe noise event for St. Louis Park’s residential areas.
32) Page 57 – Table 15 shows Dakota Park as 510 feet, Roxbury Park as 155 feet and Keystone
Park 130 feet from the MN&S tracks. All three of these City Parks are immediately adjacent to
the MN&S rail right of way and much closer to the rail tracks than represented in Table 15.
This table should be revised and potential impacts on these parks re-evaluated.
33) Page 58 – Implementation of Whistle Quiet Zones at Library Lane and Dakota Avenue will
need to accommodate important access ways to the St. Louis Park High School. This will be a
design challenge. Costs for these improvements need to be included in the project costs for the
MN&S reroute and should not be the responsibility of the City of St. Louis Park or the St.
Louis Park School District.
34) Page 48-64 – The noise section does not address noise created by the addition of locomotives
needed to pull trains up the interconnect incline, it does not account for noise due to squealing
wheels on tight curves, braking as westbound trains go down the interconnect and bells on
crossing arms installed per WQZ.
35) Page 64: There were two field locations for the vibration. The nearest site was 60 feet, yet the
analysis assumes that there is no impact past 40 feet from the track. The City has heard from the
High School and the businesses that they have vibration disruptions now, without the reroute.
The vibration analysis does not accurately reflect the existing and proposed rail operations. The
field work is based on the existing slow, short trains. No mitigation is proposed despite the
potential for significant disruptions at the Lake Street businesses and the High School. The
potential for vibration issues on the BNSF area due to trains idling on a new BNSF siding is not
addressed.
36) Page 71: The proposed Cedar Lake Trail Bridge over the new Iron triangle track will also be 30
feet above the surrounding ground surface and will have a significant visual impact.
37) Page 72 – It is noted that St. Louis Park residents were represented on the MN&S Study Project
Management Team. It should also be noted that many of the neighborhood representatives on
the PMT were dissatisfied with the process and felt their mitigation recommendations were
disregarded.
38) Page 77: It is stated that the SWLRT DEIS is “currently being prepared” whereas it is under
review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) at this time.
Formatted: Font: Adobe Garamond
Pro, 12 pt
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Deleted: bridge
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 6
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
39) Page 81-83 – Sufficient property should be acquired to create a minimum separation between
residential properties and the center line of the MN&S tracks of 50 ft. This could be achieved by
acquiring approximately 40 properties on the east side of the MN&S tracks from Minnetonka
Blvd North to 27th Street; and, shifting the tracks to the east from its proposed alignment.
40) Page 81: Section 30b deals with right of way and relocations. The EAW comments that only
one parcel is required and 13 partial takings. Table 19 understates the impacts.
a) There are two residential units that have been proposed to be taken that are not listed in
Table 19.
b) There is extensive construction work in the iron triangle area but there is not access into the
construction site. The area is surrounded by wetlands, flood plains, parks, railroads and
private developed property. The EAW should provide a construction access plan to this area
and provide an evaluation of the environmental impacts of this access.
c) Parcels 108,109 and 110 will have a bridge within 25 feet of their building edges and for
parcels 108 and 109 their parking lots and driveways will be impacted.
d) Parcels 97, 98, 100 and 101 are underdeveloped lots used primarily for outdoor storage of
construction materials. Table 19 has inaccurate areas of impact.
41) Page 86 – The EAW acknowledges that the MN&S tracks separate the otherwise adjacent
Roxbury and Keystone Parks. With increased train traffic on the MN&S , the tracks will
become an increasingly severe barrier and pedestrian safety hazard. A pedestrian tunnel or bridge
inter-connecting these parks should be provided.
42) Page 87 – Insufficient analysis is provided of the potential extent and impact of a derailment of
a train carrying hazardous substances.
43) Page 87 – Crossing gates are needed at all crossings and fencing between the railroad tracks and
adjacent properties should occur along the full MN&S route.
44) Page 89 – Property value analysis includes only a portion of the properties along the MN&S
tracks. The value of the properties north of Minnetonka should be included in the EAW
analysis.
45) Page 90 – Impacts of potential disruption of businesses during construction needs to be more
fully addressed, including the possibility of one or more businesses needing to be relocated.
46) Page 90 - Page 93: The proposed improvements will be constructed between City maintained
monitoring wells near the Golden Auto site that may be impacted by construction or vibration.
There is no reference on how the project will affect these wells and how they will be protected.
47) Page 93: Table 20 estimates that 2 acres of wetlands will be impacted. The City would prefer
that the wetland replacement be located within St Louis Park and the EAW should address
possible mitigation sites.
48) Page 94: There is a reference to constructing 3 storm water runoff ponds. The City has had
difficulty locating drainage facilities in this area because of development and contamination. The
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 7
May 31, 2011 DRAFT for City Council Review
EAW does not describe in any detail where these ponds would be located and what properties
will be affected.
49) Page 97: Commitment to include welded rail in the project should be an Area, since the CP and
BNSF standards for mainline tracks is welded rail.
50) EAW fails to include any analysis of aesthetic impacts of new interconnect and other
constructions.
51) EAW fails to include a plan to replace trees and other vegetation after construction is completed,
and to maintain same thereafter.
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 pt
Deleted: ¶
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 8
MN&S Mitigation Measures
Track improvements
Replace and upgrade the MN&S track with 136# seamless tracks reducing noise and
vibrations
Install rail lubricators
tie and road bed construction to minimize train vibrations
Mandatory environmental requirements such as wetland, floodplain, hazardous materials
handling, wildlife habitat, etc.
Whistle Quiet Zones to upgrade rail crossings safety measures to eliminate the need to blow
whistles or horns as trains approach intersections.
Provide fencing and signing along the length of the railroad r-o-w to discourage people
intruding unsafely on the MN&S tracks.
Create grade separated frontage road on north side of Hwy 7 by lengthening the MN&S
bridge over Hwy 7 to provide space to create a frontage road on the north side.
Build a pedestrian overpass near High School and Dakota Avenue to connect the High
School to the Lake Street area and football field.
Create pedestrian and non-vehicle access under MN&S tracks at Dakota Park by building an
under pass at 27th St. to connect to the N. Cedar Lake regional trail from the east.
Expansion of MN&S r-o-w in residential area by acquiring homes immediately east of MN&S
tracks north of approximately the intersection of MN&S tracks with Brunswick Avenue to 27th
Street on the north.
Reroute coal trains west of metro area.
Elimination of sidings as well as through tracks east of Wooddale on Bass Lake spur to
eliminate the possibility of cars being stored in this area or trains blocking Wooddale or
Beltline.
Completely remove the Oxford industrial area switching wye tracks, abandon the rail r-o-w,
and build a southern connection to MN&S.
Funding and construction of Louisiana & Hwy 7 Interchange.
Structure Improvement Program – Create a grant program to provide technical assistance
and financial help for property owners to make noise and/or vibration mitigation
improvements.
Sound and vibration mitigation improvements for all schools, businesses and homes adjacent
to the MN&S line.
Pedestrian bridge over Hwy 7 close to the MN&S bridge to provide access for pedestrians.
Eliminate blind curves in the Lake Street/High School area.
The freight rail should only be rerouted if firm commitments are in place for implementation of
SWLRT.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 9
Property owners should be compensated for loss of property value due to rerouting of TCW
trains to the MN&S tracks.
Any disruption of businesses due to construction of the MNS improvements must be
appropriately mitigated.
Special care must be taken to protect and ensure no damage occurs to monitoring water
wells as a result of the MN&S project.
Housing Buyout Program – Create a program to purchase homes on the west side of the
MN&S tracks from willing sellers and remove, remodel or resell them.
Provide a pedestrian tunnel or bridge inter-connecting Roxbury and Keystone parks.
Mitigation for noise and vibration impacts on the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed
BNSF siding.
Mitigation of blocking and switching activities if these activities are not being relocated to a
Glencoe switchyard.
Mitigation of the MN&S tracks and crossings south of Bass Lake Spur including mitigation of
the at grade crossings most notably Excelsior blvd.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 3)
Subject: Final Draft - MN&S EAW Comments & Mitigation Measures Page 10
Meeting Date: June 13, 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:
Eliot School Redevelopment.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction on the Eliot School Redevelopment process.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council willing to consider providing financial assistance to assist with the
redevelopment of the site and, if so, under what circumstances?
BACKGROUND:
In February 2010, the St. Louis Park School Board decided to close Eliot Community Center,
with the intent of selling the property for redevelopment. The City and School Board agreed to
conduct a neighborhood process to create a set of Design Guidelines to set the stage for
redeveloping the site. The intent was that Eliot’s future use and development would be
compatible with the City’s goals, School District’s goals, and the neighborhood’s concerns and
desires.
The Design Guidelines were completed during the summer and fail of 2010 and the School
District subsequently listed the site for sale. The Guidelines are available on the city’s website
at: http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/Comm_Dev/design_guidelines_report_final.pdf
It is the intent that the guidelines be used by the City and School District in working with
potential developers to redevelop the property. Any development proposal would likely result in
the need for a Comprehensive Plan land use map change from “Civic” to “Medium Density
Residential,” as well as a change to the zoning on the property to meet the medium residential
land use designation.
SITE REUSE PRINCIPLES:
The Design Guidelines include a set of Site Reuse Principles along with more specific Site and
Building Design Guidelines. The Site Reuse Principles address the following areas:
1. Mix of Medium Density Residential
Land Uses
2. Transition Building Heights across
the Site from South to North
3. Complement Existing Development
Scale and Character
4. Neighborhood Open Space
5. Community Landmark and
Neighborhood Gateway
6. Neighborhood Connectivity
7. Redevelopment Feasibility
8. Owner-Occupied Housing
9. School Building Reuse
10. Interim Property Maintenance
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment
In developing the Guidelines for the Eliot site, the city hoped to pave the way for a smooth
redevelopment process. The intent was to establish the expectations in advance so as to increase
the likelihood that redevelopment proposals consistent with the Guidelines would be more
favorably received and increase the likelihood of ultimately being approved.
REDEVELOPMENT VISION AND GOALS:
Before a developer spends the time preparing a formal application, Staff would like to receive
the City Councils feedback as to whether it would be open to providing financial assistance
toward the redevelopment of the subject site and under what, if any, circumstances would it be
willing to do so.
Assistance is considered typically for priority redevelopment areas in the Comprehensive Plan, those
with extenuating circumstances making it difficult to develop under current market conditions.
In the Comprehensive Plan, the City has stated the following vision for economic development
and redevelopment:
St. Louis Park is actively engaged in pursuing complementary economic growth and
redevelopment opportunities that serve to further enhance the community’s economic,
natural, and social vitality in order to sustain St. Louis Park’s high quality of life.
The City further adopted goals in the Economic Development and Redevelopment Chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan, stating:
Comprehensive Plan – IV. C. Economic Development and Redevelopment
Goal #4: Encourage redevelopment projects that fulfill the City’s Vision and meet other
community goals.
Strategy A
Encourage projects consistent with the City's Strategic Directions within Vision St. Louis
Park that: contribute to a well-maintained and diverse housing stock, further connect and
engage the community, increase environmental consciousness and responsibility, as well as
promote and integrate arts and community aesthetics.
Strategy B
Encourage sustainable building projects (i.e. meets performance benchmarks needed to
achieve Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or comparable green
certification for its particular project type).
Strategy C
Encourage efficient, compact redevelopment that results in the highest and best land uses
so as to minimize energy and infrastructure costs.
Strategy D
Encourage projects that incorporate Livable Communities and Transit Oriented
Development planning principles.
City assisted redevelopment projects in the past have sought to meet these goals, in accordance
with the overall community vision of achieving a Livable Community. Assistance works to
enable developments that create amenities and create a sense of place for current and future
citizens. Many of the assisted developments in the past have worked toward a uniqueness or
specialness of the site that sets them apart.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment
FUTURE PROCESS:
The City and School District have had a number of inquiries on the subject site, and the School
District is currently considering entering into a purchase agreement with a developer. This
particular developer is proposing to construct a multi-family residential development on the
property and has inquired about the EDA’s willingness to provide financial assistance toward
hazardous waste removal and demolition of the school building to facilitate the project. It has
been expressed by City Staff to the developer that:
1. In the Design Guidelines process there was no consideration given to the Eliot School
property being treated as a redevelopment site requiring City assistance.
