Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011/09/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session
AGENDA SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 19 and September 26, 2011 2. 6:35 p.m. Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up 3. 7:35 p.m. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review 4. 8:35 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 8:40 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 5. Fiber Network and Policy Study Update 6. Fire Stations Project Update Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting Date: September 12, 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 – September 19 and September 26, 2011. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session scheduled for September 19, 2011 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on September 26, 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 September 19, 2011 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on September 26, 2011. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning - September 19 and September 26, 2011 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 19 and September 26, 2011 Special Study Session, September 19, 2011 – 6:45 p.m. Tentative Discussion Item 1. SWLRT & Station Area Planning Update – Community Development (30 minutes) Discuss a potential structure for community input on the pending Southwest LRT designs, the SW Corridor Community Works projects, and the Beltline Station Area Design Guidelines planning project. 2. T.H. 169 Proposed Visual Barrier and Access Closure Update – Public Works (15 minutes) Discussion to consider whether the City should support this Mn/DOT proposed project. End of Meeting: 7:30 p.m. Study Session, September 26, 2011 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Evaluation of Housing Improvement Programs – Community Development (30 minutes) Discussion to determine how the St. Louis Park housing improvement programs are meeting the City’s Vision and housing goals, while also being beneficial for residents and cost effective. 3. Proposed Ellipse II Project – Community Development (45 minutes) Staff to introduce Bader Development’s purchase and redevelopment plans for 3924 Excelsior Blvd. (former American Inn property) along with the developer‘s request for TIF assistance to address the extraordinary site preparation costs involved with the site. 4. Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Update – Public Works (45 minutes) Discussion to update Council on the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Project, and Mn/DOT – City – Consultant roles and responsibilities associated with delivering this project; and to consider future project development activities. 5. Utility Rate Discussion – Public Works / Administrative Services (30 minutes) Present 2012 proposed Utility Rates and answer respective questions from Council. 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 7. Park Nicollet 3rd Amendment Redevelopment Grant 8. August 2011 Monthly Financial Report End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m. Meeting Date: September 12, 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: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide further information for Council discussion. Staff desires direction from the Council on moving forward. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff desires direction on the following policy questions related to future community recreation facilities: Based on the results of the survey work that has been undertaken this year, what are the specific civic or recreational amenities or facilities that the City Council would like to explore further? Is the City Council open to providing new or expanded civic or recreational amenities or facilities in partnership with other entities – public or private (e.g. School District, health clubs, JCC, etc)? What are the next steps the City Council would like to take to pursue the civic/recreational topic further (staff has provided a recommendation later in this report)? Are there other areas from the Decision Resources survey that the City Council would like to discuss or pursue further? BACKGROUND: Community Recreation Survey The Community Recreation Survey undertaken last January was designed for residents to complete the survey online or via paper copy in minimal time. The survey questions required residents to select an answer and a few of the questions allowed residents to write comments. Staff is very pleased with the number of people who took the survey. The goal was 1,000 completed surveys and the total number completed was 1,055. The vast majority of people completed the survey online. Parks and Recreation staff along with the consultant, Schoenbauer Consulting LLC, presented the results of the survey at the February 28, 2011 study session. The City Council then discussed the results in greater detail at the Council’s Workshop on March 12, 2011. At that time, Council direction was to ask follow up questions on the Decision Resources Survey to ensure that we were moving in the right direction. That survey has now been completed. Although the results were similar, there are some areas of difference. As a reminder, the community responded to the Community Recreation survey in the following way: Clearly public parks and recreation are important to residents. Nearly ninety percent of respondents (89.9%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. In terms of how the City is doing, over seventy-two Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up percent (72.3%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement: The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household’s park and recreation needs. While the majority of residents say the City is doing a good job, there is more that can be done to meet the needs and expectations of residents. When asked to rate how important it is to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities, the five rated the highest were: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 3. Natural open space 4. Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) 5. Indoor playground (play area; play equipment, etc. Interestingly, when asked to select exactly three facilities that are most important to add, trails again came out on top, but the order changed from there: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Swimming pool – indoor 3. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5. Natural open space When Decision Resources asked which additional recreation resources residents wanted to see, 89% supported or strongly supported the addition of trails and sidewalks. Since this is clearly a desire of the residents, staff is bringing back an aggressive trails and sidewalk plan for the City Council to consider. In addition to trails and sidewalks, the following are the other ranking areas of interest (very interested or somewhat interested) on the Decision Resources survey: 71% indoor pool 69% indoor walking/running track 68% fitness and exercise area 53% areas to socialize 52% indoor playground area 50% gymnasium space Next Steps In order to determine the course of action for moving forward, it will be important for the City Council to reach consensus on the first two policy questions noted earlier in this report. In order for that to be achieved staff would recommend the following as next steps: To help answer the policy question on those amenities or facilities that should be expanded or added to the community, staff would recommend bringing in an expert in this area who can supplement what we have learned from the survey work. While the survey results are valuable to help understand what our residents desire in the near term, given societal and demographic changes that are coming to our community in the longer term, staff feels it would also be important for the Council to look forward to the types of amenities that our community will be asking for in the future (15 – 20 years from now). Once clarity is reached on the types of civic or recreational amenities or facilities the City Council is interested in pursuing, staff would recommend the City Council take a tour of these types of facilities in other communities Develop and implement a process for continuing to engage the public in this matter. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Decisions Resources, Inc. Community Residential Survey Decision Resources Inc. conducted a city-wide residential survey this past spring. Consultants from Decisions Resources presented the survey findings to Council at the June 27, 2011 study session. Council was interested in seeing the cross tabs and the final report which will be available for check out from the Clerk’s Office in October. As Decision Resources pointed out in their executive summary: The city enterprise is viewed as exceptionally strong. City services are well-regarded. City government and staff are rated very positively. Residents rate their quality of life impressively high and place a value on maintaining the diversity, sense of community, and strong neighborhoods that are a hallmark of St. Louis Park. The City continues to have a great reservoir of goodwill across the community, and has clearly enhanced this during the past three years. The community is one of the most positive and satisfied in the Metropolitan Area. In addition to the follow-up from the Community Recreation Survey discussed above, Council has given us direction to be aware of survey results related to the following specific areas: Environmental Stewardship Communication methods Continue awareness of our diverse and changing population Continue to support neighborhoods To keep the positive momentum from the 2011 survey, here are a few simple examples of what staff is doing: Organizational Development is offering a Comprehensive Communications Boot Camp and training in customer service later this fall. The department head and supervisor retreat will include a focus on neighborhoods. The Inspections and Communications departments will promote the Report a Problem (RAP) line. Vision Check-In in 2012. The data from the community survey will be used to help develop the questions for the community conversation on Vision. