HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/05/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 24, 2010
6:00 p.m. COUNCIL BIKE TOUR – City Hall Parking Lot
1. City Council Bike Ride
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 7:30 p.m. Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and Hennepin County
MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
2. 8:45 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning --- June 7 and June 14
3. 9:00 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
4. April 2010 Monthly Financial Report
5. City/School Cable TV Operations Agreement
6. Policy Statement Minority-Owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business
7. 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report
8. Inspections Department 2009 Activities Report
9. Hwy 7/Wooddale Project Update
9:05 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To
make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-
2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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: Council Bike Tour
TITLE:
City Council Bike Ride.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Have fun.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The tour starts from City Hall at 6:00 p.m. The route is a 5-6 mile loop. The tour ends at 7:15
p.m. back at City Hall. Please arrive with your bicycle and bike helmet.
City staff will lead the tour. We will ride at a leisurely pace. There will be several planned stops
along the route to discuss points of interest. Joining the Mayor and City Council members will be
two Planning Commissioners, a Park and Recreation Advisor Commissioner, several staff, and two
City of Minneapolis Bike Ambassadors
As you will see, the planned route excludes regional trails and focuses instead on low traffic
neighborhood streets that lend themselves to biking, even during rush hour. These streets may be
candidates for what are termed “share the road” or “bike-walk streets.” The route highlights several
important rail or road crossings identified in the bike plan and examples of sidewalk gaps identified
in the pedestrian plan.
EQUIPMENT NEEDS:
If you do not have a bike helmet or do not have an operable bicycle, please contact Sean Walther at
(952) 924-2574 or swalther@stlouispark.org to make arrangements. One Councilmember will not
be riding, so that person can drive to the planned stop locations and still participate in the
discussions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Route Map
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Council Bike Ride
A. Start at City Hall (6:00 p.m.)
• POI: Ottawa & 29th (sidewalk gap)
• POI: 26th & Quentin (sidewalk gap)
B. Discuss: 28th & CP rail (freight rail impact, wayfinding, ped bridge experience)
C. Discuss: Peter Hobart Elementary School (regional trail access, future rail crossing)
D. Discuss: Dakota & Minnetonka (intersection improvements)
E. Discuss: Dakota/Wooddale north-south connection
• POI: Lake & Brunswick (ped/bike rail crossing)
F. Discuss (time permitting): Hwy 7 Pedestrian Bridge, Beltline & Regional Trail Crossing
G. End at City Hall (7:15 p.m.)
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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: SPECIAL
TITLE:
Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and Hennepin County MNDOT Kenilworth
Freight Rail Relocation Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on the
status of these projects and discuss city policy implications.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
SWLRT and rerouting of freight rail from the Kenilworth corridor will have significant impacts on
St. Louis Park. After literally decades of discussion, study and planning, important decisions about
both SWLRT and freight rail are on the near horizon. It is timely to review the status and city’s
policies regarding each of these projects.
City staff requests policy direction from the City Council on how best to represent the city’s and our
neighborhood’s interests as the Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study, the SWLRT DEIS and
SWLRT preliminary engineering proceed.
Is the policy direction adopted by the City Council in 2001 regarding potential freight rail
relocation still valid?
BACKGROUND:
Several things are happening relative to rail in St. Louis Park. What follows is a summary/update of
where things are at.
Light Rail
The SW Light Rail Transit project is in the process of being transitioned from the Hennepin
County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) to the Metropolitan Council. While the HCRRA has
been the lead agency for the SWLRT to date, the Metropolitan Council will be responsible for the
preliminary and final engineering design for the project. The Metro Transit Commission ultimately
will be responsible for the operation of the SWLRT line just as they are responsible for the Hiawatha
and Central Corridor LRT lines.
LPA and the Transportation Policy Plan. The next step in the approval process for SWLRT is
amending the Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) to incorporate the SWLRT
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). This is necessary for federal funding and authorization by the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to proceed with preliminary engineering and eventually
construction of the SWLRT line. The Met Council is scheduled to officially adopt the LPA into the
region’s TPP on May 26th.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
SWLRT DEIS and Preliminary Engineering. Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for SWLRT is underway under the direction of HCRAA. Over the next 3 to 4
months the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be finalized. It is expected to be
published in September 2010 which will start the official 45 day public comment period. The
preliminary engineering for SWLRT is expected to begin in 2011 and the Met Council is getting
organized for that two year, $60 million effort. The structure for managing the design process is the
responsibility of and has been prepared by the Met Council. It is attached.
More information is available at www.southwesttransitway.org
Freight Rail
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) has solicited proposals from consultants to
complete a “Kenilworth Freight Relocation Study.” The study will look in detail at rerouting Twin
Cities & Western (TC&W) rail traffic to the MNS-Canadian Pacific (north-south tracks) line in St.
Louis Park. The study will include environmental documentation, concept engineering, community
impact assessment, and a public involvement process. Community participation will be a major
focus of the study. The County and MnDOT will be funding the study. The RFP used to solicit
consultants is attached. The County expects to hire a consultant by the end of this month and begin
the study shortly there after. The study is expected to take 6-8 months to complete.
Station Area Planning
The SWLRT corridor has been officially designated a Hennepin County Community Works
project. Community Works projects typically are designated for transportation corridors in order to
look more broadly at opportunities for community development in relation to major transportation
investments. Each project is crafted individually, and currently the County is formulating a
structure, work plan and budget for further planning for the corridor. Some elements of the station
area planning in St. Louis Park will be within this project and others we will need to address on our
own. Additional information will be coming from the County over the next few weeks. The County
initiated a meeting between all the corridor communities City Managers and Community
Development directors on April 30th. County staff is expected to come back to the cities with their
ideas for how to proceed, incorporating the comments and suggestions made at the April 30th
meeting. More to come on this topic in the near future.
Past St. Louis Park Policies and Official Actions
For SLP the most challenging issue inherent in the region’s decision to move forward with SWLRT,
is the location of Twin City & Western Railroad (TCWR) freight rail traffic. TCWR freight trains
currently travel through the Kenilworth Corridor under a temporary arrangement with Hennepin
County. The working assumption of SWLRT planning to date has been that light rail and freight
rail cannot coexist in the Kenilworth Corridor; and, that the freight rail does not extend east of
approximately Dakota Avenue on the SWLRT route. The proposed route for SWLRT is through
Kenilworth meaning TCWR trains need to find another route (based on working assumption noted
above). The leading alternative location for TCWR trains is the Canadian Pacific – Minneapolis
Northfield & Southern tracks which run north-south through St. Louis Park (CP-MNS). This track
extends from just south of Hwy 7 north to the Burlington Northern tracks located just south of
Cedar Lake Road. The track passes through the Birchwood, Bronx Park, Lenox and Sorenson
neighborhoods; crossing several streets and passing by St. Louis Park High School. Rerouting traffic
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
onto the CP-MNS track would eliminate the existing freight rail tracks east of about Dakota avenue.
These tracks currently pass through Elmwood, Triangle and Wolfe Park neighborhoods. This
rerouting would eliminate the at grade freight rail crossings at Beltline Blvd and Wooddale Ave.
St. Louis Park Railroad Study – March 1999. The City with County help conducted a railroad study
in 1998-99 that addressed the freight rail rerouting issues. The study led to a City Council
resolution passed October 15, 2001 adopting the recommendations of the St. Louis Park Railroad
Task Force from May 23, 2001. The recommendations addressed many aspects of train activities
and facilities in St. Louis Park. The resolution and Task Force recommendation are attached. The
Task Force Position Statement Summary of the recommendations included the following language
regarding use of the CP-MNS route for rerouted freight traffic,
“Freight rail traffic from the west headed for St. Paul should continue to travel through the
Kenilworth Corridor in Minneapolis unless and until such time as a viable form of mass
transit displaces it. The Task Force recognizes that other entities are evaluating the use of
the Kenilworth Corridor to be used for mass transit. This Task Force recommends that these
entities also evaluate other corridors, specifically the Highway 100 right-of-way be evaluated
for mass transit.”
The summary went on to say,
“If at a future date, it is determined that the Kenilworth Corridor is the most feasible route
for mass transit and that freight rail and a mass transit system cannot coexist in that corridor,
freight rail traffic will be re-routed through St. Louis Park. This is to be accomplished by
constructing a northerly connection on the Golden Auto Site and a connection on the iron
triangle property. All environmental mitigation must be completed according to the
environmental studies prior to re-routing.
The City Council should re-evaluate this strategy if significant changes in rail traffic patterns
occur.”
The Task Force recommendations are an extensive document and there are many other comments
and elements in the document. It is clear that the Task Force recommendation to support use of the
CP-MNS was conditioned on adequate environmental mitigation; and, clear demonstration that
transit and freight rail could not both be accommodated in the Kenilworth corridor.
SWLRT LPA Recommendation. The City has not officially addressed the freight rail issue since the
2001 Resolution. TCWR has continued to operate in the Kenilworth corridor. There has been
only limited work on or discussion about rerouting trains until relatively recently. The prospect of
actually building a SWLRT line has pushed the issue of the long term route for TCWR freight trains
into the limelight. Last year’s debate over the LPA centered heavily on whether or not light rail
would travel through the Kenilworth corridor or not. The City raised concerns with the County
about the potential freight rail impacts on St. Louis Park if SWLRT alternative route 3A, the route
through Kenilworth, was chosen as the preferred route for light rail. Ultimately the SW Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended route 3A as the
LPA only after an amendment addressing freight rail was added. The amendment stated:
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
Amendment #1: Freight Rail Relocation as a Parallel Process
This recommendation is contingent upon the following conditions, that Hennepin County, St.
Louis Park, Minneapolis, TCW and MNDOT will work cooperatively to identify impacts,
mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to address the potential of rerouting
freight rail; a plan of action to address this issue in a parallel process with the Southwest Transit
way DEIS be developed; and, the freight rail issue and impacts are identified as a part of the
“secondary and cumulative impacts” in the DEIS.
Route 3A, the Kenilworth route, was recommended as the LPA to the Hennepin County by the
PAC and is the route the Met Council will adopt into the regions TPP on May 26th.