2. The property has not been identified by the City as a priority redevelopment site.
3. The School District, as the property owner, is in reality the responsible party for any
hazardous waste or building removal necessary to make the site developable.
4. Redevelopment costs of this nature could simply be factored into the sale price of the
property without any involvement from the EDA.
5. From a property development standpoint, there may be other uses for the property (such
as another educational institution) that would not require removal of the building and for
which the School District might be able achieve a comparable, if not higher, sales price
for the property.
For the Eliot School site, there may not be readily apparent site amenities such as woods or
water, however the site is relatively flat and open, and utilities are available at the site making it
relatively easy to redevelop. It also has terrific locational advantages. It is near both
neighborhood convenience at Louisiana and Cedar Lake Road, and regional shopping in the
Park Place Boulevard area (Costco, Home Depot and West End). It is on a bus line, as well as
being just a few minutes from 394. And there are three neighborhood parks within ¼ of a mile.
The challenges may be in creating a residential development that is unique, or perhaps meets a
particular market segment, with amenities for residents built into the development.
The question is whether the Council willing to consider any city assistance to redevelop the site,
and if so, under what circumstances would it be willing to do so.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Eliot School Building Design Diagram
Eliot School Site Design Diagram
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Page 14 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Building Design Diagram
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Page 4
Page 10 Eliot Comunity Center Site Reuse Study Design Guidelines
Site Design Diagram
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Eliot School Redevelopment Page 5
Meeting Date: June 13, 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:
Boulevard Tree Policy Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed at this time. The City Council asked that this topic be brought forward for
discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to continue with our current policy and subsidy level regarding boulevard
trees?
BACKGROUND:
Due to the loss of $2.1 million of LGA starting in 2004 the City Council approved a number of
measures to help balance the budget. One of the changes the City Council made was to change
the City’s policy on how pay for the cost of addressing boulevard trees.
Prior to 2004, the City covered 100% of the cost of trees on the boulevards which included
removal of trees and stumps, pruning, planting and emergency call outs. Beginning in 2004,
Council changed the policy to shift some costs of the removal of boulevard trees to adjacent
property owners. Based on the policy change the adjacent property owner now pays 50% of the
cost of boulevard tree removal and the city pays the remaining 50%. The City still pays 100% of
the cost of pruning trees which is on a nine year rotation schedule. The City also pays 100% of
cost of purchasing and planting replacement trees and emergency tree trimming and removal.
The City has always managed an agreement with a tree contractor to provide low cost tree
removal to residents. Each year the City receives bids for contractors to remove trees on public
and private property. When the City retains a contractor, this saves the residents up to 25% of
the cost of removal. They still have the option to hire their own licensed contractor for removal.
However, most do not choose to do that because of the cost savings to hire the City contractor.
In 2010, the City budgeted $80,000 for removal of boulevard trees. This is 50% of the total cost
of removal with the other half paid by residents.
Prior to 2004, the City paid for 40% of the cost of injection on boulevards and private property
for Elm trees to prevent Dutch Elm Disease. Beginning in 2004, subsidy was reduced to 25% so
the resident paid for 75% of the cost of injections. In 2009, the subsidy was reduced to 15 %.
Currently, we have 350 trees a year that are injected.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Our 2011 budget includes money for the above subsidies. Any policy changes to increase the
City’s participation level would result in having to increase the budget. In the Parks and
Recreation budget, we currently spend $80,000 for boulevard tree removals, $60,000 for tree
pruning of boulevard trees, and $15,000 for injections for Dutch Elm disease for a total of
$155,000. In addition, we spend $60,000 in our capital budget to purchase and plant new trees.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Boulevard Tree Policy Discussion
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Maintaining a health tree population is consistent with the City’s Vision statement, “St. Louis
Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship.”
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Cindy W. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 13, 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:
Storm Water/Surface Water Management.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council additional information
requested at the January 10, 2011 Study Session and to inform Council of actions taken as
directed at that same meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Has the information provided and actions taken by staff address Council concerns and questions
raised at the Study Session of January 10th? If not, what else would Council like staff to further
address?
BACKGROUND:
History
During 2010, the City Council developed a priority list of six items to be discussed at future
study sessions of which this item was one. Discussion on this item was held at the January 10,
2011 Study Session (report attached).
During the January Study Session discussion Council made several requests of staff:
1. provide Council with a flood plain map of the city
2. an understanding of vegetation management at Bass Lake
3. information regarding the City’s decision-making process as it relates to silt removal,
vegetation removal, and/or stocking of fish of ponds and wetlands
4. provide an update regarding the Victoria Ponds storm water ponds
5. discuss water quality associated with the water bodies in the city’s neighborhoods and
parks, from a functional perspective, including treatment options and costs associated
with treatment
6. provide a prioritization of projects for ponds and wetlands
Current
As a result of the Council requests made January 10th, staff provided a flood plain map on March
28, 2011 - located on the city website. Information on the other five requests above is contained
in the following sections of this report as well as the following four attachments to the report:
Overview of St. Louis Park’s Stormwater Plan
Storm Water Management Background Information
SLP Storm Pond Treatment Policy
MCWD Citizen Watershed Association Initiative
Bass Lake and Twin Lakes Vegetation Management - DNR will be conducting an aquatic plant
survey of Bass Lake Preserve and Twin Lakes in the spring of 2011. The survey will be done
when the water temperature increases enough for aquatic plant growth to occur (to facilitate
survey). The survey will be initiated and managed by Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management
The survey will identify aquatic plants and prescribe potential management techniques, should
there be invasive species or other aquatic (plant) issues (i.e., high algae growth) found. The
DNR contacts are: Tim Ohmann, Aquatic Plant Specialist, 651-259-5787 and Brittany Hummel,
Invasive Species Specialist 651-259-5828.
Vic Ponds Update - Victoria Ponds is a townhome association with four ponds. The entire
development was built in the late 1990’s and met all city and watershed requirements at the time.
The ponds are privately owned and maintained by the townhome association. Recently, the
Victoria Ponds Association hired an engineering firm to fix the slope problems they have on
Pond 3. The current issue is that the steep slope is eroding away, and there is concern that it may
get too close to the townhomes. The engineer has been working with city and watershed staff,
and has applied for erosion control permits to reshape the slope and remove some material from
the bottom of the pond. They will not be required to get a conditional use permit unless they
remove more than 400 cubic yards of material from the site, and they have stated that they do not
intend to remove that much.
Additionally, the association is working with RLK Incorporated to explore some options for an
emergency overflow to Lake Victoria. City staff has met with representatives of the association
to ensure that RLK’s proposals would be allowed. All work is to be done by and at the cost of
the association as it is all privately owned.
Water Quality Treatment and Costs - the city decided in 1980 not to treat ponds for water
quality purposes for a variety of reasons - see the attachment “SLP Storm Pond Treatment
Policy” which provides background information along with the adopted city council policy on
this. This background information and adopted policy is still accurate and relevant and is
consistent with practices in most cities today. Chemical water quality treatment techniques are
still in use along with some newer techniques. The cost for pond treatment can be significant -
as an example, treating Westdale Ponds (both ponds together less than 2 acres in size), to the
level that has been requested by adjacent property owners, is estimated to cost approximately
$12,500 annually. Costs to treat other ponds in St. Louis Park can be provided Council as
requested. It is safe to say that treatment of ponds citywide could easily exceed $100,000
annually.
More specifically, surface water treatments (aquatic plant management) in St. Louis Park that we
are currently aware of consist of:
Utah Pond – 5 aerators installed and treated chemically via contractor; all items paid for
by private landowners around pond (2.29 acres); cost of annual operation and treatment is
unknown; lakes less than 2.5 acres in size do not need a DNR permit to chemically treat.
Wolfe Lake – Chemically treated, by contractor, for milfoil and submerged vegetation to
promote viable fish population; paid for by the City of St. Louis Park, Parks and
Recreation, with a total cost of $1,600.00/year (3 acre lake); requires a DNR Permit to
perform this treatment.
Cattail Pond (located in Wolfe Park) – Chemically treated for duckweed and algae. Also
separately treated for cattail growth; all treatments for aesthetics of pond (in highest
visible City park) performed by contractor. Both treatments performed by contractor at a
total cost of $1,500.00/year (less than 3 acres); requires a DNR permit to perform this
treatment.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management
In St. Louis Park, as in other Minnesota city’s, the DNR controls aquatic treatments in water
bodies >2.5 acres via their permitting process. As stated above, most if not all, cities do not
provide for aquatic treatments of ponds or lakes. Generally speaking, this is predominantly done
by individual land owners or associations which apply and arrange for chemical treatment of
water bodies.
Additionally, the MCWD does not provide for aquatic treatment of ponds or lakes either.
However, their “Watershed Association Initiative” empowers citizens to protect and improve
district waters by providing training, support and fostering a network of lake and river groups
(see attachment - MCWD Citizen Watershed Association Initiative). The initiative also strongly
encourages groups to collaborate with community businesses, organizations, and governmental
agencies. Specifically the MCWD offers:
funding assistance for new citizen-led lake and river groups
educational presentations from water resource professionals
training and workshops to give groups the tools they need for water protection
networking events for citizens to share ideas and resources
annual Lakes and Rivers Summit
help with lake management planning and partnerships
This assistance has been offered to the city and residents around Twin Lakes pond and can be
arranged for at other locations in our city if there is resident interest in this.
Pond and Wetland Projects - past city projects have generally dealt with flood mitigation
efforts. The Twin Lakes Project done in the 1990’s by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
was a water quality improvement project which created a sedimentation pond and an engineered
water quality treatment pond to improve storm water quality entering the Minneapolis Chain of
Lakes. Most of the aquatic vegetation in Twin Lakes is beneficial for water quality and is
needed as it is a part of the actual water treatment process.
Storm water quality improvements realized in St. Louis Park have generally been a result of
public education, street sweeping efforts, erosion control measures, and sedimentation basin
construction. Staff does not have any pond or wetland projects currently planned; however, the
Barr pond evaluation and study currently underway will provide us a better understanding of our
present situation and future considerations and possibilities.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The city’s Storm Water Utility was created about 2000 and funds all storm water activities. The
major reason for its creation was to provide a financing mechanism for flood mitigation efforts
throughout the community. Many millions of dollars were spent as a means to complete this
initiative. G.O. Revenue Bonds were utilized to raise capital for these projects and the bonds are
still being paid off. In addition to bond payments, the Storm Water Utility currently provides
funding for NPDES required activities, storm water management activities, long term
maintenance and rehabilitation of our storm water system, and for the monitoring and evaluation
of water quality in our ponds and wetlands. Costs associated with wetland projects and water
quality treatment have not been considered nor built into our Storm Water Utility charges or
revenues.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management
As a general rule, it is safe to say that projects or water treatments for recreational or aesthetic
purposes are generally borne by adjacent residents while flood control and water quality projects
are generally funded by city or regional agencies. This has come about based generally on “what
good, at what cost, and for whom”.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Attachments: Study Session Report, January 10, 2011
Overview of St. Louis Park’s Stormwater Plan
Storm Water Management Background Information
SLP Storm Pond Treatment Policy
MCWD Citizen Watershed Association Initiative
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Assisted by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management
From Study Session of January 10, 2011 - Item No. 3
TITLE:
Storm Water/Surface Water Management.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. The City Council requested an informational session on Storm Water/Surface
Water Management. This report is an outline to assist with the presentation by staff at the Study
Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council desire any additional information or discussion regarding this topic?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has developed a priority list of 6 items to be discussed at future study sessions.
Staff is working to bring these discussion items to Council the first quarter of 2011. The list
includes:
1. Construction/Project Management – January 24th
2. Review of Policies - Expenses that are City vs. Property Owner or Combination -
February
3. Storm Water/Surface water Management – January 10th
4. BN Bridge Replacement
5. City Council Meeting Audience Norms/Rules
6. Reilly Tar 101
Storm Water/Surface Water Management
Storm Water/Surface Water Management has many components. Staff will present an overview
of the topics and allow time for questions. Additional time could be set at future study session(s)
if Council would like more in depth information on a specific area of interest.