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time VISION CONSIDERATION: The residential survey questions were aligned with Vision St. Louis Park and the Council’s strategic directions. The community recreation survey directly related to the Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use”. Attachments: Civic/Recreational Facilities Survey Executive Summary 2011 Decision Resources Summary of Findings Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Park and Recreation Director Marney Olson, Community Liaison Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY SURVEY OF FUTURE CIVIC AND/OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDS AND INTEREST Conducted by: Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 5054 Drew Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 Kathy Schoenbauer, Co-Founder keschoenbauer@gmail.com Jeff Schoenbauer, Co-Founder jaschoenbauer@gmail.com February 2011 Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 4 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background & Objectives The primary objective of the survey was to give all residents of the City of St. Louis Park the opportunity to respond to a survey that would assist the City in determining top priorities for future civic and/or recreational facilities needs and interests. During 2005 – 2007 the City of St. Louis Park was involved in a Visioning process. As a result, the City Council developed four Strategic Directions. One of the strategic directions was “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.” From that strategic direction, one of the focus areas was to explore the creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. From the Visioning process, staff compiled some preliminary information on this topic. This survey was designed with input from the Visioning process, staff and Council. The results of the survey will be used to help determine priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation and civic facilities. The upcoming city-wide phone survey of residents may be used to further test some of the ideas that result from this survey. Methodology & Who Responded The survey was administered online and via paper. One-thousand fifty-five (1,055) people responded. The City should be pleased with this response level as it reflects quite positively on the City. Whereas all residents were given the opportunity to respond, keep in mind that respondents to an open survey are typically those that are most involved and interested in the subject. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. (Note: respondents were asked to respond to the survey from the perspective of their household.) Key Results Clearly public parks and recreation are important to residents. Nearly ninety percent of respondents (89.9%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. In terms of how the City is doing, over seventy-two percent (72.3%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household’s park and recreation needs. While the majority of residents say the City is doing a good job, there is more that can be done to meet the needs and expectations of residents. When asked to rate how important it is to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities, the five rated the highest are: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 3. Natural open space 4. Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) 5. Indoor playground (play area; play equipment, etc.) Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 5 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 3 Interestingly, when asked to select exactly three facilities that are most important to add, trails again came out on top, but the order changed from there: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Swimming pool – indoor 3. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5. Natural open space While the two lists are not identical, it is clear that the top priority for future community park, recreation and civic facilities is trails. By examining the responses to open-ended questions, one gains greater insight into specific issues about trails. The most frequent comments include the need for north/south trails; trail connections; and that trails (and in some cases sidewalks) are needed to get to park and recreation facilities safely. After trails, an indoor park/recreation facility is a priority for respondents. Many people envision such a facility serving a number of desired functions – indoor recreation space, indoor playground, fitness equipment, track and pool. Respondents often mentioned the need for an indoor park much like those in other communities, such as Edinborough in Edina. Natural open space is also a priority for respondents. One respondent described its importance by saying “Not to give any more green space away - it is what makes SLP special.” Respondents were asked about limitations to use of public parks and trails and participating in recreation activities or programs. As one might expect, lack of time is cited most frequently. In terms of limitations that the City can directly address, respondent most often said: • Facilities are not suited to my needs • Programs are not to my liking • Cost of programs & facilities In an effort to understand how to best allocate resources by age group, respondents were asked to indicate how important they think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places by age group. Respondents see the greatest need in the 13 – 17 year old age group, followed closely by those in the 6 – 12 year old age group. Next in line in terms of priority are seniors. Young children, under 5 years old, were the lowest priority for which to provide additional recreation facilities. Respondents were asked “If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places?” The most frequent response was an indoor play & fitness area. Some went on to say that it should be a space that would have classes for activities such as exercise, yoga and cooking; and that it should be an indoor space with greenery and provide the opportunity to walk indoors. People also talked about an interest in having a place to socialize, hold meetings, and rent space for personal events (e.g., weddings). Additionally, they commented that a public gathering place should be a place with a coffee shop and healthy food. Last, some people specifically said the Rec Center should be upgraded for a better public gathering place. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 6 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 4 The survey asked respondents about user fees and taxes. Specifically, they were asked if the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would they be willing to pay in additional user fees or taxes to add what’s missing? Over four-fifths of respondents said they would be willing to pay more to add what’s missing. Roughly one-third of respondents said they would be willing to pay $9/month additional; approximately one-quarter said $6/month and $3/month. At the end of the survey, many people acknowledged the good work the Parks and Recreation Department is doing and noted their appreciation for conducting the survey/asking for their opinion. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 7 DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2011 City of Saint Louis Park Residential Study Residential Demographics: Saint Louis Park is a mature and highly stable community. Transience has diminished significantly: only four percent of the city’s population anticipates moving during the next five years. The median longevity of adult residents is 16.2 years. Nineteen percent of the sample report moving to the city during the past five years, while 40% has been there over two decades. Three reasons are given by 60% of the sample for moving to Saint Louis Park: affordable housing at 17%, proximity to work at 23%, and high quality schools at 20%. While only four percent of the sample expect to move out of Saint Louis Park during the next five years; in contrast, 82% intend to remain in the community for at least ten years. Most potential move- outs cite higher end housing as the reason for leaving. The average age of respondents is 50.6 years old. While 22% of the sample fall into the 18-34 year age range, 18% are at least 65 years old. Twenty-three percent of the households contain seniors; in fact, 15% are composed only of senior citizens. Twenty-five percent of the city’s households have school-aged children, and nine percent contain pre-schoolers. Among households with school-aged children, 88% send their children to Saint Louis Park Public Schools, six percent use open enrollment, four percent enroll them in parochial or private schools, and one percent, charter schools. Sixty-five percent own their present residence. Sixty-two percent of the respondents live in single family homes, 22% reside in apartments, 13%, in townhouses or condominiums, and three percent in duplexes. Whites compose 77% of the sample. Ten percent are African-American, while four percent each are Hispanic-Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, or bi-racial. Women outnumber men by four percent. The median household income is $50,750.00 annually, a decline of $7,750.00 in the two and one-half years since the last study. Ten percent report incomes under $25,000.00, while 10% post annual incomes over $100,000.00. Thirteen percent of the households have only land-lines, while 22% have only cellular-phones. Finally, 66% report the presence of both in their households. Residents are classified according to the ward in which they live. Twenty-six percent reside in Ward One. Twenty-seven percent live in Ward Two, and 25% reside in Ward Three. Twenty-two percent live in Ward Four. General Perspectives: A very solid 97% rate the quality of life as either excellent or good; an even more impressive 77% rate it as excellent. The excellent rating is the second highest in the Metropolitan Area. Only two Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 8 suggestions for improvements are suggested by over five percent of the residents: better road repair by 10%, and a solution to the train issue, by seven percent. Convenient location within the Metropolitan Area and a sense of community are the most liked feature of the city, at 16% each. Close to shopping and parks and trails follow closely, cited by 13% each. Closeness to work, quiet and peaceful, safe, nice neighborhoods, and closeness to friends