SWLRT Resolution of Support. Earlier this year the Met Council asked all the SWLRT corridor
cities for resolutions of support for the proposed LPA. On January 19th the City Council passed a
resolution of support for the LPA which referenced the condition that “agencies work cooperatively
to identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to address the
potential of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the SW LRT DEIS and to identify the
freight rail issue and impacts as part of the “secondary and cumulative impacts.” The resolution was
submitted to the Met Council in January. (See attached resolution)
Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study. Consistent with the SWLRT TAC and PAC LPA
recommendations to Hennepin County; and, the condition of support resolution the City submitted
to Met Council, the County and MNDOT are initiating and funding the Kenilworth Freight Rail
Relocation Study described above.
TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study. Last year, as the evaluation of alternative SWLRT routes
was underway, Hennepin County also undertook a study on relocating TCWR freight traffic. The
stated purpose of this study was “to evaluate all potential options for a permanent location for freight
rail operations”. The study took a broad brush look at six alternative routes for TCWR trains
including the CP-MNS route through St. Louis Park and the Kenilworth corridor in Minneapolis.
From the start of the study, the city raised concerns about the study’s scope and process. One public
meeting was held August 13, 2009 at the Rec Center to explain the alternatives to the community
and seek their comments. The City’s concerns about the study were raised in a letter dated July 21,
2009 and further explained in a meeting with Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman
August 3, 2009. Commissioner Dorfman attempted to respond to City concerns in a letter dated
August 21, 2009 and hand delivered on August 24th. The letters and the TCWR Freight Rail
Relocation Study are attached to this report as background information.
NEXT STEPS:
1. The Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study, will begin in earnest yet this month or in
June. St. Louis Park will be included in the leadership of the study and advisory committees;
a primary focus of the study will be community participation and finding ways to respond
effectively to potential community impacts of freight rail changes and rerouting.
2. The SWLRT DEIS is nearing completion. Internal review of the document is on-going; the
formal comment period is projected to start in September this year (2010).
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
3. SWLRT preliminary engineering is not expected to begin until 2011. The city will be asked
to identify our participants in the management and advisory committees in the coming
months as the structure for the design process and management of the project is put in place.
4. It is expected that the Community Works project for the SWLRT corridor will begin this
summer (2010). It is envisioned as a means to coordinate the efforts of all the cities along the
SWLRT route and help address all the things needed to make a LRT a success that might
not be literally part of the SWLRT project. More specifics about what this effort are
expected in the next 4 to 8 weeks.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The sources of funding for SWLRT and the Freight Rail Study are not the city. Station Area
Planning will likely require city funding participation and/or responsibilities. More to come on the
financial aspects as work plans and budgets are developed. It is anticipated that the designation as a
Community Works project will provide at least some opportunities for outside funding.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
SWLRT, Freight Rail planning and station area planning are consistent with the City’s strategic
vision to be a connected and engaged community; as well as leaders in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: Southwest LRT Organizational Structure
Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
Resolution No. 01-120 – regarding RR Task Force recommendations
Resolution No. 10-005 – regarding support for the LPA
Letter dated July 21, 2009
Letter dated August 21, 2009
TCWR Freight Rail Relocation Study
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 6
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 7
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 8
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
THE KENILWORTH FREIGHT RAIL
RELOCATION STUDY
Issued by
HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY (HCRRA)
AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN
COOPERATION WITH THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
April 12, 2010
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 9
1. GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background
This request for proposals (RFP) is issued by Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) and
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to solicit consultant proposals to conduct an
analysis of the Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation project including Preliminary Engineering,
Environmental Work, Community Impact Assessment, and Public Outreach.
The consultant will need to actively engage all three railroads (BNSF, CP and TC&W) in design, review
and operational analysis. In addition, the consultant will need to produce a design solution, based on
operational capacity, safety, and speed, that will provide a permanent, long term solution for potential
future use, up to 50-100 year range. Design should not be lowest cost, marginal, and restrictive solution,
but one that is a permanent solution that addresses the operations of the two Class 1 railroads, BNSF
and CP, and the short line railroad (TCW).
In January 2010, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) authorized staff to issue a
Request for Proposals from consultants to conduct further analysis for the Kenilworth Freight Rail
Relocation. The analysis will be jointly funded by the HCRRA and Mn/DOT.
1.3 Schedule
The Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Analysis has a projected completion date of six (6) months from
the contract award date. The estimated cost to complete the scope of services outlined in this request
for proposals is not-to-exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00).
The financial bids must be delivered in a sealed envelop separate from the response to this request for
proposals. Failure to do so, may result in elimination from consideration. Consultants intending to bid
are invited to identify either additional tasks that should be included or tasks that could be excluded. In
either case, the consultant should include a description of the task, the rationale for inclusion or
exclusion, and impact of the schedule and budget.
1.4 History
Over the past 10 years, numerous studies have been conducted regarding freight rail. The following is a
list of those studies. The Consultant is expected to be familiar with these studies and their conclusions.
St. Louis Park Freight Rail Relocation Task Force Report
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 10
MnDOT Commuter Rail Feasibility Study
Dan Patch Commuter Rail Feasibility Study
St. Louis Park, Whistle Quiet Zones, SRF 2006
Freight Rail Realignment Study, 2009
Mn/DOT Statewide Freight Rail Plan, 2010
Copies of these studies are available by calling 612.348-9260. A consultant intending to propose should
be aware that they should build upon information generated in prior studies to complete the Kenilworth
Freight Rail Relocation Study.
1.5 Management Structure
The following groups will be assembled to provide guidance during the study:
Project Management Team (PMT)
A Project Management Team (PMT), composed of the staff from the HCRRA and Minnesota Department
of Transportation (Mn/DOT) will be assembled to provide direct guidance to the consultant. The PMT will
meet bi-weekly with the consultant team’s project manager.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), composed of members from the HCRRA, Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT), St. Louis Park, the freight rail companies (Twin Cities and Western (TCW),
Canadian Pacific (CP), and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)), St. Louis Park School District, and
other key stakeholders will be assembled to advise the consultant on technical issues during the analysis.
The consultant is expected to attend TAC meetings and provide the TAC with technical information for
their consideration. The TAC will meet approximately monthly.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 11
2. Scope of Services
2.1 Project Initiation
Within the first 14 days after the notice to proceed, the consultant will schedule a field reconnaissance
trip for all key members of the consultant’s team and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review
the preferred reroute along the M.N.S. line, inventory the physical features along the alignment, and to
understand the unique issues/concerns of the city, residents, and businesses located along the
alignment.
Deliverable: Field reconnaissance notes.
2.2 Project Management
Within 14 days from the notice to proceed, the consultant project manager will prepare a Project
Management Plan (PMP) that will be reviewed and approved by the Project Management Team. The
consultant shall prepare monthly project progress reports and invoices, establish and maintain a project
schedule with key milestones, a contact reporting system, an issues tracking system, and a schedule for
bi-weekly Project Management Team (PMT) meetings and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings.
The consultant shall also prepare and maintain corridor mailing and/or contact lists.
The consultant project manager will attend bi-weekly Project Management Team (PMT) meetings and
monthly Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings.
Deliverables: The consultant shall prepare the agendas, appropriate presentation materials, and
meeting minutes for all meetings.
2.3 Resource Agency Coordination
Within 30 days from the notice to proceed, the consultant will work with the HCRRA’s Project Manager to
convene a meeting with all applicable federal and state resource agency staff to ensure dialogue begins
early on in the process.
The consultant shall provide evidence of coordination with appropriate regulatory agencies and provide a
monthly summary of contacts made and the results of those contacts in terms of decisions made and/or
future action items identified.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 12
The consultant shall assure all work tasks are in compliance with the following applicable standards. At
the start of the contract and throughout the process, the consultant shall ascertain any additional
applicable standards not listed below, or changes to these standards:
• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Regulations for Implementation and Final
Amendment to 40 CFR 1500-1508; as of July 1, 1986.
Deliverable: Resource Agency meeting notes, and monthly progress reports.
2.4 Environmental Documentation
The Consultant will conduct all analysis and coordination necessary to prepare a voluntary state
Environmental Assessment Worksheet process.
The consultant shall note the content and analysis requirements of the Federal Rail
Administration (FRA) federal environmental process. These requirements shall be included in
the state environmental documents, or if not applicable, in a separate technical memorandum
documenting additional federal issues. This is so, should federal funding become available, the
state documents can be reformatted into an applicable federal environmental process.
Deliverables: Review draft (s) and final signature draft of the following.
1. Memorandum documenting determination of Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU).
2. Technical Memorandum documenting the projects’ Purpose and Need statement and
Alternatives Analysis.
3. State of Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).
4. Technical Memorandum documenting additional federal issues not documented in the
state EAW process.
5. Findings of Fact and Conclusions document.
6. Negative or Positive Declaration document.
2.5 Community Impact Assessment
The Consultant will work with St. Louis Park staff, the affected neighborhoods, the St. Louis Park School
District, and other key stakeholders to determine the scope of the community impact assessment. Based
upon the 1999 St. Louis Park Railroad Report and other input received from the community, the
community impact assessment is likely to include the following: noise, vibration, safety, property value
impacts, visual and aesethics, traffic
There may be some overlap between task 2.4 Environmental Documentation and Task 2.5 Community
Impact Assessment. The consultant is directed to identify under Task 2.4 the adverse impacts that likely
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 13
require mitigation under state and federal environmental rules. The consultant is directed under Task 2.5
to work with the local community to identify impacts that may not rise to the level of requiring mitigation
under state and federal rules, but which are necessary to maintain quality of life in the area.
Deliverable: Memorandum documenting the community impacts of increased freight rail service along
the M.N.S. line and proposed options for managing those impacts.
2.6 Preliminary Engineering
The intent is to conduct preliminary engineering (PE) to a 30% design level. The preliminary engineering
for this project shall be done in accordance with all local, state, national, and industry standards, rules
and regulations as applicable and with the most recent revision of the following design standards:
• Manual for Railway Engineering, AREMA
• A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO
• Highway Capacity Manual, ITE
• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
• Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
The current standards of ASTM, NEC, FTA, FRA, FHWA, freight rail companies, city and county agencies,
utility companies, ditch companies, and other local entities may be applicable.
The preliminary engineering (PE) plans should address the following: grade separated areas, proximity
to sensitive land uses, areas of restricted rights-of-way, critical clearances with physical constraints and
difficult topographic areas in order to accurately present the final configuration. All horizontal and vertical
alignment information shall include Degree of Curve (CRT) or radius length of curve, percent of gradient
and speed constraints.