We have 3 key staff members that will participate in the presentation at the Study session -
Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent, Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator and
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator. Informational materials will be handed out at the
study session and a power point presentation is planned for approximately 45 minutes with
questions then taken afterward. The presentation will touch on:
1. The System – big picture overview in St. Louis Park
Map and overview of system
Sub drainage areas
Statistics on the infrastructure, surface area and underground system
2. Design
How our system was developed starting with water quantity as a focus, now
emphasis on water quality
Ongoing system design, development and redevelopment
3. Water Quality
Flooding and Storm Water including definitions of 10 year and 100 year events
Flood plain and FEMA
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management
Localized flooding and how we are handling these issues. Examples are
Lamplighter and Dakota Park. Projects are planned and included in CIP
Flood proofing grant program
4. Organizations that have a role in how we handle our storm water
Watersheds in St. Louis Park – Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission (BCWMC) and Minnehaha Creek Water District (MCWD)
5. Regulations
Wetland Conservation Act
SWPPP – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan - 6 minimum control measures
NPDES II – what is this regulation and what does it mean (National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System)
- Impaired Waters
- TMDL’s = Total Maximum Daily Loads
6. Surface Water Management Plan
Developed in 2001, updated in 2009
7. Current and Future plans for storm water/surface water management
Continue monitoring – currently meet all mandates/regulatory requirements
Education
Vegetation Management
Aesthetics of Storm Water Ponds
Successful partnerships and projects
8. Questions, comments, other thoughts
The overview that has been presented is intended to show the ‘big picture” with our storm water
and surface water management. 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 is
desired on a specific area related to this topic.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase
environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Assisted by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Overview of St. Louis Park’s Stormwater Plan
Current Practices - June 13, 2011
(Listed by Component)
Ponds (23 locations)
Storm Pond Evaluation and Prioritization Study (2010 thru 2011)
o 12 ponds were inventoried and evaluated by Barr Engineering in 2010. Their
preliminary findings indicated maintenance and minor structural repairs were
needed with no critical items that required immediate attention.
o Identified maintenance and minor structural repairs are scheduled to be completed
in 2011 (see 2nd bullet under Outfalls/Inlets/Outlets).
o Their findings also identified some capital projects for city consideration.
o Barr Engineering is scheduled to complete the inventory and evaluation of the
remaining 11 ponds in the summer of 2011.
o Staff will review, evaluate, and recommend capital projects when the study is
completed later in the fall of 2011.
Water Quality Monitoring
o CAMP Program (Metropolitan Council program) monitors Bass Lake Preserve,
Cobblecrest, Twin Lakes, South Oak Pond, and Westwood Lake for total
phosphorus, chlorophyll, nitrogen, and clarity.
o 2011 City Monitoring Program
Sample the ponds surveyed in 2010 during May based on the Capstone
recommendations (pH, temperature, turbidity, phosphate, nitrate,
conductivity, and dissolved oxygen).
Sample equipment is being purchased to perform testing.
Sample the 12 ponds after significant rain events
The city storm group with an environmental consultant will review results
and determine if there are any opportunities to improve water quality.
Shoreline Restoration
o The management of each shoreline varies, with some being managed by city staff,
others being contracted out, and others “adopted” by neighbors/neighborhoods.
o The city practice is to encourage shoreline restoration to native plantings.
o Restored shorelines in SLP: Lamplighter, Wolfe Lake, Twin Lakes Sediment
Pond, Twin Lakes (partial), Sumter Pond, Cattail Pond, Westdale Ponds,
Browndale Pond, Cedar Meadows (part of ponds are in SLP), sections of
Minnehaha Creek.
o Shoreline cleanup is scheduled every spring and throughout the year as needed.
Cleanup work is completed by STS crews.
o Some neighborhood groups do pickup throughout the year.
Vegetation & Aquatic Plant Management
o The city currently treats Wolfe Lake for milfoil and submerged vegetation to
promote fish habitat and Cattail Pond (adjacent to Wolfe) for duckweed and algae
for aesthetics. This is a DNR permitted application costing more than $3,000 per
year to treat approximately 6 acres.
o The city currently has no plans to chemically treat other ponds (Council adopted
policy), but is researching alternative methods for algae control.
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 7
o The DNR controls aquatic treatment in water bodies >2.5 acres. Individual land
owners or associations may apply for application for chemical treatment of water
bodies used for recreation (docks, swimming, canoeing).
o The MCWD Watershed Association Initiative empowers citizens to protect and
improve district waters by providing training, support and fostering a network of
lake and river groups. The initiative also strongly encourages groups to
collaborate with community businesses, organizations, and governmental
agencies. Specifically the MCWD offers:
funding assistance for new citizen-led lake and river groups
educational presentations from water resource professionals
training and workshops to give groups the tools they need for water
protection
networking events for citizens to share ideas and resources
annual Lakes and Rivers Summit
help with lake management planning and partnerships
o Utah Pond area residents have installed and operate 5 aerators and contract for
chemical treatment. The pond is <2.5 acres and does not require a DNR permit.
Fish in the Lakes (FIN)
o SLP and the DNR stock Wolfe Lake (bluegill, black crappie, largemouth bass,
northern pike, and yellow perch), Lamplighter Pond (bluegill, black crappie), and
Westwood Lake (bluegill).
o There are only 16 lakes in all of Hennepin County that are stocked for the FIN
program.
Delta Removal (sediment buildup where storm sewers discharge into ponds)
o The debris deposits on the ponds are inspected annually and removal of debris is
scheduled as needed.
o Delta removal has taken place in several ponds during the last 15 years.
Storm Water Collection System
Outfalls/Inlets/Outlets (530)
o Inventory (location, photo) and inspection (functionality, structural integrity,
maintenance required) of all outfalls has been completed.
o 167 work orders were generated and prioritized based on these inspections.
o 120 work orders relate to basic maintenance work, while 47 require construction
repair and/or rebuilding.
o Maintenance: selected outfalls are scheduled for debris removal in the spring and
after rain events.
o Priority outfalls at Twin Lakes, Twin Lakes Sediment Pond, Twin Lakes Ditch,
Bass Lake Preserve, and the Boneyard Ditch are inspected weekly for proper
operation during summer months.
Manholes (1,775)
o An initial inspection program (cover/casting condition, structural integrity, water
depth/flow and debris) was begun in 2010 and will be completed in 2011.
o 196 work orders were generated and prioritized based on the 2010 inspections.
o 102 work orders relate to basic maintenance work, while 171 require both basic
maintenance and construction repair and/or rebuilding.
o After completion of this initial inspection and repair program, manholes will be
inspected and repaired in conjunction with the pavement management program.
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 8
Catch Basins (Total 3,850)
o 2,140 local road catch basins have been inspected for surface, grate and casting
condition, structural integrity, and debris.
o 38 work orders for critical/major repairs or replacements were initiated and
completed by Utilities staff.
o Current inspections and repairs are coordinated with the pavement management
program.
o city staff repairs and/or rebuilds approximately 60 catch basins per year.
Mainline and Catch Basin laterals
o Mainlines and laterals are being inspected for debris buildup in conjunction with
manhole inspections.
o Staff is in the process of developing an action plan for debris removal as noted
during inspection (to be completed by Utilities maintenance staff 2011).
o Mainlines and laterals are scheduled to be inspected for condition and structural
integrity in conjunction with the pavement management program. Work orders
for maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation will be generated based on those
inspections.
Storm Water System Efforts and Cost
2010 Administrative Hours for storm water activities - 1,728 (FTE 1.2)
2010 Public Service Worker Hours for storm sewer activities - 4,133 (FTE 2.8)
2010 Total Expenditures for Storm Water Budget - $700,000
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 9
Storm Water Management Background Information
(June 13, 2011)
Monitoring
A Capstone Project conducted by the University of Minnesota Natural Resource Science students
in 2010 provided some guidance to storm water quality sampling. The report suggests a
sampling program to include analysis for pH, temperature, turbidity, phosphate, nitrate,
conductivity, and dissolved oxygen. The frequency and time of year that water quality testing is
done has a significant impact on the water quality results, as the water quality is dependant on
snowmelt, rainfall, and other conditions that cannot be managed. Water quality is influenced by
many factors including the ambient temperature, nonpoint source pollution, waterfowl and
aquatic species activity and the lake morphology (size and depth).
Aquatic Vegetation
Aquatic vegetation removed to create swimming and boating areas eliminates shoreline
stabilizing plants that are also habitat for:
• bass and other fish that hide among the plants and spawn in areas protected from waves
• waterfowl that feed on underwater plants
• insects that live among underwater vegetation
Biologists refer to aquatic plants as emergent, submergent, and floating-leaf vegetation.
Emergent vegetation protrudes above the water’s surface; submergent vegetation stays
underwater; and floating-leaf plants rest on the water surface
Emergent Plants, Floating-leaf Plants, Submergent Plants and Algae are often dismissed as
“weeds” by many lakeshore property owners. Aquatic plants provide essential fish and wildlife
habitat and help keep lakes clean and healthy. Through photosynthesis, aquatic vegetation
produces oxygen for the lake. These plants also filter nutrients that can fuel midsummer algae
blooms. And they provide food, shelter, and nesting areas for fish, invertebrates, and wildlife.
Removing aquatic vegetation to improve boating or swimming eliminates fish habitat and
damages the root network that holds bottom sediments in place. For example, bulrushes keep silt
carried by waves from covering bottom gravel used by bass and pan fish for spawning. When
bulrush beds are removed, waves also begin to eat away at banks. Wave action and boat wakes
also stir up sediment, causing the lake water to become murky. If sunlight cannot penetrate the
cloudy water, many healthy and vibrant lakes can eventually turn into a green soup, devoid of
most desirable fish and wildlife species.
Besides aquatic plants, there are terrestrial plants (plants that grow on land) that play a large part
in water quality. St. Louis Park has been active in restoring shorelines into native grasses and
forbs, which serve as natural filters for water quality, hold soil in place, as well as deterring
geese from nesting and using these areas (see “Shoreline Restoration’ section in this document).
Invasive plants and invasive aquatic animals are unfortunately part of our world today. In St.
Louis Park, only Wolfe Lake has been formally (officially by State of MN) diagnosed to contain
Eurasian water milfoil; no other lake or pond in St. Louis Park has been determined to contain
any invasive plant or invasive aquatic animals.
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 10
Eutrophication
It is important to keep in mind that many lakes are in varying states of Eutrophication.
Eutrophication is defined as an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter in an ecosystem;
the enrichment of bodies of fresh water by inorganic plant nutrients (e.g., nitrate, phosphate).
It may occur naturally but can also be the result of human activity (cultural eutrophication from
fertilizer runoff and sewage discharge) and is particularly evident in slow-moving rivers and
shallow lakes. Increased sediment deposition can eventually raise the level of the lake or river
bed, allowing land plants to colonize the edges, and eventually converting the area to dry land.
Often during the process of eutrophication, algal blooms occur, often followed by low oxygen
levels as the algal material decays. High concentrations of algae cause water to become green
with odor problems, with some types of algae being toxic to animals.
To achieve lake restoration, we must restore the natural processes that allow a lake to assimilate
the nutrient load that it receives. While nutrient inputs should be reduced or eliminated wherever
possible, this process has historically failed to achieve lake restoration.
Surface Water Treatments (Aquatic Plant Management)
Treatments for surface water are quite varied and depend upon inputs to the lake, lake
morphology (form and structure of lake) and other factors. There are chemical, mechanical and
biological controls for surface waters.
Chemical treatments of surface water creates an eternal cycle, whereby undesired, along with
desired plants, aquatic animals and microorganisms are removed. This result can impact water
quality both positively and negatively, with more open water for a short while, but creating
“dead zones’ with no aquatic food species present for waterfowl, fish and other water dependent
creatures. Often times, the chemical treatments must be repeated throughout the growing season
to ensure desired, plant free water aspects, and the cycle continues. (reference: Tim Ohmann,
MN DNR Aquatic Plant Specialist 651-259-5787).
Mechanical treatments, such as aerators may work for small ponds, but typically only clear a
small area around the aerator during the growing season, never successfully treating larger areas
of the water body. Aerators have been attempted in several city lakes/ponds (i.e. Cattail Pond in
Wolfe Park) with minimal to no effect on water quality.
Biological treatments, such as bacteria, can be somewhat effective, but manipulate the biological
water constituents, which may not be desirable and certainly not a long-term strategy for water
quality control. St. Louis Park has not attempted this type of treatment.
With any of these treatments, the open water usually does not last long, with undesirable algae
and other plant species filling in the open water, due to high inputs of dead plant nutrients (the
plants that were just killed), which serve as fertilizer/catalyst for invasive plant growth.