and family are posted by between five and eight percent. In thinking about serious issues facing the city, 18% point to the train issue. High taxes and rising crime are next, at eight percent. Lack of school funding and traffic congestion hit five percent. Twelve percent, over twice the suburban norm, are boosters and do not see any serious issue facing the community. Public Safety Issues: Ninety-five percent report they have an overall feeling of safety in Saint Louis Park. The five percent who do not share this feeling are primarily concerned about rising crime. Eighty percent feel safe walking in my neighborhood alone at night, a 15% increase since the 2008 study. Fifty-one percent are part of our area’s Neighborhood Watch, one of the highest in the Metropolitan Area. Seventy-one percent participated in National Night Out activities in the community, again one of the highest in the Metropolitan Area. Ninety-four percent think they can rely on my neighbors for help in a safety- threatening situation, up seven percent in three years. Seventy-six percent participated in block parties in my neighborhood, a 14% increase in three years and the highest level of participation in the suburbs. Fourteen percent report contacting the Fire Department during the past two years, double the 2008 level. Seventy-seven percent rate the quality of service provided by the Fire Department as excellent, the highest level in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Twenty-seven percent contacted the Police Department during the past two years, an increase of nine percent from the 2008 level. A solid 97% rate the quality of service favorably; in fact, 46% rate the quality as excellent, placing the Police Department in the top decile of Metropolitan Area communities. Twenty-five percent report contact with the Inspection Department during the past two years; a solid 83% rated the quality of service as either excellent or good, while 16% rate it lower. Strictness of the codes is the major complaint among this smaller group. Transportation Issues: Forty percent report they leave the City of Saint Louis Park on a daily or almost daily basis to go to work, school, or some other place. Forty-six percent do not leave the City, and 14% report they are unemployed or retired. Among residents leaving the City on a daily basis, 89% rate their ease of getting to and from their destination as either excellent or good; twelve percent, though, are more negative in their judgment. Forty-two percent go to Minneapolis, fourteen percent drive to Hopkins or Minnetonka, 13% go to Bloomington or Edina, and nine percent commute to Golden Valley or New Hope. A very high 93% rate the ease of getting from place to place within the City of Saint Louis Park as either excellent or good; only seven percent see it as only fair. Critics cite too much traffic, at 42%, and not enough public transportation, at 24%. City Taxes and Services: When evaluating specific city services, the mean approval rating is 91.3%, well within the top quartile of suburban ratings. Among those having opinions, over 90% rate police protection, fire protection, recycling, brush pick-up, garbage pick-up, storm drainage and flood control, park maintenance, City- sponsored recreation programs, animal control, and maintenance of trails and sidewalks. Between 80% and 89% similarly rate snow plowing, street lighting, and snow plowing of trails and sidewalks. Sixty- Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 9 eight percent rate city street repair and maintenance as either excellent or good, but 32% rate this service lower; this lower positive rating is still over 35% higher than the suburban norm and is among the highest in the Metropolitan Area. A very solid 89% rate Saint Louis Park city services in comparison with neighboring communities as either excellent or good. Only three percent are more critical. The 89%-3% ratio is the highest in the Metropolitan Area suburbs. Seventy-six percent also rate the general value of city services the quality of city services in terms of the property taxes they pay as either excellent or good, while eight percent judge it to be only fair or poor. The over nine-to-one ratio of positive-to-negative ratings is one of the highest in the Metropolitan Area. A very significant 84% think the City of Saint Louis Park’s emphasis on environmental concerns is about right. More comprehensive recycling is the only suggestion for changing current practices. By a solid 83%-5% margin, residents think the City should continue to promote energy efficiency improvements in residential homes. Similarly, by an 85%-3% margin, residents think the City should continue to promote the construction of energy-efficient public buildings and infrastructure, such as street lights. Even if the continuation of undertaking these measures would cost taxpayers more up front, a 57% majority would still support the programs. Fifty-four percent are aware of Saint Louis Park Children First initiative. Among residents reporting awareness, 49% are also aware of the set of forty developmental assets focused on by this initiative for assuring the success of city children. And, among residents who are aware of the forty assets, 47% are involved in activities to help the asset-building process. Eighty-two percent are aware of STEP, Saint Louis Park Emergency Program, the City’s non-profit food shelf. City Hall: A very high 78% feel they can have an impact of the way things are run in Saint Louis Park, and only nine percent feel they cannot. The nine percent who feel unempowered is 20% lower than the suburban average. A large majority of Saint Louis Park residents, then, feel connected to their local decision- makers. Forty-eight percent report having a great deal or fair amount of knowledge about the work of the Mayor and City Council. A very high 75% either strongly approve or approve of their job, while only eight percent register disapproval. This level of approval is also among the top decile of Metropolitan Area suburbs. A relatively high 14% report they contacted the Mayor or City Council during the past year. During the past year, 30% either contacted City Hall by telephone or in-person. Forty-nine percent report their last contact was a personal visit, while 40% telephoned City Staff. Eleven percent made the contact through e-mail, and one percent did so by social media. Five Departments received over 70% of the contacts: Inspections, Public Works Department, General Information, Police Department, and Street Maintenance. In rating the last contact with respect to aspects of customer service, 92% rate the ease of reaching a City Staff member who could help either excellent or good, while 94% similarly rate the courtesy of the City Staff highly. Ninety-one percent rate the promptness of response as either excellent or good, and 94% also highly rate treatment with respect and dignity. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 10 Community and Neighborhood: When looking at their community, a large majority of residents think there are about the right number of apartment units, higher cost housing, affordable housing, starter homes for young families, large family size homes, and condominiums and townhouses. But, 28% think there are too many apartment units and 21% rate the number of condominiums and townhouses the same way. Majorities of residents having opinions also feel there are about the right number of assisted living for seniors, nursing homes, and one-level housing for seniors maintained by an association; however, in each case, between 27% and 34% are unsure. Seventy percent rate the general redevelopment in the City of Saint Louis Park positively; only 15% give it a negative rating. And, by a solid 68%-14% margin, residents support the continued redevelopment of the community. They would like efforts focused on attracting more businesses and improving aesthetics. Specific preferred retail stores for attraction to the community include Wal-Mart and Herbergers; specific preferred service businesses to attract include restaurants and, specifically, ethnic restaurants. Only 13% are unable to indicate the neighborhood in which they reside. Thirty-three percent think the appearance of their neighborhood improved during the past few years, while six percent feel it has declined. Sixty-one percent, though, think the appearance has remained about the same during the past few years. Over ninety percent of respondents having opinions feel: homes in my neighborhood are well-maintained, people know and care about their neighbors and participate in solving problems with their business and residential neighbors, would feel comfortable in discussing neighborhood problems with my neighbors, this neighborhood is a good place to raise children, people have pride and ownership in our neighborhood, and I feel a part of my neighborhood. Ninety-seven percent rate the overall aesthetics of residential neighborhood in Saint Louis Park as either excellent or good; only three percent are more critical. Ratings are similar, 93%, on the overall esthetics of commercial and retail areas in Saint Louis Park; only eight percent disagree. Only Texa- Tonka is viewed by more than five percent as a specific area where aesthetics should be improved. Seventy-nine percent report there are no problem properties in their neighborhood. Six percent think there are problem properties because of poor lawn care. Fifty-six percent are aware they can report a problem with a property by using the Inspections Department’s Report a Problem (RAP) line or report a problem using e-mail. Sixty-four percent rate the general condition and appearance of homes in the community highly; however, 36% are more critical. Over the past two years, 74% think the appearance of their neighborhood has remained about the same. Ten percent feel it improved, and 17% see a decline. Community Diversity: Seventy-five percent think the growing population diversity is a good thing, while 16% see it as either a bad thing or both good and bad. Reasons for seeing growing diversity as a good thing Eighty-four percent think the City is either very well or somewhat well prepared to meet the growing diversity of residents; only two percent disagree. Disagreement is primarily based on the lack of ethnic businesses, economic segregation, rising crime, and lack of low income housing. Ninety-eight percent report they, themselves, feel welcomed in the community; only one percent disagree. Ninety-six percent feel accepted by the community and, again, only one percent disagree. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 11 Parks and Recreation Issues: By an 89%-7% margin, residents support the City continuing to build trails and sidewalks. But opinions are more split on the issue of a property tax increase or user fee to fund the City providing additional recreation or civic amenities to residents: forty-seven percent would support, while 34% would oppose, and 20% are uncertain. Seventy-one percent say they are at least somewhat interested in a new indoor swimming pool. Similarly, 69% view a new indoor walking and running track the same way, and 68% think the same about a new fitness area with exercise equipment. Fifty-seven percent are at least somewhat interested in areas for classes, such as exercise and yoga, while 53% are interested in areas for residents to socialize, 52%, in an indoor playground area, and 50% think the same about gymnasium space. Forty- five percent are either very interested or somewhat interested in meeting rooms, and 36% are at least somewhat interested in an artificial turf athletic field. Eighty-two percent think the City of Saint Louis Park has enough places for residents in civic groups, neighborhood associations, school organizations or businesses to meet; five percent disagree and would like to see either another community center or a banquet facility in the community. Communications: The local newspaper, at 42%, dominates the principal sources of information about City government and activities. Twenty percent rely upon the City’s website, while 19% use the City Newsletter. Five percent each opt for the grapevine or cable television. Thirty percent each would prefer e-mail or local television news as the means of receiving emergency information and notifications, such as snow emergencies. Fifteen percent would prefer automated telephone calls, while seven percent each would like to be notified by radio and text messages. Twenty-three percent either frequently or occasionally watch City-produced programming, double the suburban norm. Seventeen percent of households in the community do not have access to the Internet. Forty-eight percent connect to Broadband Cable, 18% use DSL, and 16% have a wireless hook-up. An unusually high 74% of those on the Internet accessed the City’s website. Among those accessing the website, a solid 94% evaluate the content as either excellent or good, and 81% evaluate the ease of navigation the same way. Saint Louis Park Public Schools: Seventy-nine percent rate the quality of education provided by the Saint Louis Public Schools as either excellent or good; seventeen percent rate it as excellent. Six percent rate the quality lower, and 16% are unsure. Sixty-three percent think the School District did a good job of holding down costs while protecting the quality of education; only eight percent disagree, and 29% are unsure. Twenty-nine percent report household members took classes or participated in an activity at a school or the Lenox or Central Community Centers during the past year. Fourteen percent took two or more classes during the past year, while 12% took one class. Twenty-seven percent view the District Newsletter as their primary source of information. Eighteen percent use the local newspaper, fifteen percent, the grapevine, and twelve percent, the School District website. But, 12% report they have no primary source of information at all. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 12 Concluding Thoughts: In this survey, Saint Louis Park residents express an optimism and satisfaction virtually unique among Metropolitan Area suburbs, in particular within the inner suburban ring. Stability is increasing, with 82% having no plans to move from the community during the next ten years. A continuing success of the community lies in the way it has embraced diversity. Another success is the sense of community and connectedness fostered over the years. 1. High taxes, redevelopment, and crime are no longer key serious issues for many residents. This should be no surprise given the widespread participation in Neighborhood Watch and National Night Out, the favorable receptions of the West End and Excelsior and Grand, and the high value placed on city services. 2. The Saint Louis Park City enterprise remains very well regarded by residents. Contact levels with the City Council and City Staff are higher than suburban norms. The job evaluations of both groups are strongly positive and impressive in comparison with other Metropolitan Area suburban communities. Dissatisfaction with policy-makers and policy-implementers is very low. And, interactions with City Hall prove to be uniformly very positive. Similarly, an unusually high percentage of residents feel they could have a say about the way things are run in the community. 3. Saint Louis Park registers among the highest excellent ratings across the Metropolitan Area. The 77% excellent rating of the quality of life is the second highest across the suburbs. Underpinning the quality of life rating is the connectedness among neighbors: residents feel at ease with them, and more important, feel they can rely upon them if the need arose. In addition, participation in neighborhood activities is among the highest in the Metropolitan Area. The strength and cohesiveness of neighborhoods now even exceeds the traditional leader, the City of Minneapolis. 4. Residents rate city services uniformly high. Among residents with opinions, the mean rating of city services is 91.3%. The lowest positive rating is on city street repair and maintenance, at 68%; even so, this positive rating is about 30% higher than the suburban norm. Removing this service, which tends to be lowest rated in most communities, the mean positive rating is 93.1%, among the highest across the Metropolitan Area. In addition, a very high 89% rate Saint Louis Park city services in comparison with neighboring communities as either excellent or good, while a similarly very high 76% rate the value of city services the same way. Residents also rate the City very favorably on its environmental emphasis, endorses its promotion of residential energy efficiency improvements as well as its promoting the construction of energy- efficient public buildings and infrastructure. Even more uncommon among suburban communities, 57% would still support these programs even if they cost taxpayers more up-front. 5. Residents are very supportive of redevelopment efforts. They substantially approve of current redevelopment efforts and support their continuation. In particular, residents endorse the improvement of city aesthetics and the attraction of businesses to the community. The only change in redevelopment strategy that many residents would urge is a prioritization of senior housing, especially senior assisted living facilities and one-level housing for seniors maintained by an association. 6. The communications linkage between the City and its residents is solid. A notable change is the decline in the City Newsletter as a principal source of information replaced by an increase in reliance on the City website. A comparatively high 57% of the community’s households accessed the City’s website, while an impressive 23% watch City-produced programming at least occasionally. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 13 Once again, the city enterprise is viewed as exceptionally strong. City services are well-regarded. City government and staff are rated very positively. Residents rate their quality of life impressively high and place a value on maintaining the diversity, sense of community, and strong neighborhoods that are a hallmark of Saint Louis Park. The City continues to have a great reservoir of goodwill across the community, and has clearly enhanced this during the past three years. The community is one of the most positive and satisfied in the Metropolitan Area. Methodology: Decision Resources, Ltd. contacted 400 randomly selected households in the City of Saint Louis Park. Residents were interviewed by telephone between April 17th and May 19th, 2011. The average interview took 31 minutes. The results of this sample may be projected to the universe of all adult residents of the City of Saint Louis Park within 5.0% in 95 out of 100 cases. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 2) Subject: Community Recreation and Residential Survey Follow Up Page 14 Meeting Date: September 12, 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: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction from the City Council on the policy considerations identified below. POLICY CONSIDERATION: 1. Does the proposed 10-year capital improvement plan summary meet City Council’s expectations? a. Should staff develop a specific process and financing plan to implement the proposed 10- year plan? b. Does City Council support adding the resources to design, deliver and maintain the proposed bicycle and pedestrian system expansion? 2. Does City Council want more history on the how and why the City identified community vs. neighborhood sidewalks? 