2.6.1 Structures Design
The Consultant shall prepare a Condition Assessment Report of Existing Structures for structures along
the alignments that will be impacted by the proposed project. The assessment shall include but not be
limited to bridges over railroads, roadways, and drainage ways, and major drainage culverts. The report
shall be based on field assessments, and all available information, including bridge inspection and
maintenance reports. The report shall address, at a minimum:
• An inventory of existing bridges with typical sections, and physical characteristics, including
distances and clearances to pavement, tracks, abutments, piers, and slope paving.
• Evaluation and discussion of the condition and suitability of existing structures.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 14
• Photographs and a presentation of available information shall be included in the report.
Based on the findings, the Consultant shall identify all required structures (bridges, retaining walls,
tunnels, culverts) or structural modifications (under-clearance widening) at streams, ditches, grade-
separated pedestrian crossings, grade-separated roadway/railroad crossings, and other major obstacles.
The Consultant shall prepare a Structural Feasibility Report, addressing all proposed new structures
required for the project. The report shall address for each structure, at a minimum:
• Design Codes, Standards and Specifications
• Issues related to the design of railroad structures
• Feasible Structure alternatives
• Geotechnical factors and feasible foundation types
• Constructability and schedule implications
• Material type and availability
The report shall address at a minimum, rail and roadway bridges, retaining walls, and bridges and
tunnels for grade-separated pedestrian walkways, and major drainage culverts. The report shall include a
cost summary for all proposed structures.
The report shall include plan and profile drawings and typical sections for all proposed structures,
prepared in 11” x 17” format, at a scale sufficient to show plan, profile, and cross-section of each
structure. A general layout shall be prepared for each bridge structure and retaining structure showing
both horizontal and vertical alignment, soil information, and general dimensions of the bridge elements.
2.6.2 Grading / Cross Sections
Based upon the conceptual profiles and typical cross sections, the Consultant shall prepare earthwork
estimates and delineate the extent of grading activities with top and/or toe of slope lines on the
Preliminary Engineering plans.
2.6.3 Utilities
The Consultant shall identify all major existing and proposed utilities within and immediately adjacent to
the M.N.S. line. The Consultant shall identify the location of possible utility conflicts or improvements
required as a result of the project. The data collected by the Consultant shall cover all types and sizes of
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 15
utility. The major utilities shall be mapped and documented as described below on the Existing Utilities
Map and in the Basic Utilities Report.
2.6.4 Trackwork
The Consultant will prepare Preliminary Engineering design plans for the freight rail trackwork. The
Consultant will prepare an initial set of PE plans for a scenario that provides the private freight rail
companies with an equivalent situation to the one the exists in the Kenilworth Corridor today and a
second scenario that provides for trackwork to accommodate the plan by TCW to operate heavier loads
and longer trains. The plans will need to be acceptable to the three private freight rail companies
affected. In addition, the Consultant will assess the benefits and cost impact of constructing seamlessly
welded track along the M.N.S. line.
The Consultant will also be asked to evaluate the conceptual engineering plans for the Southwest LRT
project to determine if there are current conflicts and/or opportunities for better integration of the
designs for freight rail and LRT, recognizing that they are separate projects.
Deliverables: Preliminary Engineering (PE) plans shall be submitted in paper and electronic formats.
Drawings shall be produced and transmitted in AutoCAD and Microstation. Plans for the Trackwork
design shall be submitted in Microstation format. All trackwork deliverables shall be prepared in 11”x17”
format and shall include the following:
• Plan and profile – horizontal scale 1-inch equals 100 feet and vertical scale 1-inch equals 10
feet (critical areas – 1-inch equals 50 feet).
• Cross sections – track cross sections every 100 feet (20m)
• Conceptual layout of at-grade crossings, including gates, median barriers, signals, and any
required modifications to the roadway cross-section
• Conceptual layout of proposed grade-separated roadway/railroad crossings
2.7 Traffic Analysis
The consultant will review the work done by MnDOT in 1999 as part of the St. Louis Park Railroad Study
(see appendix A). In 1999, Mn/DOT completed a review of the street crossings in St. Louis Park. Their
recommendation was for eight intersections to be upgraded with new railroad signals electronically
operated and outfitted with crossing arms. Additionally, the new crossing improvements include street
reconstruction and new crossing pads. Mn/DOT also identified five (5) street crossings that should be
closed as part of an overall intersection improvement project. Discussions regarding street closures need
to involve police, fire and emergency medical staff.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 16
After review of previous work and discussions with MnDOT, Hennepin County and St. Louis Park staffs,
prepare a Grade Crossing Evaluation Technical Memorandum which will identify and analyze each of the
roadways crossed by the M.N.S line. The analysis shall specify which crossings require further analysis.
For those crossings determined to need further analysis, the Consultant shall summarize in Technical
Memorandum or Report form the traffic problem, all potential solutions investigated, and the
recommended configuration of each crossing. The Consultant’s analysis shall also include plan and
profile and cost estimate for each recommended grade separation. In addition, the consultant will be
required to conduct a diagnostic review with Mn/DOT's grade crossing safety staff prior to submitting
recommendations.
The consultant shall provide recommendations for adding or modifying signals required in support of
improvements described. Plans shall include signals and signage as necessary to effectively control the
movement of bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles across the corridor.
2.8 Cost Estimates
Based upon the results of Task 2.3 -2.7, the consultant will develop cost estimates for the individual
components of the project. The cost estimates should be prepared in 2010 dollars and use standard
costs per project element consistent with Federal Rail Administration (FRA) guidance.
Deliverable: Cost estimate in year 2010 dollars by individual cost element.
2.9 Permits and Regulations
The consultant will prepare a list of the permits and/or other regulatory items required for completion of
the project.
Deliverable: Memorandum with listing of permits and other regulatory items required for
implementation of the project.
2.10 Public Involvement
The consultant will develop a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) to ensure the viewpoints of all key
stakeholders are incorporated into the analysis.
In terms of public participation, it is expected that consultant shall identify the means by which they will
assure those community leaders, business groups, corridor residents and others are afforded
opportunities to participate in the process and to provide input. Periodic informational meetings shall
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 17
occur for neighborhood and business associations within the study area. Consultant shall provide an
experienced public outreach/community involvement specialist dedicated to this project to develop,
initiate and maintain a proactive dialogue with the citizens of the affected communities.
The successful consultant shall develop and maintain a project mailing/contact list in digital format and
will be analyzed using GIS. This analysis will allow the project team to identify gaps in the results of the
public outreach project, identify the geographic location of comments received and allow the public
involvement team to adjust the public involvement strategy as needed.
Potential impacts and design issues will be discussed with committees, citizen/business groups and
corridor residents. Consultants shall describe, and include in their cost estimate, the specific activities,
techniques, format, and the number of meetings, to ensure an open and proactive public involvement
process that facilitates consensus development as well as the public meetings and notices required by
NEPA.
The consultant should identify any unique, but reasonable and cost-effective, techniques that could be
used to reach specific populations within the corridor.
At a minimum, the consultant will:
• Prepare a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) summarizing the public involvement process and
strategies.
• Staff the community meetings including organizing, scheduling, notifying, and participating in all
meetings.
• Track public comment and response.
• Update and maintain the corridor mailing list and web site. Provide staff for the entire
production and distribution of newsletters.
• Convene an initial public meeting to explain process, set expectations, answer citizen and
property owner questions and identify potential impacts to include in study.
• Convene several milestone meetings to ensure key stakeholders are involved in the process. The
consultant may need sets of meetings for different types of stakeholders (i.e. businesses,
residents, subareas of the corridor, etc.)
2.11 Document
The consultant will produce 10 copies of a draft study report and 50 hard copies and one master CD Rom
of the final report. The draft report will be prepared with adequate time for review and comment by the
Project Management Team (PMT) and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The final report will be
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 18
provided to the client in electronic as well as hard copy form. The final report will be provided to the
client in its original electronic form as well as in PDF format.
Deliverable: 10 copies of the draft study report and 50 hardcopies and one master CD Rom of the
final study report. The final study report will be produced in a web ready format (e.g., PDF). A master
copy of the final report will be provided.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 19
Attachment A: Instructions for Proposal Preparation
A. Submission of Proposals
All proposals must be addressed as follows:
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
Attn: Katie Walker, Transit Manager
Hennepin County
Housing, Community Works and Transit
417 North Fifth Street, Suite 320
Minneapolis, MN 55401-1362
Proposals must be physically delivered to the offices of HCRRA at the above address no later than 4:30
p.m. on Friday, May 7, 2010. Proposals received after the specified time and date may not be
considered.
Consultants may not contact the staff of HCRRA or others serving on the consultant selection committee
regarding this RFP beyond the inquiry process described above.
Request for Proposals Issued April 16, 2010
Proposal due May 7, 2010
Selection of Consultant May 17-21, 2010
Contract Award and Notice to Proceed June 8, 2010
B. Proposal Format
Proposals must be submitted on 8-1/2” x 11” size paper and should be typed using a minimum 12 point
standard font. Graphic illustrations may be shown on 11”x17” paper and will be considered as one page.
Proposal narratives may not exceed 20 single-sided or 10 double-sided pages in length, including the
cover letter. An appendix may be included that includes resumes and examples of relevant work
experience. This appendix is not to exceed 20 single-sided or 10 double-sided pages. The proposal
narrative and appendices should be bound together in a single submittal.
The applicant must submit a financial bid in a separate envelope from the proposal document. This
financial bid should include estimated hours, rates, expenses and other costs in correlation with the
major tasks identified in the proposal work plan. As described previously, the financial bid should
respond to the scope of services in this RFP. The financial bid should also include the implications of
any recommended deviations from the RFP scope of services.
One (1) original, ten (10) photocopies, and ten (10) CD’s in PDF format of the proposal are required. It
is requested that the financial bid also be submitted in electronic Excel spreadsheet format to facilitate
the evaluation process.
All information included in the submitted proposal will be classified in accordance with Section 13.591 of
Minnesota statutes governing data practices.