Shoreline Restoration
The intent of restored, native plantings are to increase the aesthetic value, provide educational
opportunities, return the shoreline to native plants, provide habitat and reproduction areas for
fish, and keep the Canada Geese out of the lake (and hopefully adjacent areas).
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 11
Shoreline degradation, erosion and increasing development pressures are affecting the health of
shore land:
Lawns stretched to the shoreline remove habitat for native animals.
Removal of native vegetation--from upland trees to underwater plants--destroys natural
cover and water quality protection.
The chronic use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides can contaminate the water and
disrupt natural processes.
Shoreline shrubs and “unsightly” fallen trees are removed to create golf course-type lawns, thus
eliminating habitat for wildlife such as:
• songbirds that use these shrubs for nesting
• ducks that lay eggs in native shoreline grasses
• turtles that sun on fallen logs
• bass and panfish that hide in the shade under toppled trees.
Shoreline restoration programs aid in the process of protecting a natural shoreline or restoring a
degraded shore with a natural buffer zone. Creation of a buffer zone is the essence of the
“lakescaping” concept. It is an opportunity to balance our needs and priorities with the needs
and priorities of those with whom we share life at the edge of the water.
“Lakescaping” or shore land restoration can return many desirable features to a shoreline:
Provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife
Filter out pollutants and runoff that degrade water quality
Prevent shoreline erosion by absorbing wave action
Enjoy abundant nature: flowers, shrubs, trees, aquatic plants, fish, insects, birds
Spawning and nesting habitats are protected
Beautiful plants provide great, dynamic (ever-changing) aesthetics
The width of a buffer strip depends upon the terrain. On a gentle slope, at least a 30-foot strip of
natural vegetation between the water and lawn will accommodate the needs of shoreline wildlife.
On steeper grades, leaving even more natural vegetation in place will stabilize soils and reduce
the need for retaining walls or other erosion prevention. Trees and shrubs in a buffer strip can
muffle noise while providing nesting areas for songbirds.
Avoid using pesticides or fertilizers in the buffer strip, because harmful chemicals can leach into
the lake. Besides, insects living in shoreline vegetation are important foods for fish, birds, and
other wildlife.
Wetlands
Wetlands help keep lakes clean by filtering sediments and excess nutrients. Acting like natural
sponges, wetlands slow down water. This function reduces flooding, stabilizes lake levels, and
provides recharge for groundwater.
Wetland protection is guaranteed through the Wetland Conservation Act. The local government
units designated as having regulatory oversight for wetlands in St. Louis Park are the watershed
organizations, Bassett Creek Watershed Organization and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 12
Fish Stocked Lakes
Fishing in the Neighborhood (FIN) is a DNR program aimed at increasing angling opportunities,
public awareness and environmental stewardship within the seven-county metro region. As the
state's population has become increasingly urbanized, it has become evident that there is a
growing need for easily accessible fishing opportunities close to where people live.
FIN builds on existing urban fisheries management activities such as stocking, aeration and
enhancement of shore-fishing and pier-fishing opportunities. By reaching out to a wider variety
of interests, such as local parks departments, lake associations and schools, FIN promotes a
greater awareness of aquatic habitat needs and the importance of good stewardship. By getting
more people involved in angling, FIN will assure that this family-oriented activity continues to
be one of Minnesota's most popular pastimes!
Before any lake gets into the FIN program, it must undergo a rigorous evaluation. The
evaluation consists of 170 questions/factors that are then tallied to equal a point rating. Only the
very highest rated lakes are added to the FIN program list, with a select few of these lakes
garnered for fish stocking. Some of the rated factors include lake location, lake morphology,
public access and demographic aspects of nearby residents. Now, with public funding
decreasing, FIN lake selection is even more restrictive.
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 13
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 14
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 15
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 16
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 17
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 18
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 19
Watershed Association Initiative
A program to better engage citizens in the protection and improvement of
lakes and streams in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Action Steps:
Empowering Citizens To Protect and Improve Lakes and Streams
Why Local Citizens?
Citizens who live by a lake or river observe and
connect with that resource on a daily basis. As
members of their local community, they can best
prioritize actions and increase participation in
water-friendly land use decisions. Their love for
the lake or river is often an infectious and
sustainable source of positive change.
Citizens
Residents living near lakes and streams, clean water advocates
• Contact WAI organizer to get helpful tips and tools
• Hold a community meeting
• Connect with community partners
• Start a lake or river protection group
• Set priorities for community water protection
Community Partners
Local officials, government staff, business leaders
• Contact WAI organizer for a list of citizen water protection groups in your area
• Organize a city-wide meeting of residents interested in the formation a lake or river group
• Connect with groups by attending meetings and events
• Provide groups with a list of services and expertise offered by your organization
• Update groups on initiatives related to area surface waters
• Encourage groups to participate in and provide input concerning surface water initiatives
Contact:
Eli Condon
Watershed Association Initiative Organizer
(218) 251-1462
elic@minnesotawaters.org
Community
Engagement
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 20
Watershed Association Initiative
We Offer:
• Organizational support and guidance to help citizen-led groups
• Funding assistance for new citizen-led lake and river groups
• Educational presentations from water resource professionals
• Trainings and workshops to give groups the tools they need for water protection
• Networking events for citizens to share ideas and resources
• Annual Lakes and Rivers Summit
• Help with lake management planning and partnerships
The WAI was started in 2006 by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in partnership with the
state-wide nonprofit Minnesota Waters. The initiative empowers citizens to protect and improve district
waters by providing trainings, support and fostering a network of lake and river groups. The initiative also
strongly encourages groups to collaborate with community businesses, organizations, and government
agencies.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is committed to a
leadership role in protecting, improving and managing the
surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the
district, including their relationships to the ecosystems of which
they are an integral part.
Minnesota Waters is a state wide non-profit providing the
training, connections, and support to lake and river groups to
protect and improve our waters.
minnehahacreek.org
952.471.0590
minnesotawaters.org
800.515.5253
For More Information
www.minnehahacreek.org/WatershedAssociationInitiativeWAI.php
What is the Watershed Association Initiative (WAI)?
Study Sessionl Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 21
Meeting Date: June 13, 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:
Social Host Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This report is informational in nature and is intended to provide baseline information to Council
and facilitate discussion and future direction for staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This item is being brought forward at the request of Councilmember Omodt.
Several cities in Hennepin County have put into place“social host” ordinances since 2006. The
adoption of these ordinances is based upon the premise that there is a “gap” in the current state
law which prevents a social host over the age of 21 from being charged criminally for knowingly
providing alcohol to someone under the age of 21.
Does Council believe there is a “gap” which hinders the ability of our community to address
incidents related to social hosts over the age of 21 who provide alcohol to persons under the age
of 21?
Does the City Council want staff to draft a social host ordinance for Council consideration?
BACKGROUND:
Minnesota Statute 340A.801 allows only civil actions against a person over age 21 that provides
alcohol to someone under the age of 21. This statute has been generally an effective tool in
regulating the sale of alcohol to persons under the age of 21 by licensed businesses. However,
there are a number of other laws related to underage consumption, disturbing/disorderly parties,
and contributing to delinquent acts which may be applicable.
Social host ordinances have been recently passed in a number of communities. The intent of the
ordinance is to provide a tool for law enforcement that allows the police to charge individuals
who open their home to their underage friends to provide a private refuge for underage drinking.
There have been discussions at the state and county level to create either a state law or Hennepin
County ordinance to provide consistency in language. Proposed county and state legislation
related to this issue has been unable to gain any traction or broad support.
In May of 2011, a number of Hennepin County cities were surveyed to determine which had
social host ordinances and the effectiveness of the ordinances. Only Hennepin County cities were
surveyed as any prosecutions would occur in that court jurisdiction and there may be different
prosecution standards in other counties. The eleven (11) communities surveyed were Crystal,
Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, New Hope, Plymouth,
Richfield, and Robbinsdale.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Social Host Ordinance
Of the surveyed cities, five (5) have social host ordinances in place. They include Crystal, Edina,
Golden Valley, Maple Grove, and Minnetonka. Of those cities, Crystal and Minnetonka have not
utilized the ordinances, and Golden Valley and Maple Grove each have cases pending with no
court outcomes yet.
The Edina ordinance is somewhat different from the others. It was created in 1988 and
significantly predates the other social host ordinances. It has been used on average of three to
five times a year and has a history of successful prosecutions.
The police staff has evaluated calls for service related to underage consumption and
disorderly/disturbing parties and do not report confronting a “gap” in terms of having the tools to
effectively handle these types of calls.
In addition our city prosecutor does not report encountering any “gap” when evaluating our cases
for criminal charges. Our police staff and prosecutor cannot recall a single case during the past
five years where prosecution was hindered by lack of a social host ordinance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 13, 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:
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: June 13, 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:
Beltline LRT Station Development Area – Stormwater Planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is necessary at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the
proposed study, which will involve a technical analysis of stormwater management in a half-mile
area surrounding the proposed Beltline LRT station.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council support the direction of the proposed technical analysis of stormwater
management in the Beltline LRT station area?
BACKGROUND:
In 2010, the Metropolitan Council awarded the City a grant to develop a coordinated plan for
stormwater management in the vicinity of the proposed Beltline LRT station. Redevelopment
pressure in the vicinity of the station has been consistent despite current economic conditions,
and it is expected that the addition of LRT to the area will increase opportunities for
redevelopment in the future. A coordinated approach to stormwater management is expected to
yield results including a streamlined process for redevelopment, improvements to water quality
and quantity management, lower long-term infrastructure maintenance costs, and the potential
for stormwater elements to serve as amenities within the station area. At the present time, each
individual redevelopment site installs its own stormwater pond or underground water storage
structure to address City and watershed district requirements. The study will create a plan to
address stormwater management needs cooperatively, with the intent being a reduction in the
number of small, scattered stormwater structures on individual sites.
The City developed a draft scope of work and has received a proposal for services from Barr
Engineering to conduct the planning study. Barr completed the City’s overall Surface Water
Management Plan in 2009, so this study would build on earlier work. The planning study will be
technical in nature; the City is providing data relating to how impervious coverage might change
through redevelopment, and where existing drainage and utility easements are located. The
consultant will utilize computer modeling to depict how water moves through the project area,
and will obtain soil borings to evaluate the area’s soils for infiltration and contamination. The
consultant will also incorporate recommendations for the installation of new stormwater
management practices, which could include future capital projects such as retention basins or
drainage swales. The consultant will also evaluate and make recommendations for
improvements to wetlands within the project area, including Bass Lake Preserve.
This study is part of the background work necessary to proceed with the next steps in the overall
planning for the Beltline LRT station area. By completing the stormwater management design
first, it will be much easier to work with property owners and neighbors to complete more
detailed planning in the station area. Because the stormwater study deals predominately with the
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No.9) Page 2
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Development Area – Stormwater Planning
technical details of surface water flows through the station area, neighborhood involvement is
not expected during the first part of the study; however, upon completion of a draft, the study
will be discussed with neighbors and other stakeholder groups.
Staff is currently working with the consultant to finalize the terms of the contract. It is expected
that the study could be underway by late June; further information about the study, including
progress updates and a discussion of the consultant’s findings as they become available, will be
provided to the City Council in August or early September.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The study is primarily funded by a $30,000 grant from the Metropolitan Council through its
Livable Communities program. A twenty-five percent local match ($7,500) is also required to
participate in the grant program, which will be funded through the Development Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed stormwater study will provide direction for improvements to the City’s natural
environment and long term ecological health, meeting environmental goals of the Vision.
Attachments: Project Location Map
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No.9) Page 3
Subject: Beltline LRT Station Development Area – Stormwater Planning
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
MnDOT - City Cooperative Highway 7 Fiber Conduit Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. This report provides Council with an update on the cooperative construction
project between the City and MnDOT that allows the City to install fiber optic conduit parallel to
MnDOT fiber conduit along the south side of Highway 7 and part of County Road 25 in St.
Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None – please let staff know of any questions or concerns that you might have.
BACKGROUND:
As reported to Council on April 18, 2011, MnDOT is in the process of installing traffic
management systems along some of its major roadways. These will be a series of cameras and
computer controlled traffic signals to manage the timing of traffic signals based on observed
traffic volumes to maximize smooth traffic flow. Within St. Louis Park, there is a MnDOT
project that includes Highway 7 / County Road 25 from Blake Road easterly to Ottawa Avenue.