3. Does City Council want to proceed with taking over maintenance (snow plowing) of neighborhood sidewalks? a. Is additional information on sidewalk maintenance policies needed? b. Do maintenance standards need to be improved, remain the same, or be decreased for Community Sidewalks and Neighborhood sidewalks? BACKGROUND: At the June 6, 2011 Study Session Council discussed implementing the recently developed pedestrian and bicycle system plan. The results of Vision St. Louis Park and recent community surveys have shown strong support for expanding the City’s system of sidewalk and trails. In addition, Council also discussed the current system of community and neighborhood sidewalks. As a result of the discussion Council requested staff to: 1. Prepare a capital improvement program (CIP) utilizing a proactive, high priority approach to implement the recently developed pedestrian and bicycle improvement plan along with resources needed to implement this improvement program 2. Provide information used in the past to identify the community vs. neighborhood sidewalk systems 3. Provide information related to taking over maintenance responsibility of the neighborhood sidewalk system Proposed Capital Plan Based on Council feedback on June 6, Staff has prepared a detailed draft CIP utilizing a proactive, high priority approach to build all the trails, community sidewalks, on-street bikeways, and bridges identified in the Active Living, Sidewalks and Trail Plan within 10 years. Higher priority projects would be implemented earlier in the CIP, unless there were efficiencies gained by timing construction with other capital improvements planned in the area (based on the Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Public Works current 10-year CIP). All improvement types (sidewalks, trails, bikeways, etc.) were treated more or less equally in terms of priority. This plan is shown in summary form in Exhibit A at this time. The detailed CIP listing specific projects and map locations will be provided at a future Study Session. The costs provided in Exhibit A are from the 2009 study and were based on unit costs to construct sidewalks, trails or bikeways. The costs shown do not account for inflation, engineering, contingencies, right-of- way acquisition and other unknown project costs. Public Works feels these factors will significantly add to the cost shown and project the total cost to build the improvements proposed in the $15 - $20 million dollar range. Various departments will have a role in implementing the plan. Public Works would lead in constructing the proposed improvements. Community Development would have a supporting role in the public process of moving from planning to implementation. Parks and Recreation will lead in the refurbishing of existing trails (to the extent they are included in the plan). Public Works feels it will be necessary to add an engineer to develop and deliver these projects in the proposed 10-year time period. This engineering position is included in the City’s 2012 budget. The need for additional engineering staff will need to be evaluated depending on how aggressive this initiative moves forward. Some consultant usage will be necessary when bridges, complex situations, or workload issues arise. As a part of this plan, Council should expect total engineering costs for this work to range from $3 to $4 million or more which are included in the total $15 - $20 million dollar range identified above. Maintaining an Expanded System Maintenance costs associated with this system expansion are more difficult to determine based on a 10-year build out of these projects. Costs and maintenance needs will increase incrementally while the system(s) are being built. It is easier to project what maintenance needs will be after the completion of this work. Public Works estimates the additional annual costs to maintain the proposed expanded system as follows: 1. Community Sidewalks (14.2 additional miles) would increase annual maintenance costs (repairs and snow removal) approximately $34,000 in present day costs (current annual maintenance costs are approximately $160,000) 2. Trails (3 additional miles) would increase annual maintenance costs (repairs and snow removal) approximately $9,000 in present day costs (current annual maintenance costs are approximately $100,000) 3. On-street Bikeways (27 additional miles) would increase annual maintenance costs (striping and signing) approximately $25,000 in present day costs (current annual maintenance costs are approximately $500) It is estimated at that one and possibly two additional Public Service Workers will need to be added between now and 2023 to provide the additional maintenance associated with these improvements. Should contractors be utilized for future maintenance work, staff may need to be reorganized to provide for additional contract managers to oversee this type of work. Sidewalk System Information St. Louis Park has 110.6 miles of sidewalks (Exhibit B), 43.1 miles of trails (Exhibit C), and 5 miles of on-street bikeways. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review There have been four major sidewalk planning efforts in the City since the 1970s. Since at least 1975, the City of St. Louis Park plans and policies have recognized a hierarchy of sidewalks. This hierarchy helps the City optimize use of public resources to achieve maximum benefit for its residents, workforce and other visitors. The sidewalk hierarchy is generally based on the geographic context and continuity of a sidewalk. A sidewalk’s level of importance influences sidewalk use, design, and maintenance. Continuous sidewalks along major roads with higher traffic counts and higher speeds are more important than segments of sidewalks on low traffic, low speed streets. Commercial areas, schools and parks draw people from beyond the immediate neighborhood and people gather and spend time there, so sidewalks leading to these destinations are also seen as more important. Similarly, sidewalks connecting to transit stops, pedestrian bridges, and major crossings of barriers such as railroad tracks, highways and waterways benefit multiple neighborhoods and the broader community. The Comprehensive Plan divides sidewalks into two categories: community sidewalks and neighborhood sidewalks. There are an estimated 47.9 miles of community sidewalks and 62.7 miles of neighborhood sidewalks. Community Sidewalks These are walks described as being of general public interest that create a network to major points of interest such as schools, shopping areas, and parks. Installation and maintenance of these sidewalks are a City responsibility at City cost. Snow removal on these walks is the responsibility of the City to a standard that meets at least minimum City Ordinance requirements. Approximately 47.9 miles of sidewalk (43%) are designated as community sidewalks. Neighborhood Sidewalks These are walks described as being more of localized public interest and use. They provide accessibility for pedestrians within the immediate area. Most Neighborhood sidewalks were generally built in the past by the city at resident cost (special assessment); these are mostly built by developers at their cost at this time. The presence (or lack thereof) and the design (sidewalk width) varies by residential subdivision and the era it was built. By ordinance, repairs to these sidewalks are the responsibility of the adjacent property owner at their cost. However, in recent years, the City has undertaken the responsibility of inspecting and repairing these sidewalks at City cost. This was done as a convenience to property owners. Snow removal on these walks is Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to a standard that meets City Ordinance requirements or better. Approximately 62.7 miles of sidewalk (57%) are designated as neighborhood walks. Council requested staff provide information related to taking over responsibility for neighborhood sidewalks in the city. The following table contains information regarding sidewalk maintenance (snow removal) performed in other cities: City Survey Year City Maintained Resident Maintained Maintained by Other Total Miles St. Louis Park 2011 45.7 60.5 4.4 110.6 Bloomington 2004 300 - - 300 Crystal 2011 24.5 2 - 26.5 Edina 2011 25 - - 25 Golden Valley 2011 44 - - 44 Hopkins 2011 2.5 19.5 - 22 Minnetonka 2004 26.5 - - 26.5 New Hope 2011 28.5 - - 28.5 Plymouth 2004 70 - - 70 Richfield 2011 41.5 - - 41.5 Robbinsdale 2011 - all - ? Community sidewalk maintenance costs average about $75,000 / yr for snow removal (45.7 miles) and $85,000 / yr for repairs (108.4 miles). These walks are a minimum of 5 feet wide – most are 6 feet or more in width. Taking over responsibility for Neighborhood Sidewalks would mainly consist of providing for snow removal for about 50 miles of 5’ wide sidewalk and 10.5 miles of sidewalk less than 5’ wide. Staff has identified the following snow removal options to provide for snow removal for these 60.5 miles of neighborhood walks: 1. City provided – 6 additional routes (6 new workers and 6 new machines) increasing costs by about $465,000 / yr. 2. Resident provided (city to provide free snow blowers to volunteers) – costs could range up to $265,000 / yr. Please note that this alternative needs to be analyzed further to determine feasibility. 3. Contractor provided – staff has not found any contractors interested in providing this service; this is not an option. 4. Leave as is. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. If Council decides to expand the system of Community sidewalks and trails via a capital program, a source of capital ($15 - $20 million dollar range) and maintenance funds ($34,000 annually in present day costs) will need to be identified as there are no funds available for these purposes at this time. A likely source for the capital costs would be the issuance of GO Bonds. The likely source for the maintenance costs would be the General Fund. If Council decides to take over responsibility for the Neighborhood Sidewalk system, a source of funds will need to be identified (up to $465,000 / yr depending on snow removal option preferred). Again – a likely source of funding would be the General Fund. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review In addition, both engineering and maintenance staff will need to be increased as described above to build and to maintain the desired systems. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus areas have been identified by Council. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. Attachments: Exhibit A – Draft CIP (Summary) Exhibit B – Sidewalks Exhibit C – Trails Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Sean Walther, Senior Planner Assisted by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager IDYearLength (ft) Sidewalks Bikeways Bike Lanes Trails BridgesBridgeSidewalks Bikeways Bike Lanes Trails Bridges Totals1201215,357 2,264 6,631 4,000 2,4620$100,000 $12,000 $34,000 $106,000$0 $252,0002201323,296 3,593 6,221 11,628 1,8540$142,000 $11,000 $99,500 $107,000$0 $359,5003201434,376 1,112 25,689 2,886 4,6891Minnehaha Creek$44,000 $46,000 $25,000 $205,000 $100,000 $420,0004201523,897 2,583 9,29006,7031BNSF @ Hwy 100$113,000 $14,300 $46,000 $311,000 $2,900,000 $3,384,3005201613,603 5,612 2,972 5,01900$242,000 $5,000 $43,000$0$0 $290,0006201728,948 8,442 4,185 16,32100$368,000 $7,000 $140,000$0$0 $515,0007201815,486 5,808 9,678001 BNSF @ Dakota / Edgewood $253,000 $15,000$0$0 $2,000,000 $2,268,0008201912,480 12,4800000$544,000$0$0$0$0 $544,0009202024,517 5,604 10,737 8,17600$247,000 $16,000 $72,000$0$0 $335,00010202119,511 7,165 12,346000$536,500 $20,000$0$0$0 $556,50011202215,918 8,914 7,004000$387,000 $12,000$0$0$0 $399,00012202311,229 11,2290000$486,000$0$0$0$0 $486,00013 Sidewalk - Future (Proposed)74,806$3,462,50014 Bikeway - Future (Proposed)94,753$158,30015 Bike Lane - Future (Proposed)48,030$459,50016 Trail - New (Future-Proposed)15,708$729,00017 Ped Bridges - Future (Proposed)3$5,000,000Miles 14.217.99.13.0Totals$3,462,500 $158,300 $459,500 $729,000 $5,000,000 $9,809,300PW - CIP SUMMARY 2012 thru 2023 (Sidewalks, Bikeways, Bike Lanes, Trails, and Ped Bridges)Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy ReviewPage 6 I-394 HWY 7HIGHWAY 169CEDAR LA K E R D MINNETONKA BLVD 29TH ST WLOUISIANA AVE SWALKER ST LAKE ST W TEXAS AVE S28TH ST W 31ST ST W EXCEL SI O R B L V DDAKOTA AVE S35TH ST W IDAHO AVE SWAY Z A T A B L V D OXFO R D S TFLAG AVE SLOUISIANA AVE S (E)FRANCE AVE SFORD RDLOUISIANA AVE S (W)FLORIDA AVE S40TH ST WSUMTER AVE S27TH ST W GEORGIA AVE SWOODDALE AVEHIGHWAY 100RHODE ISLAND AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SLI B R A R Y L A SERVICE D R H W Y 3 9 4 S 33RD ST W JERSEY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S39TH ST W 32ND ST W COLORADO AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SALABAMA AVE SZARTHAN AVE S36TH ST W UTICA AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SOTTAWA AVE S26TH ST W CO. Rd. 25 42ND ST WWEBSTER AVE SGORHAM AVE 25TH ST W 14TH ST W 38TH ST WCAMBRIDGE ST SERVICE DR HWY 7 S PARK G L E N R D 34TH ST W RALEIGH AVE SBELT LINE BLVDOREGON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SJOPPA AVE SSERVICE DR HWY 7 NHUNTINGTON AVE SVERNON AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N GLENHURST AVEDIVISION ST QUENTIN AVE S25 1/2 ST W AQUILA LALYNN AVE SCLUB RD SHELARD PKWY 16TH ST W TOLEDO AVE SFOR E S T R D EDGE B R O O K D R SERVICE DR HWY 100ENEVADA AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVEMELROSE AVE S23RD ST W 18 T H S T W 36 1/2 ST W 13TH LA 22ND ST W INGLEWOOD AVE S37TH ST W XENWOOD AVE SBROOK AVEUTAH AVE S24TH S T W MARYLAND AVE SSALEM AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS DRBASSWOOD RD MONTEREY AVE SMACKEY AVENATCHEZ AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SXYLON AVE SUTAH DRHospital service drivePOWELL RD GAMBLE DR 22ND LA DART AVEZAR'I'HAN AVE SA Q U I L A A V E S ( E )QUEBEC AVE SAQUILA AVE S36TH ST W (S)KILMER AVEJORDAN AVE STAFT AVEPRINCETON AVE SCAVELL AVE SRIDGE DRFORD LA MEADOWBROOK LAHILLSBORO AVE SGENERAL MILLS BLVDPHILLIPS PKWYGLEN PLDECATUR AVE S42 1/2 ST W HILL L N S JOPPA AVE SIDAHO AVE SALABAMA AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE S24TH ST W SALEM AVE S28TH S T W 33RD ST W 26TH ST WHILLSBORO AVE STEXAS AVE SJORDAN AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SXENWOOD AVE S28TH S T W 36TH ST W UTAH AVE SNEVADA AVE SUTICA AVE SWEBSTER AVE SWAYZATA BLVD SUMTER AVE SFORD R D TOLEDO AVE SUTICA AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE S26TH ST W LYNN AVE SUTICA AVE S34TH ST W ZARTHAN AVE SALABAMA AVE SFRANCE AVE SIDAHO AVE S32ND ST W 33RD ST W GLENHURST AVECEDAR LAKE RD VERNON AVE S25 1/2 ST W VERNON AVE SALABAMA AVE S16TH ST W 28TH ST W 25TH ST W YOSEMITE AVE SQUENTIN AVE S35TH ST WTOLEDO AVE S31ST ST W 34TH ST W Sidewalk Snow Removal Maintenance Responsibility Legend Sidewalks Maintenance Responsibility City Owned City Maintained 45.7 miles/241,531 feet City Owned SSD Maintained 2.2 miles/11,818 feet Privately Owned Resident Maintained 60.5 miles/319,680 feet Privately Owned Developer Maintained 2.2 miles/11,508 feet 5/13/2011tw ± Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 7 I-394 HWY 7HIGHWAY 169CEDAR LA K E R D MINNETONKA BLVD 29TH ST WLOUISIANA AVE SWALKER ST LAKE ST W TEXAS AVE S28TH ST W 31ST ST W EXCEL SI O R B L V DDAKOTA AVE S35TH ST W IDAHO AVE SWAY Z A T A B L V D OXFO R D S TFLAG AVE SLOUISIANA AVE S (E)FRANCE AVE SFORD RDLOUISIANA AVE S (W)FLORIDA AVE S40TH ST WSUMTER AVE S27TH ST W GEORGIA AVE SWOODDALE AVEHIGHWAY 100RHODE ISLAND AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SLI B R A R Y L A SERVICE D R H W Y 3 9 4 S 33RD ST W JERSEY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S39TH ST W 32ND ST W COLORADO AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SALABAMA AVE SZARTHAN AVE S36TH ST W UTICA AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SOTTAWA AVE S26TH ST W CO. Rd. 25 42ND ST WWEBSTER AVE SGORHAM AVE 25TH ST W 14TH ST W 38TH ST WCAMBRIDGE ST SERVIC E D R H W Y 7 S PARK G L E N R D 34TH ST W RALEIGH AVE SBELT LINE BLVDOREGON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SJOPPA AVE SSERVICE DR HWY 7 NHUNTINGTON AVE SVERNON AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N GLENHURST AVEDIVISION ST QUENTIN AVE S25 1/2 ST W AQUILA LALYNN AVE SCLUB RD SHELARD PKWY 16TH ST W TOLEDO AVE SFOR E S T R D EDGE B R O O K D R SERVICE DR HWY 100ENEVADA AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVEMELROSE AVE S23RD ST W 18 T H S T W 36 1/2 ST W 13TH LA 22ND ST W INGLEWOOD AVE S37TH ST W XENWOOD AVE SUTAH AVE S24TH S T W MARYLAND AVE SSALEM AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS DRBASSWOOD RD MACKEY AVENATCHEZ AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SXYLON AVE SUTAH DRHospital service drivePOWELL RD GAMBLE DR DART AVEZAR'I'HAN AVE SQUEBEC AVE SAQUILA AVE SA Q U I L A A V E S ( W ) 36TH ST W (S)KILMER AVEJORDAN AVE STAFT AVEPRINCETON AVE SCAVELL AVE SMO N I T O R S T RIDGE DRFORD LA MEADOWBROOK LAHILLSBORO AVE SGENERAL MILLS BLVDPHILLIPS PKWYGLEN PL HIG H W O O D R D DECATUR AVE S42 1/2 ST WUTAH AVE SNEVADA AVE S36TH ST W I D A H O A V E SHILLSBORO AVE S28TH S T W TOLEDO AVE S27TH ST WUTICA AVE S36TH ST W TOLEDO AVE S24TH ST W FRANCE AVE SWAYZATA BLVD JORDAN AVE S26TH ST W FORD R D WEBSTER AVE S26TH ST W 37TH ST WAQUILA AVE SVERNON AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE S34TH ST W QUENTIN AVE SZARTHAN AVE SALABAMA AVE S28TH S T W 33RD ST WZARTHAN AVE S16TH ST W 35TH ST WYOSEMITE AVE S25TH ST W IDAHO AVE S25 1/2 ST WIDAHO AVE SALABAMA AVE SUTICA AVE S34TH ST W 28TH ST W 26TH ST W SUMTER AVE SCED A R L A K E R D SALEM AVE S35TH ST WUTICA AVE SOff-road Trails 9/8/2011tw ± Legend Regional Trail(Plowed) 8 miles/42,261 feet City Trails(Plowed) 20.6 miles/108,770 feet City Trails(Unplowed) 4.5 miles/23,823 feet Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan and Policy Review Page 8 Meeting Date: September 12, 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: 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: September 12, 2011 Agenda Item #: 5 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this meeting. This report is being provided as background information in preparation for the City Councils consideration of entering into an agreement with a consultant to continue on with the Fiber Optic Study at its September 19 meeting. The study process is proceeding in accordance with the written report provided to the City Council at its June 14 and December 6, 2010 study sessions (12/6/10 report is attached). POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions, comments or concerns that you might have with this matter. BACKGROUND: This report is being provided as an update to the planned study that was budgeted in 2011 and 2012. At its June 14 and December 6, 2010 study sessions, Council received written staff updates on the proposed study of possible opportunities associated with the publicly-owned fiber optic network in the City. The existing fiber network now includes about 30 miles of infrastructure, installed primarily between 1997 and 2004. Different network segments have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit only without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are known. Installation of fiber conduit when a road is open for construction is relatively inexpensive. The City and Schools are meeting many of their high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice, data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8 years for an asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School applications are in the queue (e.g., use of fiber for video conferencing) while other future uses remain unexplored. However, fiber is anticipated to have a real future, in concert with wireless services, based on its demonstrated performance. We need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands. As a reminder, the study is intended to revolve around two major areas: One is - what, if anything, should the City do with the remaining fiber capacity from a public or private perspective. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the existing fiber infrastructure should be expanded. The second area revolves around whether the City should consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of fiber optic capabilities in buildings or other assets during new construction or major remodeling. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update PROGRESS SINCE DECEMBER 6 STUDY SESSION: To address the questions above, the City Council directed formation of a Fiber Optic Study Task Force. The Task Force was to be composed of Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) members, City staff, School staff, LOGIS staff, and representatives of the community. In fact, this is the composition of the Task Force, and it also includes representatives from Park Nicollet Health Systems, the business community, and the League of Women Voters. Since January 2011, the Task Force has taken time to learn more about fiber optic technology, and develop a plan to detail and explore the Council questions. As planned and anticipated, it is now time to engage a consultant to complete the study activities and develop policy alternatives around the study questions. How did the Task Force get to this point in the process? A subcommittee of the Task Force was charged with developing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) statement, issuing same, and then interviewing selected firms to potentially complete the study based on submitted Statements of Qualifications (SOQ). This summer, the subcommittee completed that task. After extensive publication of the study RFQ, including to minority and women owned businesses, four SOQ’s were received. Two firms were interviewed. Those two firms were Tellus Ventures and CTC. The subcommittee brought results of the SOQ review and interview process to the Task Force on August 10. At that meeting, the Task Force recommended that CTC be deemed the preferred firm based on an analysis of the various strengths and weaknesses of the two finalists, and reference checks. While CTC is the preferred firm, it should also be noted that both firms appear able to complete the study within the budgeted amount of $50,000 from the Cable TV Fund. The Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) considered the recommendation of the Fiber Optic Study Task Force at it August 25 meeting. Its advice to the City Council is in support of the Fiber Optic Study Task Force in recommending CTC to complete this study. NEXT STEPS: Based on analysis completed by the Fiber Optic Study Task Force and the recommendation from the TAC, staff is recommending that the City Council enter into an agreement with CTC at its September 19 meeting. More specifically, staff recommends that the City Council designate CTC as the preferred firm to complete the fiber optic study, and that staff be authorized to enter into an agreement with CTC at a cost not to exceed $50,000 to complete the fiber optic study, based upon a mutually agreeable Statement of Work. It should be noted that the City has worked successfully with CTC in the past, particularly in support of the wireless project and through successful litigation with the contractor. Consistent with the City’s commitment to diversity, it should also be noted that CTC is a woman owned business enterprise. Indeed, CTC President Joanne Hovis would be the lead on this study. Should the Council approve this action at its September 19 meeting, it is anticipated that the study would be completed within the first half of 2012. Detailed study work would be conducted with the TAC and Fiber Optic Study Task Force. TAC would review study findings, then plan to report to Council with those finding and any additional recommendations. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The 2011 and 2012 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be accomplished within the combined $50,000 limit. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Other potential future financial impacts relate to any requirements to incorporate fiber optic infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure that Council may direct. That said, it is important to note that any such actions would be the result of further deliberations by the TAC and Council only after reviewing and analyzing study results. It is not anticipated that any actions would be taken immediately following or as a result of the study. Indeed, there are no funding sources currently identified for any such actions. VISION CONSIDERATION: Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well connected community in the 21st century. Attachments: December 6, 2010 Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Report Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Meeting Date: December 6, 2010 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. The study process is proceeding in accordance with the written report provided to the City Council at its June 14, 2010 study session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. BACKGROUND: This report is being provided as an update to the planned study that was budgeted in 2010 and is also proposed for additional funding in 2011. At its June 14, 2010 study session, Council received a written staff update on the proposed study of the possible opportunities associated with the publicly-owned fiber optic network in the City. The existing fiber network includes about 28 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit only without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are known. Installation of fiber conduit when a road is open for construction is relatively inexpensive. The City and Schools are meeting many of their high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice, data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8 years for an asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School needs remain (use of fiber for video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, fiber is anticipated to have a real future, in concert with wireless services, based on its demonstrated performance. We need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands. The study is intended to revolve around two major areas: One is what to do with the remaining fiber capacity. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the existing fiber infrastructure should be expanded. The second area is around whether the City should consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of fiber optic capabilities during new construction or major remodeling. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update NEXT STEPS: Staff has now identified members of a task force to further define and propose the scope, implementation, and outcomes of this study. Results of that effort would then be returned to Council for review prior to the next step of issuing an RFQ for a consultant to conduct the study. The attached project plan identifies current task force members and other aspects of the study. We are hopeful that the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce will be able to appoint a member to the task force, as they have been invited to do. The Telecommunications Advisory Commission will be updated on the status of this project at its December 9 meeting. It is expected that the task force will commence its meetings in January 2011. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The 2010 and 2011 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be accomplished within the combined $50,000 limit. Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure. VISION CONSIDERATION: Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century. Attachments: Fiber Optic Study Task Force Project Plan Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 6 Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update City of St. Louis Park Fiber Optic Study Task Force Project Plan Task Force Members: Bruce Browning, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission (Co-Chair) Toby Keeler, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission (Co-Chair) Deb Brinkman, League of Women Voters Judith Cook, League of Women Voters Amy Hoerner-Balser, Clientek Consulting and SLP Property Owner Scott Jensen, Park Nicollet Health Clinics Tom Marble, SLP Schools Kevin Pikkaraine, LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems) Clint Pires, CIO, City of St. Louis Park John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator, City of St. Louis Park Lori Dreier, Police Lieutenant, City of St. Louis Park Laura Adler, Engineering Program Manager, City of St. Louis Park Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, City of St. Louis Park John Tilton, Chief Building Official, City of St. Louis Park Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, City of St. Louis Park Task Force Goals: 1. Mutual Understanding of the Background (Business Need / Opportunity) 2. Mutual Understanding of the Reasons for the Task Force 3. Mutual Understanding of Economic Development Questions We Are Asking and Why (Project Benefits) Possible Uses / Expansion of Existing Fiber Infrastructure Possible Enabling Ordinances (requirements or incentives) 4. Identify Additional Background, Reasons, and Questions 5. Frame the Study Scope, Implementation, and Expected Outcomes (Project Approach) 6. Formulate the RFQ 7. Review Study Proposals / Interview Consultants 8. Recommend Consultant to City Manager / City Council 9. Monitor and Participate in the Study 10. Receive the Study and Recommendations 11. Present Study Results to Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council Schedule: January – September 2011 Budget: $50,000 (from Cable TV Fund – subscriber franchise fees; not tax supported) Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 5) Page 7 Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Task Force Structure: 1. Members 2. Chair and Vice Chair 3. Roles of Members to Achieve Goals 4. Meeting Schedule Risks: While there are numerous potential economic development benefits associated with this project, it is important to identify some of the possible risks associated with it as well. 1. Not being able to adhere to the timeline or anticipated budget 2. Not asking the right questions in the study to properly determine economic development or other opportunities 3. Impact of diversion from other major initiatives 4. Inability of a critical mass of task force members to actively participate 5. Inability to find the optimal consultant to address study questions 6. The study results miss key findings or provide unjustified recommendations Meeting Date: September 12, 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: Fire Stations Project Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is being provided to update the Council on the Fire Stations Project. Please let staff know of any comments, questions or concerns that you might have. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. BACKGROUND: Staff last provided a general update to City Council on June 20, 2011. Significant and visible progress has been made at both fire stations since that time. The shape and height of the buildings are apparent at this stage. Progress at Fire Station No. 2 is now slightly ahead of the Fire Station No. 1, because it is a smaller building. Construction Progress Update Fire Station No. 1: Cast-in-place concrete foundation and walls were completed during the months of June and July. A retaining wall on the southwest side of the site was built and painted. Structural concrete block building walls have been rising since August and are approximately 75% complete. Precast concrete planks were set at the end of August. Structural steel is being erected. Upcoming work includes the steel studs, roofing, mechanical rough-ins, pouring of slab on grade and installation of exterior stone, brick, and windows. The building enclosure will begin in October before winter conditions. Fire Station No. 2: Helical piers were installed along the east side of the building to address poor soils that were encountered. Construction of the cast-in-place concrete foundation and walls were completed during the months of June and July. The large concrete retaining wall on the north side of the site and bordering Northside Park was finished at the end of June. Structural concrete block walls were started in July and are now complete. Structural steel is being erected. Exterior stone and brick installation is underway. Upcoming work includes the steel studs, roofing, mechanical rough-ins, pouring of slab on grade, exterior stone and brick, and windows. The building will be fully enclosed in October before winter conditions. Noteworthy Issues Bad Soils: We now have a full accounting of the impacted (polluted) soils and unsuitable (organic) soils encountered at both Fire Station sites. There were 1,103 additional tons of impacted soils at Station No. 1 and 852 tons at Fire Station No. 2 that had to be hauled to Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Subject: Fire Stations Project Update landfills. The total cost of the added quantity was $35,470. At Fire Station No. 2, the helical pier system and other related adjustments cost $25,980. Contracts: All the contracts have been executed. As City Council is aware, two of the lowest responsible bidders refused to sign contracts after City Council awarded the contracts to them. The two bidders claimed errors in their bids. The contracts related to the Mechanical (plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) and the Asbestos and Hazardous Material Abatement. City staff is pursuing the issue of the bid bonds for these two bidders through the City Attorney. Easements: The easement agreements authorized by City Council on August 15, 2011 between the City and the Walgreens property owner have been executed and recorded. Budget A project budget summary is attached for your information. The project is currently on budget. There is $87,830 in additional costs associated with pending change orders. The added costs will be paid from the project contingency, which has $490,520 remaining. The City Manager may approve up to $100,000 in change orders administratively. Because the anticipated change orders are approaching the limit that may be approved administratively, staff will request authorization for the City Manager to approve up to an additional $100,000 in change orders at an upcoming City Council meeting, Schedule The overall project is currently on schedule. Construction began May 3, 2011. The project should be complete in May 2012. Attached for your information is a basic construction schedule for both stations with milestone events noted. Communications Staff provides construction updates via email and the City website every 2-4 weeks weeks. The emails are sent to people that attended fire station design meetings, the four neighborhood presidents, the Councilmember for each of the two wards, and various city staff. The City Council will also regularly receive written reports providing progress updates. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project is in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The project budget for constructing both stations is $15.5 million. The sources of funds include $12.5 million in Build America bonds issued in December 2010. The remaining portion will be paid with approximately $3 million from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund. Staff anticipates the actual project costs will be approximately $15.1 million based on the construction bids received in March. VISION CONSIDERATION: Engaging the community in the design process, minimizing negative impacts of the stations on surrounding residents, designing energy efficient buildings that meet or exceed the City’s green building policy, and building an aesthetically pleasing building relate to all four Vision St. Louis Park strategic directions. Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Attachments: Budget Summary Construction Schedule Construction Photographs Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Date: 5/5/2011 Update #:3 Update Date: 9/6/2011 Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: May-11 Project:Fire Stations #1 & #2 Location:St. Louis Park Designer:DLR Group/KKE Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks Project Funds Available $0 $0 $15,516,197 Utility Rebates $0 $0 $0 TBD Interest Earnings $0 Total Available Dollars $0 $0 $15,516,197 Construction Costs Budget Building & Site Construction $0 $0 $10,399,785 Bids including Alt #1 and #2 Project General Conditions $282,992 $224,407 $507,399 Direct Cost Items CM Site Services $0 $0 $502,335 Kraus-Anderson CM Fee $0 $0 $157,500 Kraus-Anderson Construction Contingency $355,000 $223,350 $578,350 5% Contingency Small Utility Relocation/New Service Charges $22,354 $53,000 $75,354 Actual Qwest at #1, Xcel allow at #2 Owner Direct Items $0 $23,290 $23,290 Helicals at FS#2 Interior Signage Allowance $9,000 $7,000 $16,000 Home Demo Contract For Fire Station #1 $38,083 $0 $38,083 Actual Contact including change order Total Construction Budget $12,298,096 Soft Cost Budget A/E Fees $0 $0 $498,750 DLR/KKE Overall Project Budget - Post Bid Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks Special Consultants $14,200 $8,000 $22,200 SRF / Surveying FS #2 Legal Fees / Bid Notices $7,845 $2,538 $10,383 Per City Info Project Commissioning / Validation $25,000 $15,000 $40,000 Allowance Phase 1 & 2 and Hazmat Environmental Study $0 $0 $45,646 Actual Braun Costs Environmental Monitoring $0 $0 $30,000 Allowance Braun Environmental Abatement Costs/Abatement Testing $63,661 Lindstrom/Braun Geothermal Drilling / Report $11,367 $11,367 $22,734 Actual Braun Costs Storm Water Charges, Requirements $0 $0 $0 City Approval Fees & Park Ded.$0 $0 $0 City Administration Costs $1,283 $0 $1,283 Travel / Site Visits $0 $11 $11 Misc. Owner Expenses $71 $6,500 $6,571 Misc. Owner Expenses - Storage Costs $16,800 $16,800 $33,600 Belt Line Properties Tree Replacement Fund $0 $0 $20,585 FS #1 & FS #2 Platting Costs $3,250 $3,250 $6,500 Builders Risk Insurance $0 $0 $6,615 Actual Quote Total Owner Costs Budget $2,038,532 Total Project Costs $15,146,166 Constr. Cost + Soft Costs + Owner Costs Project Balance Available $370,031 Project Cost Revisions Executed Change Orders to Date $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Pending Changes Currently Under Review $37,134.00 $50,696.00 $87,830.00 Projected Contingency Remaining $490,520.00 SLP CD Budget Postbid 9-6-11 - Owner-Project Budget Page 2 of 2 Print Date: 9/7/2011 Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 5 ActIDDescriptionOrigDurEarlyStartEarlyFinishNOV2010DEC2011JAN2012FEB2013MARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARConstruction PhaseFire Station #11570House Abatement/House Removal/Electric2522NOV10 24DEC101550Owner Move Out Complete003MAY111580Station Abatement1009MAY11 20MAY111560Disconnect Utilities/Demo of Exisitng Building523MAY11 27MAY111590Excavate/Export Contaminated Soil/Import1024MAY11 06JUN111460Sitework1530MAY11 17JUN111470Footings/Foundations2021JUN11 19JUL111480Structure (LB Masonry/Steel/Precast/Steel Stud)5220JUL11 29SEP111490Brick/Roofing/Windows/Enclosure4522SEP11 23NOV111500Building Rough Ins5023SEP11 01DEC111600Exterior Curb/Gutter Paving2020OCT11 16NOV111510Finishes6418NOV11 15FEB121520System Checkouts/Punchlist1016FEB12 29FEB121530Building Turnover to Owner001MAR121540Owner Move In1501MAR12 21MAR121610Spring 2012 Misc. Grading/Landscaping2016APR12 11MAY12Fire Station #23460Site Demo Soil Corrections2002MAY11 27MAY113550Contaminated Soil Export524MAY11 30MAY113560Retaining Wall (Phase I)1026MAY11 08JUN113570Import/Sitework/Utilities1531MAY11 20JUN113470Footings/Foundations2014JUN11 12JUL113480Structure (LB Masonry/Steel/Precast/Steel Stud)3513JUL11 30AUG113490Brick/Roofing/Windows/Enclosure2631AUG11 05OCT113500Building Rough Ins2507SEP11 11OCT113510Finishes5528SEP11 13DEC113590Curb/Gutter/Paving2006OCT11 02NOV113580Walgreens Interface Work (Phase I)1510OCT11 28OCT113520System Checkouts/Punchlist507DEC11 13DEC113530Building Turnover to Owner014DEC113540Owner Move In2014DEC11 10JAN123600Owner Move Out Exisitng Station2011JAN12 07FEB123610Asbestos Abatement1508FEB12 28FEB123620Demo Old Station #21019MAR12 30MAR123630Spring 2012 Sitework2002APR12 27APR123640Landscaping1530APR12 18MAY12House Abatement/House Removal/Electric ServiceOwner Move Out CompleteStation AbatementDisconnect Utilities/Demo of Exisitng BuildingExcavate/Export Contaminated Soil/ImportSiteworkFootings/FoundationsStructure (LB Masonry/Steel/Precast/Steel Stud)Brick/Roofing/Windows/EnclosureBuilding Rough InsExterior Curb/Gutter PavingFinishesSystem Checkouts/PunchlistBuilding Turnover to OwnerOwner Move InSpring 2012 Misc. Grading/LandscapingSite Demo Soil CorrectionsContaminated Soil ExportRetaining Wall (Phase I)Import/Sitework/UtilitiesFootings/FoundationsStructure (LB Masonry/Steel/Precast/Steel Stud)Brick/Roofing/Windows/EnclosureBuilding Rough InsFinishesCurb/Gutter/PavingWalgreens Interface Work (Phase I)System Checkouts/PunchlistBuilding Turnover to OwnerOwner Move InOwner Move Out Exisitng StationAsbestos AbatementDemo Old Station #2Spring 2012 SiteworkLandscapingStart date 22NOV10Finish date 18MAY12Data date 31AUG11Run date 31AUG11Page number 1A© Primavera Systems, Inc.Kraus Anderson Construction CompanySt. Louis Park Fire StationsEarly barProgress barCritical barSummary barStart milestone pointFinish milestone pointStudy Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Fire Stations Project UpdatePage 6 Fire Station No. 1 – 3750 Wooddale Avenue S. Cast-in-place concrete (June-July) Structural steel (August - September) Retaining wall (July) Precast concrete planks set (August) Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 7 Structural concrete walls (August-September) More recent photos (September 2, 2011) Exterior brick and stone mock-up panel (review of soldier course brick options in August) Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 8 Fire Station No. 2 – 2262 Louisiana Avenue S. Helical pier installation (June) Cast-in-place concrete (June - July) Concrete retaining wall finished (June) Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 9 Structural concrete block walls (July – August) Structural steel (August – September) Exterior stone and brick installation underway Study Session Meeting of September 12, 2011 (Item No. 6) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 10