C. Valid Proposal
In order to be considered valid, the proposal shall be in writing, submitted on time in sealed packages
and be signed by an officer of the Proposer who can be accountable for all representations.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 20
The proposal must contain the following information, presented in the order shown:
1. Profile of Proposer, including the size and organizational structure, past history, and the status
and outcome of any lawsuits brought against the Proposer in the past five years. HCRRA
reserves the right to exclude Proposers that have an organizational conflict of interest.
2. Description of Proposers overall approach or solution.
3. Work Plan. Breakdown of project by phases or tasks. For each task identified in the scope of
services in this RFP, identify:
• Specific staff to be involved, roles, and responsibilities. Availability of staff including
percent of time allocated to the Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study versus other
commitments over the duration of the study.
• Time commitment for each person (hours)
• Schedule
4. Master Schedule on single sheet illustrating task relationships including anticipated meetings over
the duration of the study.
5. Description of Proposer’s past experience providing similar services including:
• Names and addresses of contact persons.
• Description (history and experience) of proposal team members’ role in each project.
• Experience and knowledge of NEPA, the State of Minnesota’s environmental rules and
regulations, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) regulations and guidance.
6. Project Team Profile
• Resumes of key project participants, including prior projects of similar size and scope for
which the participants played the same or a similar role. Organizational chart of the
Proposer’s key team members including sub consultants.
• Description of the anticipated role of each Proposer key team member. Confirm that
each team member will be fully engaged in the study as described for the duration of the
contract.
7. Fee for Services (in separate sealed envelope)
• Budget broken down by team member, by firm, and by scope of service task. The
number of hours allocated to each team member for each task element of the work plan
will be clearly indicated.
• Current audited hourly rates for staff.
• Current audited overhead rates for all Proposer team firms.
• An estimate of reimbursable direct expenses by expense type.
D. Proposal Submission Process
1. Notice to Proposer
a. HCRRA is not responsible for costs incurred by anyone responding to this Request for
Proposals.
b. Upon submission, all proposals become the property of HCRRA, which retains the right to use
any concept or idea presented in any proposal submitted, whether or not that proposal is
accepted.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 21
c. HCRRA expressly reserves the right to amend or withdraw this Request for Proposals at any
time and to reject any or all proposals. Any amendments will be made in writing, and no
verbal modifications will be binding.
d. HCRRA is not bound to accept the lowest cost proposal.
e. Proposals are held legally responsible for their proposals and proposal budgets. Proposers
are not to collude with other proposers and competitors or take any other action which will
restrict competition. Evidence of such activity will result in rejection of the proposal.
f. HCRRA reserves the right to negotiate contract terms contemporaneously and /or
subsequently with any number of proposers as HCRRA deems to be in its best interests.
g. Any exceptions to the requirements of this RFP, including the language in the sample
contract, must be included in the proposal submitted by the Proposer. Identify the
exceptions as a separate element of the proposal under the heading “Exceptions/Deviations.”
Failure to note exceptions shall be deemed a waiver of objections.
h. HCRRA reserves the right to request any additional information at any stage of the Request
for Proposals process. Compliance shall be at the proposers’ expense.
i. Each proposal shall constitute a binding, irrevocable offer for a period of 120 days after the
date proposals are due.
E. Key Personnel Minimum Qualifications for Acceptance
The qualification and experience of consultant team personnel will be reviewed as part of the qualitative
assessment of the proposals. Personnel will be evaluated, in part, based on the extent that they meet
and/or exceed such requirements, including, but not limited to, relevant education, training, certification,
and experience. The following provides a brief job description and minimum requirements of some
personnel needs for the Alternatives Analysis Study.
1. Project Manager
The project manager will be responsible for overall project management and contract administration for
the work. The project manager must have at least five years of experience in the freight rail area,
managing large transportation planning studies and experience with NEPA and the State’s environmental
rules and regulations.
Relevant experience for each team member should be clearly identified in the individual resumes included
in the proposal Appendix materials. Descriptions of relevant experience should include the name and
location of the relevant project or study, characterization of the individual’s involvement, approximate
duration dates, percent of time spent and total hours worked.
F. Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation of the proposals will be based on the following criteria:
• Displayed understanding of the project
• Previous experience
• Qualifications of personnel assigned to the project, as related to the requirement of the project
• Availability of key personnel
• Ability to accomplish work within the desired project timeframe.
• Hours by task estimate for consultant services
Additional evaluation factors are as follows:
• HCRRA reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in the proposal request process.
• HCRRA reserves the right to interview any or all proposers at its discretion.
• Proposals will be evaluated by an evaluation team selected by HCRRA.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 22
• The evaluation team may conduct oral interviews with selected proposers. HCRRA will not be
responsible for any costs incurred by a proposer in preparing for or making a presentation.
• The decision to proceed with contract negotiations with a selected consultant will be based on
the written proposals, the results of oral interviews, if held, and the recommendation of the
Proposal Evaluation Team. That decision will be made by HCRRA.
The emphasis of the proposal evaluation team will be on the quality of the proposal document along with
qualifications and experience of the consultant team in relation to the study tasks. Cost will be a relevant
secondary factor in the evaluation process. A determination will be made as to which proposal, if any, is
most advantageous to HCRRA, by considering the evaluations of the proposals, the best value to HCRRA,
and the best interests of HCRRA.
HCRRA encourages the participation of certified disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) including, but
not limited to, women’s business enterprises (WBEs), minority business enterprises (MBEs) and small
business enterprises (SBEs). However, a participation goal is not included as part of the evaluation
criteria.
G. Contracting Procedure/Award
HCRRA will enter into a Cost Reimbursement Contract with the selected consultant. Payment to the
contractor will be based on costs incurred, consistent with the budget, performance and the work
statement. See Appendix A for contract provisions that will be contained in the contract HCRRA enters
into with the selected firm. Proposals should indicate the firm’s willingness to agree to such contract
provisions.
HCRRA may award a contract based on offers received, without discussion of such offers with the
applicants. Each offer should, therefore, be submitted in the most favorable terms from a cost,
programmatic and technical standpoint.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 23
I. APPENDIX: Sample Contract
PERSONAL/PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is between the HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD
AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, (the “AUTHORITY”) 417
North 5th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, and ____________________________ [name,
legal form of CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR’s business address. The type of legal form
of the CONTRACTOR should be noted in the opening paragraph (i.e., individually, partnership,
corporation, limited liability company, etc.). The laws of the state under which the
CONTRACTOR is incorporated should also be stated. Example: John G. Smith, Inc., a
corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota.], (“CONTRACTOR”).
The parties agree as follows:
1. TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
CONTRACTOR agrees to furnish services to the AUTHORITY commencing
______________________ and terminating ____________________, unless terminated
earlier in accordance with the Default and Cancellation provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
CONTRACTOR hereby warrants that, when legally required, CONTRACTOR shall
obtain the written consent of both the owner and licensor to reproduce, publish, and/or
use any material supplied to the AUTHORITY including but not limited to software,
hardware, documentation, and/or any other item. CONTRACTOR further warrants that
any material or item delivered by CONTRACTOR will not violate the United States
Copyright Law or any property right of another and agrees that CONTRACTOR shall
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the AUTHORITY, its officials, officers, agents,
volunteers, and employees, at CONTRACTOR’s own expense, against any alleged
infringement of any copyright or property right.
3. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES
A. Payment for services shall be made directly to CONTRACTOR after completion
of the services upon the presentation of a claim as provided by law governing the
AUTHORITY’s payment of claims and/or invoices. CONTRACTOR shall
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 24
submit monthly invoices for services rendered on forms which may be furnished
by the AUTHORITY. Payment shall be made within sixty (60) days from the
approval of the invoice.
B. The agreement will include the following payment provisions:
Services will be compensated on a time and materials basis up to a maximum not-
to-exceed cost, inclusive of fees and reimbursable expenses. The hourly rate for
time spent under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the attached rate
schedule identifying the hourly rate per individual to perform services under this
Agreement. Payments will be made upon achievement of agreed-upon project
milestones.
Payment of interest on late payments and disputes regarding payments shall be
governed by the provisions of Minn. Stat. Section 471.425. If reimbursement of
expenses is included, AUTHORITY will reimburse at actual cost for out of
pocket expenses. If reimbursement for travel is permitted, all air fare shall first be
authorized by AUTHORITY and will be reimbursed at the economy rate. Food,
ground transportation, and lodging expenses necessitated by the Agreement will
be reimbursed at the rate consistent with the Runzheimer Index for the
Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan area. Mileage will be reimbursed at the rate
for Hennepin County employees.
C. Prior to the execution of a contract by AUTHORITY, the successful proposer
shall provide a certificate of insurance acceptable to the Hennepin County Risk
Manager evidencing, at a minimum, the coverage required in Section 7 of this
contract.
4. PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
CONTRACTOR agrees to provide all information requested by the AUTHORITY to facilitate
the verification of educational and professional credentials from primary sources. Upon request
of AUTHORITY, CONTRACTOR shall complete a Statement of Academic and Professional
Credentials and Activities form, provided by AUTHORITY to CONTRACTOR, prior to
providing services. CONTRACTOR agrees to undergo a review of professional credentials as
requested by the AUTHORITY during the term of this Agreement.
5. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services.
Nothing is intended or should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of
co-partners between the parties or as constituting CONTRACTOR as the agent,
representative, or employee of the AUTHORITY for any purpose. CONTRACTOR is
and shall remain an independent contractor for all services performed under this
Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall secure at its own expense all personnel required in
performing services under this Agreement. Any personnel of CONTRACTOR or other
persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by
CONTRACTOR will have no contractual relationship with the AUTHORITY, and will
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 25
not be considered employees of the AUTHORITY. The AUTHORITY shall not be
responsible for any claims that arise out of employment or alleged employment under the
Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers’ Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of any personnel, including, without limitation, claims of
discrimination against the CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees
shall in no way be the responsibility of the AUTHORITY. CONTRACTOR shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the AUTHORITY, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers,
and employees from such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent
tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall
neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind from
the AUTHORITY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care,
sick and vacation leave, Workers’ Compensation, Re-employment Compensation,
disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits.
6. NON-DISCRIMINATION
A. In accordance with Hennepin County’s policies against discrimination,
CONTRACTOR agrees that it shall not exclude any person from full employment
rights nor prohibit participation in or the benefits of any program, service or
activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital
status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin. No person
who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against discrimination shall
be subjected to discrimination.