MnDOT is installing fiber optic cable and conduit along the south side of this Highway 7 /
County Road 25 project segment. City staff was recently made aware of this project just prior to
reporting to Council and staff contacted MnDOT to determine whether there was an opportunity
for the City to collaborate with MnDOT. Specifically, staff proposed installing City owned fiber
conduit in the same trench as MnDOT's. Following discussions between city staff and MnDOT
engineers, MnDOT agreed to co-locate City conduit as desired along this project segment
from Blake Road to Raleigh Avenue. The City already owns conduit east of Raleigh Avenue.
The estimated construction cost for this additional 2.3 miles of fiber conduit was $89,300. Note
that typical costs for such work are in the $65,000 per mile range. Costs are less in this instance
since the work is being shared with MnDOT and most conduit will be installed through trenching
versus direct bore.
The City Manager indicated to the City Council that he felt this was an opportunity we should
take advantage of. To do so required the City to enter into an agreement with MnDOT for
installation of this conduit. After checking with the City Attorney, it was determined that the
City Manager does have the authority to sign such an agreement. In addition, the City Manager
recommended use of the Development Fund, which he felt was appropriate given the potential
economic/community development benefits it could provide. This is a particularly strategic
opportunity as it is anticipated that SWLRT and other infrastructure improvements in this area
will stimulate further redevelopment and increased economic activity. As important, this
segment of fiber conduit provides the opportunity to create redundant paths of network and
Internet connectivity for City and School facilities. Finally, fiber conduit along Highway 7 would
likely be pivotal to any future expansion of the fiber network Council may consider as a result of
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: MnDOT - City Cooperative Highway 7 Fiber Conduit Project Update
the current Fiber Optic Study Task Force work. Council indicated its support of this concept and
an agreement was subsequently signed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
In addition to the construction cost estimate, engineering costs were added so the total estimated
project cost is now $96,422. Final costs could vary somewhat (more or less) based on actual feet
of conduit bored or trenched. It is also important to note that after additional collaboration
meetings, LOGIS has offered to participate in this project cost at the level of $20,000. That
would make the final estimated city cost $76,422. This is similar to some other fiber projects in
which LOGIS has shared costs so they can also utilize the fiber conduit. In effect, this becomes
an extension of the existing agreement between the City, LOGIS, and St. Louis Park Public
Schools in which ownership and maintenance of the fiber optic network is shared. LOGIS staff
has also indicated they would like to participate in the future cost of installing the actual fiber in
the conduit, once business needs are apparent.
The source of funds for the approximate $76,422 net City cost of this project will be the
Development Fund, as indicated above.
PROJECT STATUS:
Work on this project began in April and all the City fiber conduit has been installed. As of this
writing, three of the eight City hand holes (vaults in the ground that serve as junction boxes for
ultimate fiber connections to buildings or other fiber routes) remain to be installed. The project is
scheduled to be completed by July 2011. This is excellent progress and the project is ahead of
schedule.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Recycling Program Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None - the purpose of this report is to address questions or issues Council members raised related
to the 2010 Solid Waste Annual Report provided at the May 9, 2011 Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any other concerns or questions related to recycling or solid waste
activities?
BACKGROUND:
History
On May 9, 2011, staff presented the 2010 Solid Waste Report to Council for their information.
At that meeting the following issues were raised and clarification requested:
1. Explain how the recycling participation has increased (currently near 90%) while the
tonnage of materials has decreased.
2. Relating to SCORE funding, being the 2010 tonnages are nearly 10% lower that the base
year of 2007, is the City in jeopardy of losing our SCORE funds (which amounts to
approximately $100,000 annually)?
3. Provide information on future plans or marketing efforts for increasing recycling in the City.
Issues Clarification
1. Recycling Participation Rates: The participation rates for 2009 and 2010 are about the
same (90%). However, there was a significant increase in the participation rate between
2008 and 2009 (71% to 90%). This number is somewhat misleading as the methodology
for calculating our participation rate changed when we switched recycling haulers in late
2008. Eureka’s methodology measures recycling participation over a 4 consecutive week
period for a sample area of the City. The reason for this is that some residents who
regularly recycle don’t have enough recycling to put out for collection every week. The
methodology that Waste Management previously used was to measure recycling
participation for the entire City on a given day. Participation is construed by the City and
County as the number of households that actually participate in our recycling program, not
simply those that happen to put out recycling on any one particular day. In the future, staff
will provide footnotes to clarify information provided.
Recycling tonnages decreased from 2007 to 2010 not only in our city, but across the
country as well. Some of the reasons for this include:
The downturn in the economy had a major effect on the amount of items purchased,
which directly resulted in reduced recycling tonnages.
Reduced newspaper page size and newspaper circulation.
More containers are now made from plastic (lighter) and less from glass (heavier).
A reduction in the thickness (weight) of plastic and aluminum containers.
Less packaging is now being used for most of the items purchased.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No.11) Page 2
Subject: Recycling Program Update
2. SCORE Funding: City staff is certainly aware that we are close to the Hennepin County
limits for the SCORE funding, as is the case with numerous other cities in Hennepin
County. Some of the reasons for the tonnage reduction are listed above. While we always
need to be aware of the grant requirements as it relates to our tonnages, we work closely
with Hennepin County and their staff is very aware of the efforts we put into our program
and that there are other factors, as cited above, that are outside our control. There are no
indications that St. Louis Park, or other Hennepin County cities, are in jeopardy of losing
SCORE grant funding due to these tonnage reductions.
3. Increased Recycling Efforts: City staff continually educates residents to increase
recycling and improve their environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best
management practices. One recent example is the “zero waste” effort and education
associated with the city’s 2011 open house held at the Municipal Service Center. The
“Educational / Marketing Effort” attachment identifies our recent efforts associated with
recycling and solid waste in general.
Eureka Recycling continues to look for sustainable markets for new materials to recycle.
For example, this fall Eureka is going to start accepting pizza boxes. Not being able to
recycle many types of plastics is where we hear most of the complaints from our residents.
Eureka is actively looking for more end markets for plastics.
Finally, the planned expansion of the City’s recycling program to include multi-family
residential facilities in 2011-2012 is the biggest opportunity for increasing recycling in the
City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic
Direction adopted by the City Council: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in
all areas of city business.
Focus areas:
Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachment: Exhibit – Recycling Education / Marketing Effort
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No.11) Page 3
Subject: Recycling Program Update
EXHIBIT
RECYCLING EDUCATION / MARKETING EFFORT
Listed below are some examples of recycling education and marketing efforts that have been
done recently to help increase recycling and improve the awareness of proper recycling:
Rethink Recycling Program with Hennepin County
Plastic recycling education campaign for residents with Eureka Recycling
America Recycles Day education each November
Spring and fall cleanup events that promote re-use and recycling, as well as collect items
for disposal – added mattress recycling
Recycling of cell phones and print cartridges
Annual solid waste survey where recycling questions are asked and ideas for education
are identified
Recycling Letters to the Editor in the Sun Sailor by Hennepin County
Recycling collection box
Added a brochure rack for display of recycling materials at the MSC
Improved the Garbage and Recycling page on the City’s website to make it more user
friendly
Added curbside pumpkin recycling
Backyard composting workshops
Recycling of holiday lights campaign
Worked with Hennepin County on medication take back program
Worked with Girl Scouts on recycling project
Attended SLP school science fair to educate students on recycling
Promoted plastic garden pot recycling
Provided Choose-to-Reuse coupon books to residents
Assisted with ECFE recycling project
Worked with U of MN students on capstone recycling and organics program in SLP
Special alerts on the City’s website
Announcements on Park TV and Inside the Park
Twitter and Facebook recycling updates
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Agenda Item #: 12
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:
Homes Within Reach: City Funded Revolving Line-of-Credit to Assist with Acquisition and
Rehab Costs of Affordable Homeownership Units.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. Staff is proposing that the City Council consider increasing the revolving line-
of-credit that the City previously approved for Homes Within Reach (HWR), also known as
West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT), from the current amount of
$100,000, to $250,000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City interested in increasing the revolving line-of-credit to provide greater flexibility with
an established tool that would enable the City to further facilitate affordable homeownership
opportunities in our community?
BACKGROUND:
The City continues to partner with WHAHLT, also known as HWR, to provide long-term
affordable homeownership opportunities for low-moderate income families.
The goal of this private non-profit is to provide ownership opportunities for working households
in suburban Hennepin County. The buyer pays for the cost of the home only, and the Land Trust
purchases the land that it then leases back to the buyer for 99 years. Homebuyers must have
incomes at or below 80% of the median area income, or $64,200 for a household of four. All of
the homes are under the resale-restricted domain of the Land Trust and are designed to stay
affordable for low-moderate income households through one resale after another without the
need for additional subsidies.
The homeowner is responsible for the payment of all real estate taxes on the house and on the
land. The ground lease between the HWR and the homebuyer protects the assets of the land by
providing the Land Trust certain rights to safeguard the condition of the home and the continuity
of the homeownership. The homeowner may sell his/her home only to HWR or a qualified HWR
buyer. The resale price is limited by a formula which more than likely (based on market
conditions) allows the seller to recover the original cost of the house plus a modest profit. When
a homeowner sells a HWR home, they receive 35% of the appreciation of the home. The use of
the Land Trust ensures that public money supports the long-term affordability of homes,
compared to affordable housing models that benefit only the first buyers.
To date, the City has provided financial contributions to HWR to assist in the acquisition and
rehabilitation of seven St. Louis Park single-family homes that were then sold, using the land
trust model, to low income households. The City allocated CDBG and Housing Rehab funds to
assist with acquisition costs and has budgeted funds in 2011 to assist with the purchase of two
more single-family homes and one duplex. HWR leverages the City’s funds with funding from
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 12) Page 2
Subject: Homes Within Reach: City Funded Line-of-Credit to Assist w/ Affordable Homeownership Units
the MN Housing Finance Agency, HOME funds, County Affordable Housing Incentive Funds
(AHIF) and funds from the Metropolitan Council.
The funds from the line-of-credit provide financial assistance for the cost of acquisition,
maintenance/repair and rehab prior to the sale of the home to a homebuyer. The line-of-credit
saves HWR the cost of accessing funds through an interest bearing line-of-credit with a financial
lender.
Increasing the line-of-credit to a maximum of $250,000 would provide HWR the ability to
purchase and rehab two properties simultaneously if the opportunity presents itself, using both
the City’s line of credit and the line-of-credit from the HWR’s financial lender, Bremer Bank.
Currently, Bremer limits the use of its line-of-credit to one home at a time regardless of the
amount borrowed. Each draw will be interest free, except that any interest HWR earns on the
funds must be paid to the City. The City Manager will have full discretion to approve or deny
funding for each housing unit and the funds will be designated to fund acquisition, rehab and
repair costs. HWR will be required to submit a written request to the City that includes the
property’s address, estimated market value and scope of required rehab/repair work. Purchase
price and a closing statement will be submitted following the closing. A portion of the funds
will be repaid to the City upon sale of the home to a homebuyer with the remaining balance due
within 90 days.
HWR accessed the City’s line-of-credit to assist in financing the rehab of the last two units
purchased. On both occasions, the line-of-credit was repaid upon sale of the home in accordance
with the Agreement between the City and HWR.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Housing Rehab fund will be the source of funds utilized to establish the revolving line-of-
credit. In addition to the line-of-credit, the City will continue to provide financial assistance
through the allocation of Housing Rehab funds to facilitate the purchase of two homes and a
duplex in 2011. Brian Swanson, Controller, has reviewed the proposal and verified the use of
the Housing Rehab fund as the financial resource.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This action is consistent with the Council’s strategic direction - “SLP is committed to Providing
a Well Maintained and Diverse Housing Stock”.
Increasing the line-of-credit provides greater flexibility to an existing tool for promoting the
City’s Strategic Direction focus area of “working towards affordable single-family home
ownership throughout the City” at minimal expense to the City.
NEXT STEPS:
Unless Council objects, staff will revise the Agreement between HWR and the City,
incorporating the increased line-of-credit and present for Council consideration at a future
meeting.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Agenda Item #: 13
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:
Recycling Bin Wheels Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council background information relating to staff making
recycling bin wheels kits (wheel kits) available to residents in the City’s residential recycling
program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any concerns or questions relating to providing residents with wheel kits?
BACKGROUND:
History
City staff has received several inquires from senior citizen residents about the possibility of the
City providing wheels for their recycling bins, to make it easier for them to move their bins from
the house to the curb. Staff also received an inquiry from a Council member regarding the
possibility of providing recycling bins with wheels.
Staff has talked to and received sample wheel kits from our current bin provider, Rehrig Pacific.
A wheel kit consists of 2 wheels, an axle, rope handle, related hardware, and installation
instructions. The installation is relatively simple. Existing recycling bins will require holes to be
drilled to install the axel/wheels. Future bins, purchased by the City, can be predrilled. The cost
for each wheel kit is approximately $3.00.
Staff has talked with staff from other cities to assess the feasibility of providing these wheel kits
as well as how they seem to be working. Roseville and Plymouth have been using wheels kits for
3+ years with very few problems. Both cities provide the wheel kits at no cost to their residents.
Both cities require residents’ to pick up the kits at the city and to install the wheel kits
themselves. Both cities are pleased with their programs and the performance of their wheeled
bins.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2010 (Item No. 13) Page 2
Subject: Recycling Bin Wheels Report
Implementation Plan
City staff has determined the city can and should have a recycling bin wheel program and is
planning to move forward as follows:
1. Cost - city to purchase and provide wheel kits to residents at no cost.
2. Delivery – Upon request city staff will drop off wheel kits at resident’s homes on their
collection day (similar to what is currently being done when new bins are requested).
3. Installation - residents install the wheel kits themselves (directions provided with each
kit).
4. Repairs / replacements - city staff drops off replacement wheel kits to resident’s homes
on their collection day and the resident does the re-installation.
5. New bins - will be ordered predrilled.
Next Steps
Staff will provide residents information regarding this program and how kits may be obtained via
the City’s website, cable TV, and the Park Perspective. Staff expects that recycling bin wheel
kits will be available by mid-summer.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The purchase cost is relatively low, considering that staff doesn’t expect a large number of
requests per year (approximately 500). The cost for each wheel kit is approximately $3.00 so
total annual cost is expected to be $1,000 to $2,000. The Refuse Fund has an adequate fund
balance to accommodate this cost.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic
Direction adopted by the City Council: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in
environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in
all areas of city business.
Focus areas:
Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 13, 2011
Agenda Item #: 14
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:
Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. The purpose of this report is to share the proposed amendment
with the Council prior to discussing it at a future study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to expand on the existing civil penalties ordinance with an
administrative hearing, and create a process for assessing unpaid penalties to the subject property?
BACKGROUND:
The city first adopted an administrative penalty process in 2001. The intent of the ordinance as
described in the staff report was “… to provide an alternative to the county court system in
enforcing violations of the city’s ordinance code. The City currently issues county citations or
files formal complaints which require the violator’s appearance in court. The administrative
penalty procedure allows for another tool for enforcement administered at the City level. Rather
than issuing citations and processing through the county court system, a city citation will be
issued and an administrative fee imposed. The intent of this process is to provide a cost effective
and efficient method for charging persons with code violations.”
Purpose of Code Amendment:
The purpose of the amendment is to better define the steps staff will follow when issuing a
citation and processing an appeal. The existing administrative penalty process is voluntary on
the part of the person being charged. At any time the accused may withdraw from the
administrative process at which time the city would have to begin the process for a criminal
complaint. The proposed amendment would make the civil penalty a mandatory citation in a
similar manner that a county citation is mandatory.
The amendment will also address the problem of how to handle unpaid fines by creating the
process to assess the unpaid fine to the property owner in a manner similar to a special
assessment. According to the existing ordinance, if the accused completes the voluntary
administrative penalty process and decides not to pay, the city then has to initiate a formal
complaint in court to seek compliance and payment. This combined voluntary administrative
and formal process is time consuming and costly. The proposed amendment will streamline the
process and reduce the cost of code enforcement.
Civil Penalty Process:
The civil penalty process is an administrative penalty process utilized when enforcement of city
code is required. The existing city code refers to the process as an “administrative penalty”
process. However, since 2001 when this code was first adopted, many other cities around the
state have adopted a similar process, and have named it the “civil penalty” process. Since the
civil penalty name has emerged as the recognized name for the process, staff is proposing to
rename the process to be consistent with common practice and references.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance
A civil penalty is a citation issued to the owner of a property where a code violation exists. The
civil penalty process does not change the current code enforcement process of inspecting and
notifying property owners of violations. It does, however, reduce the time taken to bring
difficult properties into compliance, and it reduces the costs incurred by the city to process code
violations.
The civil penalty process is similar to the current enforcement process, which is as follows:
1. Up to three notifications of the violation. The number of notices depends on the severity
of the violation. Violations that are easily remedied, or are reoccurring, may also require
fewer notices.
2. Opportunity to comply without penalty. The length of time given to comply depends on
the severity of the violation, and the ease of complying. Recurring violations are also
given less to no time to comply.
3. Issuance of a citation for non-compliance or formal complaint.
4. Opportunity to appeal the citation to the City Manager.
Existing Code Enforcement Tools:
Often times property owners don’t realize there is a violation and staff will, in a helpful manner,
review the codes with them and go over options available to achieve their desired use of their
property in a manner that meets code. This conversation is educational and non-confrontational.
Sometimes, however, a property owner rebuffs staffs attempt to work with them, and will
continue to maintain their property in a manner that violates code. When this happens, staff has
to enforce the code by using one of the two enforcement tools available: issuing a county
citation (which is the same style of ticket issued by a police officer) or filing a formal complaint
in district court.
There are, however, problems associated with both of these enforcement tools. These problems
arise from the amount of time it takes the city to process a complaint/violation and how much it
costs to process it compared to how much the city recovers in fines. By the time staff writes the
first citation or files the complaint, the inspector has already:
1. Inspected the property at least three times, often times more.
2. Written up to three letters.
3. Had several conversations with the property owner and the complainant.
4. Updated the tracking files after each inspection, letter and contact with property owner
and complainant.
5. Discussed the case with other staff and the city attorney.
Issuing a Citation:
The citation used is the same citation process used by the police department. By code, every day
the property remains in violation constitutes a separate violation. Therefore, a citation could be
issued every day until the violation is brought into compliance. If the violation still exists after
issuing 2-3 citations staff will notify the property owner that the city is going to file a formal
criminal complaint.
1. People are deciding not to pay citations, and Hennepin County does not pursue payment.
As a result, staff is relying less on citations, and more on filing a formal criminal
complaint, which costs the city considerably more money.
2. At the end of 2010, staff checked the status of all citations issued, and discovered that 1/3
of the citations issued by the Community Development and Inspections Departments
were not paid.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14) Page 3
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance
3. Spot checking citations issued in 2007 shows that approximately ½ of those citations
issued have been paid.
4. The typical citation fine is approximately $42, approximately $30 of that fine goes to St.
Louis Park.
Filing a Formal Complaint:
Filing a complaint in district court is time consuming, expensive, and adds petty misdemeanors
to a court agenda filled with more serious crimes and behavioral issues.
1. A formal complaint can take 60 or more days from the time staff first made contact with
the property owner to when the judge hears the complaint.
2. The judge will typically waive all but $100 - $300 of the fine even though the city has
incurred $200 to over $1,000 in staff and legal expenses.
3. Occasionally, the defendant doesn’t show up for the court appearance. When this
happens, the judge will issue a bench warrant, which effectively closes the file unless the
defendant is picked up on other charges. As a result, the defendant may continue to
violate, and the city does not receive any fines. If the defendant continues to violate, the
city has to re-file a complaint and hope he/she shows up this time.
Proposed Civil Penalty Process:
Process:
The civil penalty process does not replace any existing enforcement tool or process. It does,
however, add a more effective and cost efficient tool for staff’s use. The civil penalty is similar
to existing county citation. The three biggest differences are:
1. The entire process is handled by St. Louis Park staff,
2. The entire fine is paid to the city, and
3. The city can gain payment of unpaid fines through the property assessment process.
Most importantly, the process leading up to the issuance of the civil penalty will continue to be
the same as the process followed today. The city’s first goal will remain to gain compliance
through an educational and non-confrontational first contact. Staff will review the violation with
the property owner, work with them to find alternatives and methods to come into compliance,
and give a reasonable amount of time to complete the task. It is expected that most people will
comply with code at this time, just like they always have. However, when a property owner
decides not to comply, staff will choose which enforcement process will most quickly and cost-
effectively gain compliance. Most situations will call for the civil penalty. The most
problematic, which are few, will continue to require the formal complaint. The county citation,
most likely, will rarely be used.
Staff involvement:
In most cases, the property owner will pay the fine. In this case, staff involvement is minimal.
Staff will issue the citation, enter it into the computer records, receive payment and close the
record.
When the property owner does not pay the fine, staff will add an overdue charge to the fee, and
assess the penalty to the property owner. The assessment process is the same process currently
used to assess unpaid utility fees and other charges incurred by the city as a result of property
owner action/inaction. Rather than duplicate the process, staff will simply add the unpaid
penalty to the list of other unpaid fees and the council will act on all of them at the same time.
This way, additional process is not created and additional staff and council time is not required.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14) Page 4
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance
In some cases, a property owner may appeal the civil penalty. When this happens, the city will
conduct an administrative hearing. (The process is outlined in the attached handout.) It is
anticipated that this will rarely happen. The City of Minnetonka conducts 3-4 hearings a year.
They experience so few mainly because the fines are not intended to be a revenue generator; they
are reasonable and appropriate for the violation. They also continue to work with property
owners to gain compliance, even a after a civil penalty is issued. Their goal is to work in a
respectful and reasonable manner from the first contact to resolution of the violation. This
approach maintains a good relationship between property owner and the city, even through a
difficult encounter, and it seems to avoid appeals. St. Louis Park staff believes this is the
appropriate philosophy. It is the way we currently conduct code enforcement, and we propose to
continue in this manner with the civil penalty process if it is adopted.
Authority to Issue Civil Penalties and Assess Unpaid Fines:
Staff contacted the League of Minnesota Cities to determine what authority is granted to cities to
impose civil penalties and assess unpaid fines. The League informed us that State Statute gives
cities specific authority to impose administrative fines in three areas – certain traffic violations,
liquor law and tobacco violations. Many cities, however, have adopted civil penalties for a more
broad range of code violations. Authority for this action seems to come from general police
powers, not a specific statute.
The League also informed us that State Statute does not specifically give cities the authority to
assess unpaid penalties resulting from civil penalties. However, the lack of specific authority
does not necessarily conclude that it can’t be done. Many Charter cities have successfully
adopted Charter language to give their city authority to assess unpaid penalties in a manner
similar to collecting unpaid utility fees or unpaid costs associated with nuisance abatement. Staff
has asked the City Attorney to review this aspect of the proposed ordinance to determine if a
Charter Amendment is needed.
There are many cities in the state that utilize the civil penalty and assessment of unpaid fines
process. For purposes of research, staff reviewed ordinances from Minnetonka, Hopkins,
Woodbury, Brooklyn Park, and Bloomington. Staff also interviewed staff from Minnetonka and
Brooklyn Park.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff is planning on bringing the proposed ordinance for a discussion at a study session this
summer.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is the intent of the civil penalty process to respectfully resolve code violations in a manner that
reduces staff time and ensures all fines are paid.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Proposed Draft Ordinance
Proposed Draft Citizen Handbook
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
PROPOSED ORDINANCE:
Sec. 1-14. Civil Penalties.
(a) Purpose. The city council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcing
the city code. While criminal fines and penalties have been the most frequent enforcement
mechanism, there are certain negative consequences for both the city and the accused. The delay
inherent in that system does not ensure prompt resolution. Citizens resent being labeled as
criminals for violations of administrative regulations. The higher burden of proof and the
potential of incarceration do not appear appropriate for most administrative violations. The
criminal process does not always regard city code violations as being important. Accordingly,
the city council finds that the use of administrative citations and the imposition of civil penalties
is a legitimate and necessary alternative method of enforcement. This method of enforcement is
in addition to any other legal remedy that may be pursued for city code violations.
(b) Alternative methods of enforcement. This administrative enforcement procedure seeks to
gain compliance with certain provisions of the city code prior to any formal criminal or civil
court action. The administrative hearing process provided for in this Article shall be in addition
to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
(c) General provisions.