B. If this Agreement is for a sum of over $100,000 or is one of several current contracts
with CONTRACTOR totaling more than $100,000, or is amended to exceed $100,000,
then CONTRACTOR agrees to abide by the County’s non-discrimination and
Affirmative Action requirements for County contractors. If CONTRACTOR has a
current approved Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) from another governmental
jurisdiction, it will have met this requirement upon submitting evidence of such
approval.
If CONTRACTOR does not have an approved AAP from another jurisdiction, it
may be exempt from these requirements for one of the following reasons:
1. Contract is for emergency or life safety related purchases;
2. CONTRACTOR has no facilities and has no more than one product/sales
representative operating in Hennepin County;
3. CONTRACTOR had an average of thirty (30) or fewer full-time/benefit-
earning employees during the twelve (12) months preceding the
submission of the bid, request for proposal or execution of contract;
4. Pursuant to Hennepin County Board policy, the County Administrator or
his/her designee granted an exemption.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 26
If CONTRACTOR was not granted an exemption by the Hennepin County
Purchasing/Contract Services (P/CS) Manager, or designee, CONTRACTOR
agrees to develop and complete an Affirmative Action Plan within thirty (30)
calendar days after contract execution and agrees to maintain the AAP on file at
CONTRACTOR’S facility.
CONTRACTOR also agrees to submit an Initial Workforce Analysis (Form 399)
to the Contract Manager within five (5) business days after contract execution.
CONTRACTOR’s submission shall be based on the following criteria:
1. If CONTRACTOR is located within the local Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA) and with more than thirty (30) full-time/benefit
earning employees within the local SMSA, CONTRACTOR shall submit
an Initial Workforce Analysis that reflects its local SMSA workforce.
2. If CONTRACTOR is located within the local SMSA and with thirty (30)
or fewer full-time/benefit earning employees within the local SMSA, then
CONTRACTOR shall submit an Initial Workforce Analysis that reflects
its total workforce.
3. If CONTRACTOR is located outside the local SMSA and with more than
thirty (30) full-time/benefit earning employees within the local SMSA,
then CONTRACTOR shall submit an Initial Workforce Analysis that
reflects its local SMSA workforce.
4. If CONTRACTOR is located outside the local SMSA and with thirty (30)
or fewer full-time/benefit earning employees within the local SMSA, then
CONTRACTOR shall submit an Initial Workforce Analysis that reflects
its total workforce.
Contract Manager shall submit the Initial Workforce Analysis to the P/CS
Division. If a P/CS Division review determines there is under-representation of
women and/or racial minorities based on local SMSA labor force availability
data, CONTRACTOR shall be required to identify measures to correct the
deficiencies. If the deficiencies are not corrected, Hennepin County will require
CONTRACTOR to demonstrate that good faith efforts have been made to correct
them. CONTRACTOR also agrees to keep the AAP current and available for
review by the County during the term of this Agreement and any extensions. The
AAP must include the following elements:
1. EEO Policy Statement;
2. Identification of a person responsible for EEO Coordination;
3. Harassment policy statement;
4. Initial Workforce Analysis (Form CC399);
5. Identification of the specific steps CONTRACTOR will take to achieve or
maintain a diverse workforce and ensure non-discrimination;
6. List of recruitment sources; and
7. A plan for dissemination of CONTRACTOR’s AAP and policy.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 27
Contractors who submit evidence of an approved AAP from another jurisdiction
and contractors who are required to develop and maintain an AAP on file also
agree to submit an Annual Workforce Report (CC400) to Hennepin County’s
P/CS Division.
CONTRACTOR also agrees that Hennepin County and AUTHORITY will have
access to the AAP and the right to make on-site visits for the purpose of
determining compliance with these requirements.
If CONTRACTOR fails to demonstrate good faith efforts to correct identified
deficiencies, and/or fails to submit requested reports or information required by
Hennepin County, and/or has engaged in discriminatory practices, the
AUTHORITY may consider this a violation of the Agreement and may exercise
any remedies available to it in law or in equity, including but not limited to
cancellation or termination of the Agreement.
The local Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area is defined as the Counties of
Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne,
Washington, and Wright in Minnesota and Pierce and St. Croix in Wisconsin.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 28
7. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
A. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
AUTHORITY, its officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any
liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses,
including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act
or omission of CONTRACTOR, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly
employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be
liable in the performance of the services required by this Agreement, and against
all loss by reason of the failure of CONTRACTOR to perform any obligation
under this Agreement.
B. In order to protect CONTRACTOR and those listed above under the
indemnification provision, CONTRACTOR agrees at all times during the term of
this Agreement, and beyond such term when so required, to have and keep in
force the following insurance coverages:
Limits
1. Commercial General Liability on an occurrence
basis with contractual liability coverage:
General Aggregate $2,000,000
Products—Completed Operations Aggregate 1,000,000
Personal and Advertising Injury 1,000,000
Each Occurrence—Combined Bodily
Injury and Property Damage 1,000,000
2. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability:
Workers’ Compensation Statutory
If CONTRACTOR is based outside the State of
Minnesota, coverage must apply to Minnesota
law. In accordance with Minnesota law, if
Contractor is a sole proprietor, it is exempted
from the above Workers’ Compensation
requirements. In the event that CONTRACTOR
should hire employees or subcontract the work,
CONTRACTOR shall obtain the required
insurance.
Employer’s Liability. Bodily injury by:
Accident—Each Accident 500,000
Disease—Policy Limit 500,000
Disease—Each Employee 500,000
3. Professional Liability: Per Claim 1,000,000
Aggregate 2,000,000
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 29
The professional liability insurance must be maintained
continuously for a period of two years after the termination
of this Agreement.
C. An umbrella or excess policy over primary liability insurance coverages is an
acceptable method to provide the required insurance limits.
The above establishes minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole
responsibility of CONTRACTOR to determine the need for and to procure
additional insurance which may be needed in connection with this Agreement.
Upon written request, CONTRACTOR shall promptly submit copies of insurance
policies to the AUTHORITY.
CONTRACTOR shall not commence work until it has obtained required
insurance and filed with the AUTHORITY, a properly executed Certificate of
Insurance which clearly evidences required insurance coverages. The certificate
must name Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority as the certificate
holder and as an additional insured for the liability coverage(s) for all operations
covered under the Agreement. The certificate must also show that the
AUTHORITY will receive 30 days’ prior written notice in the event of
cancellation, nonrenewal, or material change in any described policies.
CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the AUTHORITY updated certificates during the
term of this Agreement as insurance policies expire. If CONTRACTOR fails to
furnish proof of insurance coverages, the AUTHORITY may withhold payments
and/or pursue any other right or remedy allowed under the contract, law, equity,
and/or statute. The AUTHORITY does not waive any rights or assume any
obligations by not strictly enforcing the requirements set forth in this section.
D. Duty to Notify. CONTRACTOR shall promptly notify the AUTHORITY of any
claim, action, cause of action or litigation brought against CONTRACTOR, its
employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, which arises out of the services
contained in this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall also notify the
AUTHORITY whenever CONTRACTOR has a reasonable basis for believing
that CONTRACTOR and/or its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors,
and/or the AUTHORITY, might become the subject of a claim, action, cause of
action, criminal arrest, criminal charge or litigation arising out of and/or related to
the services contained in this Agreement. Failure to provide the notices required
by this section is a material violation of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
8. DATA PRACTICES
CONTRACTOR, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and
subcontractors shall abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (MGDPA), the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act and implementing regulations, if applicable, and all other applicable
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 30
state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or
confidentiality. If CONTRACTOR creates, collects, receives, stores, uses, maintains or
disseminates data because it performs functions of the AUTHORITY pursuant to this
Agreement, then CONTRACTOR must comply with the requirements of the MGDPA as
if it were a government entity, and may be held liable under the MGDPA for
noncompliance. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
AUTHORITY, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from any claims
resulting from CONTRACTOR’s officers’, agents’, owners’, partners’, employees’,
volunteers’, assignees’ or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of such
protected data, or other noncompliance with the requirements of this section.
CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly notify the AUTHORITY if it becomes aware of any
potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims, under the MGDPA. The terms of this
section shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement.
9. RECORDS – AVAILABILITY/ACCESS
Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5,
CONTRACTOR agrees that the AUTHORITY, Hennepin County, the State Auditor, the
Legislative Auditor or any of their authorized representatives at any time during normal
business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to
and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers,
records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of
CONTRACTOR and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. The
CONTRACTOR shall maintain these materials and allow access during the period of the
Agreement and for six (6) years after its termination or cancellation.
10. SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. CONTRACTOR binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal
representatives to the AUTHORITY for all covenants, agreements and obligations
contained in the contract documents.
B. CONTRACTOR shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement and/or the
services to be performed, whether in whole or in part, nor assign any monies due
or to become due to it without the prior written consent of the AUTHORITY. A
consent to assign shall be subject to such conditions and provisions as the
AUTHORITY may deem necessary, accomplished by execution of a form
prepared by the AUTHORITY and signed by CONTRACTOR, the assignee and
the AUTHORITY. Permission to assign, however, shall under no circumstances
relieve CONTRACTOR of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement.
C. CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be
performed, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 31
AUTHORITY. Permission to subcontract, however, shall under no circumstances
relieve CONTRACTOR of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement.
Further, CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible for the acts, omissions, and
failure of its subcontractors in the performance of the specified contractual
services, and of person(s) directly or indirectly employed by subcontractors.
Contracts between CONTRACTOR and each subcontractor shall require that the
subcontractor’s services be performed in accordance with the terms and
conditions specified. CONTRACTOR shall make contracts between
CONTRACTOR and subcontractors available upon request.
D. CONTRACTOR shall notify the AUTHORITY in writing if another person/entity
acquires, directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent (50%) of the voting power
of the shares entitled to vote for directors of CONTRACTOR. Notice shall be
given within ten (10) days of such acquisition and shall specify the name and
business address of the acquiring person/entity. The AUTHORITY reserves the
right to require the acquiring person/entity to promptly become a signatory to this
Agreement by amendment or other document so as to help assure the full
performance of this Agreement.
11. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
A. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items that are
referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this
Agreement.
B. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties.
12. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
A. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so
fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, it
shall be in default. Unless CONTRACTOR’s default is excused by the
AUTHORITY, the AUTHORITY may upon written notice immediately cancel
this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of
this Agreement shall be just cause for the AUTHORITY to delay payment until
CONTRACTOR’s compliance. In the event of a decision to withhold payment,
the AUTHORITY shall furnish prior written notice to CONTRACTOR.
B. Upon cancellation or termination of this Agreement:
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 32
1. At the discretion of the AUTHORITY and as specified in writing by the
Contract Administrator, CONTRACTOR shall deliver to the Contract
Administrator copies of all writings so specified by the AUTHORITY and
prepared by CONTRACTOR in accordance with this Agreement. The
term “writings” is defined as:
Handwriting, typewriting, printing, photocopying,
photographing, facsimile transmitting, and every other means
of recording, including electronic media, any form of
communication or representation, including letters, works,
pictures, drawings, sounds, or symbols, or combinations
thereof.
2. The AUTHORITY shall have full ownership and control of all such
writings. CONTRACTOR shall have the right to retain copies of the
writings. However, it is agreed that CONTRACTOR without the prior
written consent of the AUTHORITY shall not use these writings for any
purpose or in any manner whatsoever; shall not assign, license, loan, sell,
copyright, patent and/or transfer any or all of such writings; and shall not
do anything which in the opinion of the AUTHORITY would affect the
AUTHORITY’s ownership and/or control of such writings.
C. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary,
CONTRACTOR shall remain liable to the AUTHORITY for damages sustained
by the AUTHORITY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by
CONTRACTOR. Upon notice to CONTRACTOR of the claimed breach and the
amount of the claimed damage, the AUTHORITY may withhold any payments to
CONTRACTOR for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of
damages due the AUTHORITY from CONTRACTOR is determined. Following
notice from the AUTHORITY of the claimed breach and damage,
CONTRACTOR and the AUTHORITY shall attempt to resolve the dispute in
good faith.
D. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to
the AUTHORITY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity.
E. The AUTHORITY’s failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or
to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment
or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not
constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the
Agreement.
F. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon
thirty (30) days’ written notice.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 33
13. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of CONTRACTOR with the activities of the
AUTHORITY so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, Brent Rusco (Phone:
612.543.0579, Fax: 612.348.9710) shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the
AUTHORITY and serve as liaison between the AUTHORITY and CONTRACTOR.
14. COMPLIANCE AND NON-DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION
A. CONTRACTOR shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes,
regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted.
B. If the source or partial source of funds for payment of services under this
Agreement is federal, state or other grant monies, CONTRACTOR shall comply
with all applicable conditions of the specific referenced grant.
C. CONTRACTOR certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either
the federal government or the State of Minnesota as a result of debarment or
suspension proceedings.
15. SUBCONTRACTOR PAYMENT
CONTRACTOR shall pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of CONTRACTOR’s
receipt of payment from the AUTHORITY for undisputed services provided by the
subcontractor. CONTRACTOR shall pay interest of 1½ percent per month or any part of a
month to the subcontractor on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor.
The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of $100.00 or more is
$10.00. For an unpaid balance of less than $100.00, CONTRACTOR shall pay the actual
penalty due to the subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect
interest penalties from a prime contractor must be awarded its costs and disbursements,
including any attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing the action.
16. PAPER RECYCLING
The AUTHORITY encourages CONTRACTOR to develop and implement an office
paper and newsprint recycling program.
17. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or
any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail.
Notices to the AUTHORITY shall be sent to the Deputy Executive Director with a copy
to the AUTHORITY’s Contract Manager identified in Section 12. Notice to
CONTRACTOR shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of the
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 34
Agreement or to the address stated in CONTRACTOR’s Form W-9 provided to the
AUTHORITY.
18. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONTRACTOR affirms that to the best of CONTRACTOR’s knowledge, CONTRACTOR’s
involvement in this Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest with any party or
entity, which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR agrees
that, should any conflict or potential conflict of interest become known to CONTRACTOR,
CONTRACTOR will immediately notify the AUTHORITY of the conflict or potential
conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict,
and will advise the AUTHORITY whether CONTRACTOR will or will not resign from the
other engagement or representation.
19. PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE
CONTRACTOR agrees that the terms “Hennepin County” and “Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority,” or any derivative, shall not be utilized in any promotional
literature, advertisements of any type or form or client lists without the express prior
written consent of the AUTHORITY.
20. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations
between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for
any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the
appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this
Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be
affected.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 35
AUTHORITY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
Reviewed by the HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL
County Attorney’s Office RAILROAD AUTHORITY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
______________________________ By: ________________________________
Chair of Its Board
Date: ________________________
ATTEST: ___________________________
Deputy/Clerk of Authority Board
Date: _______________________________
By:_________________________________
Deputy/Executive Director
Date:_______________________________
CONTRACTOR
Contractor warrants that the person who executed
this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of
the Contractor as required by applicable articles,
bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.*
By:
Printed Name:________________________
Printed Title: ________________________
Date:
*CONTRACTOR shall submit applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions, or
ordinances) that confirms the signatory’s delegation of authority. This documentation shall be
submitted at the time CONTRACTOR returns the Agreement to the Authority. Documentation
is not required for a sole proprietorship.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 36
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 37
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 38
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 39
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 40
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 41
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 42
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 43
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 44
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 45
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 46
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 47
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 48
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 49
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 50
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 51
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 52
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 53
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 54
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 55
November,
2009
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
11/18/09
With assistance from TKDA
TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 56
3
BACKGROUND
Prior to the Hiawatha/TH55 upgrades in South Minneapolis, Canadian Pacific Railway’s (CPR) Bass Lake
Subdivision (east-west trackage through St. Louis Park and Minneapolis) crossed Hiawatha Avenue at
grade (see Exhibit 1). During the design process for the Hiawatha/TH55 project, Mn/DOT and FHWA
determined that neither an at-grade freight rail crossing nor a grade separation was viable and the
decision was made to sever the freight rail line and relocate freight rail service to St. Paul. An at-grade
crossing posed problems due to the high traffic levels on Hiawatha/TH55 and a grade separation was
problematic due to limited grades and geometry. An analysis was conducted to determine the
preferred route for the relocated freight rail service. The conclusion was that the MNS Sub was the
preferred route. Shortly after this was concluded it was discovered that the Golden Auto site over which
the freight rail connection would be constructed was a superfund site. Until the Golden Auto site was
cleaned up and delisted, a temporary route needed to be found or the federal funding for
Hiawatha/TH55 project would be lost.
The main carrier on the Bass Lake Sub from St. Louis Park, through the Midtown Trench along 29th
Street, and on to St. Paul is the Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TCWR). TCWR has trackage rights on
CPR’s Bass Lake Sub and also BNSF Railway (BNSF) track once they got to St. Paul to continue on to the
Pigs Eye Yard in St. Paul and to Minnesota Commercial Railway’s (MNNR) A Yard. To sever the Midtown
Trench tracks at Hiawatha Avenue, an alternate route was needed to get TCWR on to St. Paul where
they have connections with BNSF, CPR, MNNR, and Union Pacific Railroad (UP).
Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) owns the old CNW line known as the Kenilworth
Corridor through the Kenwood area in Minneapolis. To facilitate the connection of TCWR to the east,
HCRRA rehabbed the Kenilworth Corridor as a temporary route and facilitated an agreement between
BNSF, CPR, and TCWR to provide trackage rights into and through St. Paul. In order to allow trains back
on this old CNW line, the neighborhoods were told that this alignment was going to be temporary to
preserve it for future transit use. The temporary route was rehabbed and was to be used for 1-6 years
until a permanent relocation could be developed. This 1-6 year fix has now become more than a 10 year
fix and is currently in the need of another rehab to safely and consistently carry rail traffic into the
future.
ST. LOUIS PARK RAILROAD REPORT, 1999
Shortly after the decision was made to reroute freight rail traffic on a temporary basis through the
Kenilworth Corridor in Minneapolis, a study was conducted to examine the short-term and long-term
freight rail options to determine solutions that allow freight to move efficiently and effectively through
St. Louis Park while reducing impacts to the greatest extent possible for St. Louis Park. A Neighborhood
Task Force was assembled to provide guidance and input during the study.
STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of the analysis contained in this report is to evaluate all potential options for a permanent
location for freight rail operations. To determine a permanent home for freight service consideration
must be given to both the short-term and the long-term. Any solution must work for both the short-
term as well as the long-term.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 57
4 EXHIBIT 1 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 58
5
For this report, care has been taken to avoid repeating the information in the St. Louis Park Railroad
Study prepared by RLK Associates, Ltd. in March 1999. Most of the information contained in this study
is based on the technical data from the St. Louis Park Railroad Study. That data was used as a starting
point for background information on potential alignments. However, the railroads, Mn/DOT, the City of
St. Louis Park, and Hennepin County have all been interviewed again to get updated information that
would affect finding a permanent track alignment for TCWR. Using past and present information,
Hennepin County is pursuing feasible alignment scenarios for a permanent home for TCWR freight
traffic.
To provide project direction, a discussion group was formed and is composed of staff from Hennepin
County, Mn/DOT, Twin Cities and Western (TCW) Rail Company, Minneapolis, and St. Louis Park. The
discussion group met periodically during the course of the study to provide input and to review technical
materials produced by TKDA.
CHANGES SINCE ST. LOUIS PARK RAILROAD STUDY, 1999
While most information in the St. Louis Park Railroad Study is still pertinent, changes have taken place in
the metro area that need to be accounted for while finding a permanent home for TCWR. The current
Twins Ballpark (Target Field) is nearly complete as is the Northstar Commuter Rail and Hiawatha Light
Rail Transit extension. Additional passenger rail and light rail corridors are also being explored that will
terminate at the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, near the new Target Field site. In addition to
all the developments surrounding the Twins Ballpark area, railroad priorities and shipping movements
have changed since 2000 when the St. Louis Park Freight Rail Task Force Report was completed.