(1) A violation of a provision of the city code or a violation of the terms and conditions of
a city approval, including permits and licenses, required and granted under this code is
an administrative offense that may be subject to an administrative citation and civil
penalties. Each day a violation exists constitutes a separate offense.
(2) An administrative offense may be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $2000.00 per
separate offense.
(3) The city council must adopt by resolution a schedule of fines for offenses initiated by
administration citation. The city council is not bound by that schedule when a matter is
appealed to it for administrative review.
(4) The city council may adopt a schedule of fees to be paid to administrative hearing
officers.
(5) The city manager must adopt procedures for administering the administrative citation program.
(d) Administrative citation.
(1) A person authorized to enforce provisions of the city code may issue an administrative
citation upon belief that a code violation has occurred. The citation must be issued in
person or by first class mail to the person responsible for the violation. The citation
must state the date, time, and nature of the offense, the identity of the person issuing the
citation, the amount of the scheduled fine, and the manner for paying the fine or
appealing the citation.
(2) The person responsible for the violation must either pay the scheduled fine or request a
hearing within seven days after issuance of the citation. Payment of the fine constitutes
admission of the violation. A late payment fee of 10% of the scheduled fine amount
will be imposed in accordance with section 1-14(h).
(e) Administrative hearing.
(1) The city council will periodically approve a list of lawyers, from which the city
manager will randomly select a hearing officer to hear and determine a matter for
which a hearing is requested. The accused will have the right to request no later than
five days before the date of the hearing that the assigned hearing officer be removed
from the case. One request for each case will be granted automatically by the city
manager. A subsequent request must be directed to the assigned hearing officer who
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 5
will decide whether he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. The city
enforcement officer may remove a hearing officer only by requesting that the assigned
hearing officer find that he or she cannot fairly and objectively review the case. If such
a finding is made, the officer shall remove himself or herself from the case, and the city
manager will assign another hearing officer. The hearing officer is not a judicial officer
but is a public officer as defined by Minn. Stat. § 609.415. The hearing officer must
not be a city employee. The city manager must establish a procedure for evaluating the
competency of the hearing officers, including comments from accused violators and
city staff. These reports must be provided to the city council.
(2) Upon the hearing officer's own initiative or upon written request of an interested party
demonstrating the need, the officer may issue a subpoena for the attendance of a
witness or the production of books, papers, records or other documents that are material
to the matter being heard. The party requesting the subpoena is responsible for serving
the subpoena in the manner provided for civil actions and for paying the fees and
expenses of a witness. A person served with a subpoena may file an objection with the
hearing officer promptly but no later than the time specified in the subpoena for
compliance. The hearing officer may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is
unreasonable or oppressive. A person who, without just cause, fails or refuses to attend
and testify or to produce the required documents in obedience to a subpoena is guilty of
a misdemeanor. Alternatively, the party requesting the subpoena may seek an order
from district court directing compliance.
(3) Notice of the hearing must be served in person or by mail on the person responsible for
the violation at least 10 days in advance, unless a shorter time is accepted by all
parties. At the hearing, the parties will have the opportunity to present testimony and
question any witnesses, but strict rules of evidence will not apply. The hearing officer
must tape record the hearing and receive testimony and exhibits. The officer must
receive and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, which possesses
probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the conduct of
their affairs.
(4) The hearing officer has the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a
citation, to impose the scheduled fine, and to reduce, stay, or waive a scheduled fine
either unconditionally or upon compliance with appropriate conditions. When
imposing a penalty for a violation, the hearing officer may consider any or all of the
following factors:
a. The duration of the violation;
b. The frequency or reoccurrence of the violation;
c. The seriousness of the violation;
d. The history of the violation;
e. The violator's conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing;
f. The good faith effort by the violator to comply;
g. The economic impact of the penalty on the violator;
h. The impact of the violation upon the community; and
i. Any other factors appropriate to a just result.
(5) The hearing officer may exercise discretion to impose a fine for more than one day of a
continuing violation, but only upon a finding that:
a. The violation caused a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety, or welfare
or that
b. the accused intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the code
requirement.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 6
(6) The hearing officer's decision and supporting reasons must be in writing.
(7) Except for matters subject to administrative review under section 1-14(f), the decision
of the hearing officer is final without any further right of administrative appeal. In a
matter subject to administrative review under section 1-14(f), the hearing officer's
decision may be appealed to the city council by submitting a request in writing to the
city clerk within 10 days after the hearing officer's decision.
(8) The failure to attend the hearing constitutes a waiver of the violator's rights to an
administrative hearing and an admission of the violation. A hearing officer may waive
this result upon good cause shown. Examples of “good cause” are: death or
incapacitating illness of the accused; a court order requiring the accused to appear for
another hearing at the same time; and lack of proper service of the citation or notice of
the hearing. “Good cause” does not include: forgetfulness and intentional delay.
(f) Administrative review.
(1) The hearing officer's decision in any of the following matters may be appealed by a
party to the city council for administrative review:
a. An alleged failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval typically granted by
the city council as required by an ordinance;
b. An alleged violation of a permit, license, other approval, or the conditions attached
to the permit, license, or approval, that was granted by the city council; and
c. An alleged violation of regulations governing a person or entity who has received a
license granted by the city council.
(2) The appeal will be heard by the city council after notice served in person or by
registered mail at least 10 days in advance. The parties to the hearing will have an
opportunity to present oral or written arguments regarding the hearing officer's
decision.
(3) The city council must consider the record, the hearing officer's decision, and any
additional arguments before making a determination. The council is not bound by the
hearing officer's decision, but may adopt all or part of the officer's decision. The
council's decision must be in writing.
(4) If the council makes a finding of a violation, it may impose a civil penalty not
exceeding $2000.00 per day per violation, and may consider any or all of the factors
contained in section 1-14(e)4. The council may also reduce, stay, or waive a fine
unconditionally or based on reasonable and appropriate conditions.
(5) In addition to imposing a civil penalty, the council may suspend or revoke a city-issued
license, permit, or other approval associated with the violation, if the procedure in city
code suspension or revocation has been followed. The hearing required in that section
will be satisfied by the hearing before the hearing officer with the right of appeal to the
city council.
(g) Judicial review. An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of the decision of the
hearing officer or the city council in accordance with state law.
(h) Recovery of civil penalties.
(1) If a civil penalty is not paid within the time specified, it constitutes:
a. A personal obligation of the violator; and
b. A lien upon the real property upon which the violation occurred if the property or
improvements on the property were the subject of the violation and the property
owner was found responsible for that violation.
(2) A lien may be assessed against the property and collected in the same manner as taxes.
The lien may include the administrative and legal costs incurred by the city in
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 7
connection with collecting the unpaid administrative penalty. Prior to assessing the lien
against the property, the city must attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the
administrative penalty and provide the property owner listed on the tax record with
notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(3) A personal obligation may be collected by any appropriate legal means.
(4) A late payment fee of 10% of the fine will be assessed for each 30-day period, or part
thereof, that the fine remains unpaid after the due date.
(5) During the time that a civil penalty remains unpaid, no city approval will be granted for
a license, permit, or other city approval sought by the violator or for property under the
violator’s ownership or control.
(6) Failure to pay a fine is grounds for suspending, revoking, denying, or not renewing a
license or permit associated with the violation.
(i) Criminal Penalties. The following are misdemeanors, punishable in accordance with
state law:
(1) Failure, without good cause, to appear at a hearing that was scheduled under section 1-
14(e);
(2) Failure to pay a fine imposed by a hearing officer within 30 days after it was imposed,
or such other time as may be established by the hearing officer, unless the matter is
appealed under section 1-14(f);
(3) Failure to pay a fine imposed by the city council within 30 days after it was imposed, or
such other time as may be established by the city council; and
(4) If the final adjudication in the administrative penalty procedure is a finding of no
violation, then the city may not prosecute a criminal violation in district court based on
the same set of facts. This does not preclude the city from pursuing an administrative
penalty or a criminal conviction for a violation of the same provision of the city code
based on a different set of facts. A different date of violation will constitute a different
set of facts.
(j) Applicable laws. Where differences occur between provisions of this chapter and other
applicable code sections, this chapter applies.
(a) Purpose.
(1) Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this section are intended to
provide the public and the city with an informal, cost effective and expeditious
alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations of certain ordinance provisions.
(2) The procedures are intended to be voluntary on the part of those who have been
charged with administrative offenses. At any time prior to the payment of the
administrative penalty as is provided for hereafter, the individual may withdraw from
participation in the procedures in which event the city may bring criminal charges in
accordance with law. Likewise, the city, in its discretion, may choose not to initiate an
administrative offense and may bring criminal charges in the first instance.
(3) In the event a party participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not
pay the monetary penalty which may be imposed, the city will seek to collect the costs
of the administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in the
event the party is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal violation.
(b) Administrative offense defined. An administrative offense is a violation of a provision of
this Code and is subject to the administrative penalties set forth in the schedule of offenses and
penalties referred to in subsection (h), hereafter.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 8
(c) Notice. Any person employed by the city, authorized in writing by the city manager,
shall, upon determining that there has been a violation, notify the violator, or in the case of a
vehicular violation, attach to the vehicle a notice of the violation. Said notice shall set forth the
nature, date and time of violation, the name of the official issuing the notice and the amount of
the scheduled penalty.
(d) Payment. Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven days of the
time of issuance of the notice, pay the amount set forth on the schedule of penalties for the
violation. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail, and payment shall be deemed to be an
admission of the violation.
(e) Appeal. Any person who is required by the city to pay an administrative penalty may
make a written appeal of the penalty to the city manager, or designee, within seven days of
notice by the city of the penalty. The city manager, or designee, will have authority to reduce the
fine or determine whether the appellant is to be charged with a penalty.
(f) Failure to pay. In the event a party charged with an administrative offense fails to pay the
penalty, a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge may be brought against the alleged violator
in accordance with applicable statutes.
(g) Disposition of penalties. All penalties collected pursuant to this section shall be paid to
the city and may be deposited in the city's general fund.
(h) Offenses and penalties. Offenses which may be charged as administrative offenses and
the penalties for such offenses may be established by resolution of the city council from time to
time and listed in appendix A to this Code.
(i) Subsequent offenses. In the event a party is charged with a subsequent administrative
offense within a 12-month period of paying a penalty for the same or substantially similar
offense, the subsequent administrative penalty shall be increased by $10.00 above the previous
administrative penalty.
***
Sec. 36-33. Application and review process for conditional use permits and variances.
(a) Application of section provisions. This section shall apply to all conditional use permits
and variances.
(b) General provisions.
***
(13) Duration and enforcement. Conditional use permits and variances shall remain in effect
as long as the conditions stated in the permit or variance are observed. Failure to comply
with the those conditions of the conditional use permit or variance will results in either:
termination of the conditional use permit or variance.
a. A civil penalty; or
b. Termination of the conditional use permit or variance.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 9
DRAFT
Administrative Enforcement Program
Citizen Handbook
The City’s Administrative Enforcement Program is used as an alternative to the Hennepin County Court system to
review alleged violations of City Code. The purpose of this handbook is to provide a summary of the process.
Sections of the code will be referenced throughout the handbook, and the actual code in its entirety can be viewed at
the city website: www.stlouispark.org.
Department of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Version date: month day, year
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 10
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Intent
1.2 Authority
CHAPTER 2 –ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS
2.1 After Receiving an Administrative Citation.
2.2 Paying the Fine.
2.3 Repeat Violations within 24 Months.
2.4 Continuing Violations: Fine per day.
2.5 Failure to Pay.
CHAPTER 3 – PRE-HEARING PROCEDURE
3.1 Selection of Hearing Officers
3.2 Self-Disqualification
3.3 Disqualification by Party
3.4 Hearing Time and Date
3.5 Notice of Hearing
3.6 Continuances
3.7 Pre-Hearing Communications
3.8 Subpoenas
CHAPTER 4 – HEARING PROCEDURE
4.1 Reporting
4.2 Failure to Appear
4.3 Hearing Introduction
4.4 Hearing Procedure
4.5 Decision
4.6 Filing the Decision
CHAPTER 5 – POST-HEARING PROCEDURES
5.1 Appeal
5.2 Time to Pay
5.3 Consequences of Failure to Pay
CHAPTER 6 – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
6.1 Hearing Officer’s Fees
6.2 Custody of File
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 11
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1 Intent
The St. Louis Park Administrative Penalties Program was created by the City of St. Louis
Park as an alternative forum for enforcing city ordinances. The city previously used the
criminal justice system for enforcement of its ordinances but found that system to be
somewhat unsatisfactory:
a) The delay in that system did not ensure prompt resolution.
b) Citizens resented being labeled as criminals for violations of administrative
regulations.
c) The higher burden of proof and potential of incarceration does not appear appropriate
for most administrative violations.
d) The criminal system does not always regard city ordinance violations as important.