TWINS BALLPARK SITE (Target Field)
The design of the Twins Ballpark (Target Field) required reconfiguring railroad tracks in the area. With
the addition of the Twins Ballpark to the west side of downtown Minneapolis, additional rail
complications have been introduced. BNSF’s Wayzata Sub runs adjacent to the Twins Ballpark site. This
is already a busy section of track for BNSF with up to 15 trains per day traveling through the area. This
includes intermodal trains with double-stacked shipping containers that are now able to pass under the
Main Street bridge in northeast Minneapolis which was just replaced this year. The inclusion of the
Twins Ballpark near BNSF’s track required extensive realignment to permit the trackage and ballpark to
coexist in the same area. The realignment for the Twins Ballpark works as required, but it hinders future
track alignment modifications and limits capacity expansion through the area. On its current right of
way, BNSF is relegated to one track through this entire corridor to the northwest of the new Twins
Ballpark (Target Field). Adding additional tracks through this area to expand freight rail operations
would require significant property acquisitions and reconstruction of bridges. The area to the northwest
of the Twins Ballpark (Target Field) is a historic district covering some of the properties that would be
required to construct additional tracks through the area.
MINNEAPOLIS TRANSPORTATION INTERCHANGE
As part of the Twins Ballpark (Target Field) site, a two-level intermodal passenger rail hub is being
completed at the north corner of the Twin Ballpark. This includes Northstar Commuter Rail at the same
level as BNSF’s freight tracks and Light Rail Transit (LRT) at the street level above.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 59
6
The Northstar Commuter Rail station has been built with two tracks for train storage and passenger
loading and unloading. This trackage is built at the same level as BNSF’s track as the Northstar
passenger train will be utilizing BNSF tracks. Located between the Twins Ballpark to the southwest and
BNSF’s mainline and buildings to the northwest, most usable space through this area has already been
utilized.
The LRT station and trackage is out of the way of freight rail through the area. However, this is another
factor that impedes expansion of freight or passenger rail through the area. The LRT extension to the
Twins Ballpark is built at the same level as 5th Street on a bridge over the Wayzata Sub and Northstar
Commuter Rail tracks. If additional freight rail tracks are constructed in the area, the 5th Street LRT
bridge would need to be lengthened and LRT service would be suspended during construction.
Combined, the Twins Ballpark (Target Field) and the intermodal station connecting Northstar Commuter
Rail and Hiawatha/Central LRT restrict if not preclude the ability to expand BNSF’s track through the
area. For expansion to be possible, bridges over BNSF’s track will need to be lengthened, buildings to
the west located within a historic district will need to be taken, or possibly both.
PASSENGER AND LIGHT RAIL PROJECTS
Passenger and light rail projects are currently being considered throughout the Twin Cities Metro area.
At full build out the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange (intermodal station) could be served by up
to five (5) commuter rail lines, up to four (4) LRT lines, intercity passenger rail service, and high speed
rail from Chicago. The implementation of the future vision for an integrated system of rail lines and bus
routes converging in downtown Minneapolis at the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange has a
significant impact on the ability of freight rail to expand operations through this area.
While the passenger and LRT corridors have varying degrees of potential implementation in the near
future, the list does highlight the number of passenger rail projects being looked at in the area. That
means there is a strong possibility that the area around the Twins Ballpark, and BNSF’s Wayzata Sub
specifically, will see additional rail traffic increases that need to be accounted for while looking for a
permanent route for TCWR’s trains. If all of the projects are built as envisioned by Hennepin County, up
to 80 commuter and passenger rail trains per day and 500 LRT trains per day will converge at the
Minneapolis Transportation Interchange in addition to any freight rail traffic.
RAIL TRAFFIC
Rail traffic varies from day to day and year to year. Although it’s impossible to precisely forecast future
rail traffic, we can use current rail traffic as a starting point for analysis. The one bit of traffic that has
changed significantly is TCWR’s southbound traffic to the port of Savage. Due to market changes in
grain, this move by TCWR has not run in the past two years. However, that traffic could turn around
during any given harvest season. TCWR purchased the bridge over the Mississippi River in Savage to
protect that shipping option and is counting on that market for growth in their future traffic projections.
BNSF and CPR rail traffic has gone up and down through the area, but none of the changes suggest a
major change in traffic to the point where current routes aren’t needed. If anything, the changes
(specifically the addition of passenger rail and double-stack intermodal trains on the Wayzata Sub) will
necessitate increases in capacity and infrastructure.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 60
7
Moving commodities along freight rail lines rather than by semi trucks on the roadway system has a
significant effect upon the region’s mobility. TCWR reports that an average train load equates to 40
semi trucks on the roadway system. Maintaining freight rail connections as a viable method for
transporting goods to, from, and within the Twin Cities region contributes to the healthy economy of
this region. As the roadway network continues to become more and more congested, moving
commodities by freight rail will become more competitive.
ALTERNATE ROUTE ANALYSIS
After reviewing the history of freight rail operations and discussing the future of freight rail operations
with the private freight rail companies, TKDA developed an inventory of all possible routes for long-term
permanent freight rail operations. The options for alternative routes were presented in small group
meetings with the private freight rail companies. Through this process the following alternatives were
identified:
Kenilworth Corridor
Midtown Corridor
MNS Sub
Chaska Cut-Off
Former Railroad Alignment – Hwy 169
Western MN Connection with BNSF
The routing alternatives were then evaluated to determine which one would provide the best long-term
permanent home for freight rail. Considerations included impact to freight rail operations (short-term
and long-term), impacts to the transportation system, potential property acquisitions/relocations, and
construction costs.
KENILWORTH CORRIDOR – EXISTING TEMPORARY ALIGNMENT
The temporary route for TCW routes them along their own track to the west which turns into CPR
owned track before turning into HCRRA track between the Midtown Corridor turnoff and the Cedar Lake
Junction at BNSF’s Wayzata Sub (see Exhibit 2). TCWR runs on the Bass Lake Spur before veering
northeast where the old Midtown Corridor started heading straight east along 29th Street. From here
TCWR runs on the Kenilworth Corridor up to Cedar Lake Junction where it turns east onto BNSF’s
Wayzata Sub and heads into downtown through the Twins Ballpark site and on to St. Paul. As stated
previously, this route was meant to be a temporary route for TCWR. The line was rebuilt to temporarily
allow trains to connect to St. Paul while the National Lead/Golden Auto site was to be cleaned up to
accommodate a connection between Bass Lake Sub to MNS Sub for TCWR to run through St. Louis Park.
The HCRRA acquired the Kenilworth Corridor to preserve it for future transit use. HCRRA allowed
temporary use of the Kenilworth Corridor for TCWR operations to allow the Hiawatha/TH55 Project to
move forward with the understanding that freight rail was only a temporary use and would vacate the
corridor.
According to State Statute 383B.81, an Environmental Response Fund was created to sufficiently clean
up the National Lead/Golden Auto site in St. Louis Park. This property was to be used to build the
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 61
8 EXHIBIT 2 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 62
9
connection between Bass Lake Sub to MNS Sub for TCWR to run through St. Louis Park before making its
way east to St. Paul. The funds were to be made available to St. Louis Park if they entered into an
agreement with Hennepin County to acquire the contaminated site and to provide a rail right-of-way to
replace the 29th Street Corridor. Kenilworth was never to be a permanent alignment and was
rehabilitated accordingly. The lifespan of this rehabilitated track is coming to an end and a long-term
permanent location for freight rail must be provided.
Mn/DOT is also interested in the relocation of the freight rail through this area. They are interested in
knowing whether TCWR will continue to run on this corridor before performing their Hwy 100 widening
project under Hwy 7 and the Bass Lake Sub. Mn/DOT acknowledges that if SWLRT is constructed, a new
LRT bridge will need to go over Hwy 100. However the necessity to build a freight rail bridge over Hwy
100 is determined by whether or not freight rail continues through the Kenilworth Corridor or if it’s
relocated elsewhere. Building a freight bridge will add significant costs to the Hwy 100 widening project.
They would have to build a longer bridge than currently exists to accommodate a wider Hwy 100.
Building a longer bridge also means a taller depth of structure which inevitably will lead to having to
lower Hwy 100 further to get the necessary clearances for vehicular traffic below the freight railroad
bridge. And pushing the roadway down creates drainage issues that also need to be accounted for. All
of these issues and expenditures would be eliminated if TCWR freight traffic is relocated to the MNS
Sub.
During the course of this study, St. Louis Park staff requested an evaluation of freight rail and LRT
coexistence in the Kenilworth Corridor. The purpose was to inform elected officials and the public of the
implications. Coexistence of the freight rail lines would require acquisitions in excess of $100 million
and a potential additional crossing of freight rail and LRT. Based upon this analysis, it was concluded
that it is not viable for freight rail and LRT to coexist in the Kenilworth Corridor.
Summary
The Kenilworth Corridor has significant constraints for the long-term permanent location for freight rail
due to:
future rail capacity constraints near the Twins Ballpark (Target Field)
negative impacts to the Hwy 100 project
traffic management issues related to at-grade crossings of Wooddale Avenue and Beltline
Boulevard in St. Louis Park
funding needed for rehabilitation
MIDTOWN CORRIDOR
Although TCWR was relocated from the Midtown Corridor due to the Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue project,
it was reevaluated as a potential alignment. The TCWR would follow its current alignment on the Bass
Lake Sub through St. Louis Park and onto what is the Midtown Corridor through the trench (see Exhibit
3). It would then approach Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue and would be grade-separated as an overpass of
the roadway. It would connect to the CPR tracks on the east side of Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue that are
currently leased and run on by MNNR. This alignment would reinstate freight rail as it existed prior to
the Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue project and track severing.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 63
10 EXHIBIT 3 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 64
11
Extensive work would be necessary to make the railroad connection from the west side to the east side
of Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue. The Hiawatha LRT bridge would need to be reconstructed to provide
ample clearance for a freight train on a structure underneath it. A new freight rail bridge would need to
be built to span Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue. Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue would need to be lowered to
provide clearance underneath the freight rail bridge. The profile change on Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue
would most certainly affect the Lake Street overpass and approaches to that bridge. The intersection at
26th and 28th Streets would need to be reconfigured and the new Sabo pedestrian bridge north of 28th
Street would need to be reconstructed. Roadway and LRT traffic through the area would largely be
delayed or stopped for this alternative to be constructed. In addition, this construction would require
various permits from federal and state agencies as well as agreements with the private freight rail
companies.
The Midtown Corridor was acquired by the HCRRA to preserve it for future transit use. The corridor has
been considered for LRT, streetcar, and bus rapid transit (BRT) implementation. The Midtown Corridor
is included in the Metropolitan Council’s TPP as a future project. Reinstatement of freight rail service
would preclude transit use of the corridor.