The Administrative Penalties Program is intended to avoid these disadvantages and to
provide a forum that is more informal and less threatening to alleged violators.
1.2 Authority
The St. Louis Park Charter authorizes the City Council to establish by ordinance a
procedure for imposing a civil penalty not exceeding $2,000 for each violation of a city
ordinance. This procedure must provide an opportunity for the accused to be heard by a
neutral party.
The City Council adopted City Code Chapter XX to govern administrative enforcement
of the ordinances, including imposition of civil penalties. Pursuant to these sections,
enforcement is commenced by the issuance of an administrative citation. The recipient
may pay a fine established by City Council resolution or may request a hearing. If a
hearing is requested, the procedures in this handbook are followed.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 12
Chapter 2 –Administrative Citations
2.1 After Receiving an Administrative Citation.
If you receive a citation, you may correct the violation and pay the fine; or if you want to
request a hearing, you must respond within 10 days from the citation date. The purpose
of a hearing is to determine whether or not a violation(s) of the City Code existed. Codes
cannot be changed through the Administrative Enforcement hearing process.
2.2 Paying the Fine.
The fines for the Administrative Enforcement Program are set forth by the St. Louis Park
City Council through a Resolution defining administrative penalties. The fine may be
paid by credit card, cash, check or money order. Checks or money orders must be made
payable to the City of St. Louis Park for the correct amount. You may either pay by
phone with a credit card, in person at City Hall or mail one copy of the citation with your
check or money order to:
City of St. Louis Park
Administrative Enforcement Program
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
NOTE: DO NOT SEND CASH
If the payment arrives more than 30 days after your citation was issued, you will be
required to pay an additional 10% penalty for each 30 day period, or part thereof, that the
fine remains unpaid after the due date.
NOTE: BY PAYING THE FINE, YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT YOU
VIOLATED THE CITY ORDINANCE.
2.3 Repeat Violations within 24 Months.
The fine for a repeat violation will be double the amount of the scheduled fine for the
previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four
occurrences of a violation, and the scheduled fine for the first violation was $50, the fine
for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; and
fourth: $400). The amount that is doubled is the scheduled fine, not the fine actually
imposed.
2.4 Continuing Violations: Fine per day.
If the citation states that this is a “continuing violation” and that a mandatory appearance
before a Hearing Officer is required, you cannot just pay the fine. You must appear
before a Hearing Officer. A hearing Officer may impose a fine for each day that the
violation has occurred and continues. The Hearing Officer must find that either:
(1) The violation caused a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety or welfare,
or
(2) The violator intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the code
requirement.
2.5 Failure to Pay.
If you do not pay the fine, the city may do one or more of the following:
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 13
Add the fine to your property taxes.
Issue additional fines, a formal complaint, or other legal actions if the violation is not
corrected.
Start a criminal proceeding in District Court charging you with the original violation
plus a violation for failing to pay.
Suspend, revoke, or deny a city-issued license or permit that is associated with the
violation.
Abate the violation in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. The violator
and/or property owner are responsible for all associated costs.
Obtain a judgment against you and begin collection procedures.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 14
Chapter 3 – Pre-Hearing Procedure
3.1 Selection of Hearing Officers
The Program Administrator’s office will randomly select a Hearing Officer from the list
of lawyers approved by the City Council. The Program Administrator will contact the
selected Hearing Officer and indicate the types of cases and the names of the people
involved.
3.2 Self-Disqualification
Upon being assigned to a case, a Hearing Officer must decide if there are grounds for
self-disqualification. Grounds for such disqualification include:
a) Personal interest in the action.
b) Financial interest in the action.
c) Relationship to any party.
d) Former counsel for party. If any member of the Hearing Officer’s firm would be
disqualified under this provision, then the chosen Hearing Officer is also disqualified.
e) Bias or prejudice.
If grounds for self-disqualification exist, they may be disclosed to the parties in writing
and expressly waived by the parties in writing. Otherwise, the Hearing Officer must
notify the Program Administrator’s office of the disqualification, and another Hearing
Officer will be selected.
3.3 Disqualification by Party
No later than five days before the date of the hearing, any party may file a written request
with the Program Administrator’s office to remove the assigned Hearing Officer. The
first such request by an accused will automatically be granted. Any subsequent request
by an accused for the same matter and any request by the City will be referred to the
assigned Hearing officer, who will decide whether he or she can fairly and objectively
hear the case. The Hearing Officer must issue a written decision by the date of the
hearing. If the Hearing Officer grants the request, he/she must file the decision with the
Program Administrator as quickly as possible to allow for assignment of another Hearing
Officer. If the request is not granted, he/she may either (a) file the decision with the
Program Administrator who will deliver it to the requesting party or (b) serve it upon the
requesting party at the scheduled hearing.
3.4 Hearing Time and Date
The Program Administrator must schedule a hearing to occur within 30 days after
receiving the accused request for a hearing. The Program Administrator’s Office will
contact the Hearing Officer for an available date and schedule the time and place for the
hearing. More than one matter may be scheduled for hearing by the Hearing Officer.
3.5 Notice of Hearing
At least 10 days before the scheduled date, the Program Administrator’s office will send
a notice of the hearing date, time, and location to you and all parties, unless a shorter time
is accepted by all parties. The notice will contain the names of the parties and the type of
violation alleged.
3.6 Continuances
A continuance of the hearing may be granted only by the Program Administrator’s office
for good cause shown. Generally, continuances should be for no more than 10 days.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 15
3.7 Pre-Hearing Communications
Except for a subpoena request (see below), the Hearing Officer cannot communicate with
a party unless the other party is present. All scheduling and continuances will be handled
by the Program Administrator’s office.
3.8 Subpoenas
Upon a Hearing Officer’s own initiative or upon written request of a party who
demonstrates the need, the Hearing Officer may authorize issuance of a subpoena for the
attendance of a witness or the production of documents which are material to the matter
being heard. The Hearing Officer is to notify the Program Administrator’s office who
will then obtain the necessary subpoena from the Hennepin County District Court (which
will issue the subpoena based on authority of the St. Louis Park Charter).
The party requesting the subpoena is responsible for serving it in the same manner as
civil actions and paying fees and expenses of witness. A person served with a subpoena
may file an objection with the Hearing Officer before time for compliance. The Hearing
Officer may cancel or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive.
The Hearing Officer must notify the Program Administrator’s office if someone fails to
comply with a subpoena. Failure to comply with a subpoena is a misdemeanor and
constitutes contempt of court.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 16
Chapter 4 – Hearing Procedure
4.1 Reporting
The Hearing Officer is requested to report to the Program Administrator’s office at least
15 minutes before the scheduled hearing. This will allow for any administrative tasks
and last-minute changes. The Hearing Officer may also review the case files at this time.
4.2 Failure to Appear
The failure of an accused to appear constitutes an admission of the violation. The
Hearing Officer may proceed to impose a penalty. If the City representatives fail to
appear, the charge must be dismissed. If the absent person contacts the Hearing Officer
or the Program Administrator’s office within a reasonable time after the scheduled
hearing, the Hearing Officer will be asked to rule on whether there was a good cause for
the absence. Examples of good cause are: death or incapacitation illness of the accused;
a court order requiring the person to appear for another hearing at the same time; and lack
of proper service of the citation or notice of the hearing. Good cause does not include:
forgetfulness and intentional delay.
4.3 Hearing Introduction
The Hearing Officer should begin the hearing by introducing him/herself and
emphasizing his/her role as a neutral officer. The Hearing Officer should also explain
his/her role and how the hearing will proceed. The right to appeal the decision should
also be explained at this time.
4.4 Hearing Procedure
The hearing is to be recorded, and the Program Administrator’s office will provide the
recording equipment. A representative from the Program Administrator’s office may be
present to assist with the hearing. The procedure is informal, without strict rules of
evidence. The Hearing Officer should make such rulings and take such action as deemed
necessary to conduct a dignified and orderly hearing. The Hearing Officer will determine
whether to allow opening and/or closing statements. The City bears the burden of
proving a violation and should proceed first.
The Hearing Officer must administer an oath or affirmation to each witness, receive
testimony and exhibits, and give weight to evidence, including hearsay evidence, which
possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent people in the
conduct of their affairs.
Because this is a civil matter, the Hearing Officer must find a violation only if the greater
weight of the evidence supports such a finding.
4.5 Decision
The Hearing Officer has the authority to determine that a violation occurred, to dismiss a
charge, to impose the fine established in the City Council approved schedule, and to
reduce, stay, or waive the established amount of the fine either unconditionally or upon
compliance with appropriate conditions.
When a violation is found, you may consider any or all of the following factors in
imposing a penalty:
1. Duration of the violation.
2. Frequency of reoccurrence of the violation.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 17
3. Seriousness of the violation.
4. History of the violation.
5. Violator’s conduct after issuance of the notice of hearing.
6. Good faith effort by the violator to comply.
7. Economic impact of the penalty on the violator.
8. Impact of the violation upon the community.
9. Other factors appropriate to a just result.
The Hearing Officer may not impose a fine greater than the established fine, but may
impose a penalty for each day of a continuing violation if:
(a) The violation caused a serious threat of harm to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or
(b) The accused intentionally and unreasonably refused to comply with the City Code
requirement.
4.6 Filing the Decision
The Hearing Officer should announce the decision at the end of the hearing. The Hearing
Officer may, however, take additional time to review evidence and reflect or because of
an emotional party.
The decision will be in writing on a form provided by the city, with a brief description of
the basis for the decision. A copy of the decision will be provided to the parties either at
the conclusion of the hearing, or if the decision was not announced at the hearing, it will
be mailed to the parties. It will also be available by contacting the Program
Administrator’s office.
If the Hearing Officer takes additional time to make a decision, it must be provided in
writing to the Program Administrator’s office within ten days of the hearing. That office
will mail a copy to the parties.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 18
Chapter 5 – Post-Hearing Procedures
5.1 Appeal
In most cases the Hearing Officer’s decision will be final without the right to make an
administrative appeal. The aggrieved party may, however, appeal the decision to district
court.
A decision in the following matters may be appealed to the City Council:
1. Failure to obtain a permit, license, or other approval from the City Council.
2. Violation of a permit, license, other approval, or the conditions attached,
which was granted by the City Council.
To exercise an appeal to the City Council, the person must submit a request in writing to
the Program Administrator within ten days after the Hearing Officer’s decision.
5.2 Time to Pay
The violator may have 30 days within which to pay the fine. A late payment fee of 10%
of the fine will be imposed for each 30-day period, or part thereof, after that time.
5.3 Consequences of Failure to Pay
If the person does not pay the fine, the City may:
1. Assess the penalty against real property in the City which was the subject of
the violation.
2. Commence a criminal proceeding in District Court for failing to pay.
3. Suspend or revoke a City issued license that is associated with the violation.
4. Obtain a judgment and begin collection procedures.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 19
Chapter 6 – Administrative Matters
6.1 Hearing Officer’s Fees
The Hearing Officer must submit to the Program Administrator a signed application for
fees on the form provided. No fees will be paid if any of the officer’s decisions have not
been timely filed, without good cause, at the Program Administrator’s office. The fee
will be XXXX per half day of hearings and $10 each for action on request for
disqualification, for a subpoena, for quashing a subpoena, or for a finding of good cause
for a nonappearance.
6.2 Custody of File
All exhibits submitted at the hearing and the tape recording of the hearing is to be given
to, and kept at, the Program Administrator’s office. If a party wishes to withdraw an
exhibit, the Program Administrator will make a copy to keep with the City’s file. The
Hearing Officer is not expected to retain his/her notes of the matter.
Study Session Meeting of June 13, 2011 (Item No. 14)
Subject: Proposed Administrative/Civil Penalty Ordinance Page 20