Summary
The Midtown Corridor has significant constraints for the long-term permanent location for freight rail
operations due to:
the estimated capital costs to reconstruct Hwy 55, the Hiawatha LRT line, and the Sabo
pedestrian bridge would exceed $136 million (2008)
the complexity of engineering to retain vehicle flows on Hwy 55 as well as Lake Street, LRT
operations, bicycle and pedestrian movements
MNS SUB ALIGNMENT THROUGH ST. LOUIS PARK
The MNS Subdivision alignment (see Exhibit 4) was the preferred alignment when Hwy 55/Hiawatha
Avenue was upgraded and freight rail service in the Midtown Corridor was severed. In 2001, the St.
Louis Park Railroad Advisory Task Force developed a position statement that included language agreeing
to accept freight rail relocation along the MNS line at such time as the freight rail was displaced from the
Kenilworth Corridor by mass transit.
Coming from the west, TCWR would operate on their own tracks before passing onto the CPR owned
tracks of the Bass Lake Sub, then heading north on to CPR’s MNS Sub through St. Louis Park and then
onto BNSF’s Wayzata Sub heading east into downtown Minneapolis toward the Twins Ballpark site. For
this alignment, a connection between the Bass Lake Sub and the MNS Sub is needed on the south side of
St. Louis Park (see Exhibit 5) and a connection between the MNS Sub and Wayzata Sub is needed on the
north side (formerly existed and was known as the Iron Triangle; see Exhibit 6). For TCWR’s southbound
move onto the MNS Sub to the Port of Savage, a new south connection would be made from the Bass
Lake Sub to the MNS Sub.
TCWR would be able to operate on this alignment in a very similar fashion to how they currently run
through the Kenilworth Corridor. They would have the same connections with other railroads except for
the more efficient southbound move onto CPR’s MNS Sub. The major change would be the elimination
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 65
12 EXHIBIT 4 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 66
13 EXHIBIT 5 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 67
14 EXHIBIT 6 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 68
15
of the north connection to the switching wye in the Skunk Hollow area while leaving the south end of
the wye in place to serve one customer at the end of the track west of Louisiana Blvd. This would
eliminate all blocking operations for the southbound move with the only necessary stoppage of trains
being needed for the switch into the one customer west of Louisiana Blvd. This through movement
southbound would eliminate the banging cars, screeching wheels, and whistle blowing from the
switching operations needed for their current move southbound (which has been slow for a couple of
years but could pick up at any time).
CPR currently runs through St. Louis Park on the MNS Sub with two trains per day on jointed track. With
this alignment, additional TCWR trains would be running on the MNS Sub. However, due to the
condition of the track on the MNS Sub, it would need to be upgraded to welded rail to accommodate
TCWR’s heavier trains. The welded rail would eliminate the wheel clatter when wheels pass over the rail
joints. It would provide a smooth ride and thus eliminate much of the wheel noise associated with the
current jointed rail.
Through discussions with TCW staff it was determined that to minimize construction costs, maintenance
requirements, and operational requirements for this alignment, a maximum grade of 0.8%, a maximum
curvature for the northbound Bass Lake Sub to MNS Sub connection of 8.0 degrees, and a maximum
curvature of 9.5 degrees for the southbound connection were chosen. These grades and curves will
allow TCWR to run its existing trains using its existing power to accomplish its movements. This
alignment is approximately 0.4 miles longer than the route through the Kenilworth Corridor. These
grades, curves, and added length will present additional maintenance requirements and great operating
costs compared to straight track, but it can be operated on similar to the way it is today.
The MNS Sub will connect with the Wayzata Sub at a point approximately 2.5 miles west of Cedar Lake
Junction. Cedar Lake Junction is where the Bass Lake Sub (and the Kenilworth Corridor) connects with
BNSF’s Wayzata Sub. In the short term TCWR will run as it currently does and continue on east past the
Twins Ballpark site and on to St. Paul. However, as mentioned earlier, if additional passenger rail
projects continue to compete for track capacity in the area of the Twins Ballpark, TCWR has the option
of running north on the MNS Sub to CPR’s Humboldt Yard to get into Minneapolis and St. Paul. This
route presents flexibility that can be taken advantage of in the future.
In addition to the work involved with the construction of the new alignment, due to the removal of the
storage track in the Skunk Hollow area, a new siding would need to be built for TCWR west of the Twin
Cities area. TCWR has some locations in mind and would choose a location if this alignment was chosen.
The cost of this storage track is included in the cost estimate.
Summary
The MNS Sub has fewer constraints than the other alternatives and is therefore a feasible alignment for
the long-term permanent location for freight rail operations:
provision for short-term operations and flexibility for freight rail expansion in the long-term if
rerouting freight trains through Humboldt Yard is necessary
opportunity to mitigate an existing freight rail corridor to minimize noise and vibration impacts
to adjacent uses
previous findings that the MNS line provides the preferred alternative for freight rail
greater operating costs and increased maintenance for TCWR due to grade and curve
funding needed for relocation and mitigation
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 69
16
CHASKA CUT-OFF
The Chaska Cut-Off was a route that existed in the past when the line was under ownership of the
Milwaukee Road. The alternate route that was looked at started just east of Cologne and followed Hwy
212 for 4 miles before veering southeast and then turning northeast back into town and paralleling
where the current Hwy 212 exists in town. It then turned back southeast, crossed the existing Hwy 212
and cut through the neighborhood southeast of downtown Chaska. After passing the Carver County
Courthouse and Mini Park it continues southeast before crossing the Minnesota River and paralleling
the bluff to the east until it met UP’s tracks in Shakopee.
The new Chaska Cut-Off alternative would cross over Hwy 212 and parallel the highway until it was
northeast of downtown. Once out of town, it would swing back to the southeast where it would cross
the river and then tie into UP’s tracks on the east side of the Minnesota River (see Exhibit 7)
There are a number of issues that need to be accounted for in this alternative. Firstly, there is a need
for a railroad bridge over the Minnesota River and therefore a new one would need to be constructed.
Secondly, between Hwy 212 and the Minnesota River, a number of small bridges and or embankment
would need to be constructed through a wetland area. Mn/DOT is trying to eliminate at-grade crossings
from its Trunk Highway system, therefore the crossing of Hwy 212 would need to be a grade separation
which would impact the downtown Chaska area.
Summary
The Chaska Cut-Off has significant constraints for the long-term permanent location for freight rail due
to:
major operational deficiencies for TCWR
lack of ability to interchange with BNSF, MNNR, CPR, UP, and have access to the Port of Savage
and the Port of Camden in Minneapolis.
complicated alignment and connections to existing railroads
FORMER RAILROAD ALIGNMENT ALONG HWY 169 IN ST. LOUIS PARK AND HOPKINS
There exists an old railroad bed that is faintly visible on aerial photographs of St. Louis Park and Hopkins
along TH 169 (see Exhibit 8). This was an old BNSF track that has been developed into housing and a
pedestrian trail. This alignment would require the removal of 11 residences and one apartment building
on the former right of way and would require reconfiguring the grade separation at TH 169 and Excelsior
Blvd. Additionally it would create additional traffic issues on Excelsior Blvd due to a new at-grade
crossing. The TH 5/Minnetonka Blvd bridge over the old right of way has been replaced and no longer
has the clearance underneath to accommodate a train. The existing pedestrian trail would need to be
relocated if new track is installed.
Summary
The Former Railroad Alignment Along Hwy 169 has significant constraints for the long-term permanent
location for freight rail due to:
the number and type of property acquisitions/displacements required
potential impacts to the transportation system for both roads and trails
construction costs of $120 million (2008)
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 70
17 EXHIBIT 7 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 71
18 EXHIBIT 8 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 72
19
WESTERN MN CONNECTION WITH BNSF
TCWR connects with BNSF in Appleton, MN on the west end of its system (see Exhibit 9). It is feasible
that TCWR could run all of its rail traffic out the west end of its system and back to the cities via BNSF.
However, that severely limits TCWR’s competitive advantage of being able to connect with BNSF and
CPR essentially holding them to BNSF rates. TCWR was purchased from CPR with the intention of being
able to serve the river terminals at Camden and Savage and interchange with CPR, MNNR and UP.
Running all of their traffic to the west also complicates traffic that they currently run on the Minnesota
Prairie Line (MPLI) just south of TCWR’s mainline in central Minnesota. They would need to run all of
their traffic east to Norwood before running the locomotive power around them and pulling them out to
the west before heading back east again. This essentially doubles the miles they are hauled on their
system and adds additional time getting to the Twin Cities markets. Their short turnaround times of rail
cars to the Twin Cities market is a big competitive advantage that would no longer exist for them.
At the moment, the track west of Granite Falls isn’t in good enough condition to be able to handle the
heavy coal train and ethanol traffic that would need to come in and go out to the west. That stretch of
track would have to be upgraded to accommodate the heavier loads it would be hauling.
Summary
The Western MN Connection with BNSF creates operating inefficiencies for TCWR.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 73
20 EXHIBIT 9 Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 74
21
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ALIGNMENTS
KENILWORTH CORRIDOR
Benefits
Current alignment used by freight rail today
Considerations
Alignment was intended to be temporary, past its planned lifespan
Potential future transit use of the corridor
Requires construction of a freight rail bridge over Hwy 100 in St. Louis Park, increasing costs and
creating environmental issues for that project
Compounds future congestion issues in the Target Field area
Limits freight rail expansion through the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange area
MIDTOWN CORRIDOR
Benefits
Former freight rail alignment used prior to Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue reconstruction
Considerations
Significant construction impacts including reconstruction of the new Hiawatha LRT bridge,
construction of a new freight rail bridge, lowering of Hwy 55/Hiawatha Avenue and
reconstruction of the new Sabo pedestrian bridge north of 28th Street
Construction is highly complex and would require numerous permits from federal and state
agencies as well as agreements from the private freight rail companies
MNS SUB ALIGNMENT through St. Louis Park
Benefits
Was the planned permanent alignment for freight rail when the Midtown Corridor connection
was severed
Would allow TCWR the same connections they have today
Track upgrades would eliminate wheel noise
Would eliminate the need for blocking operations for the southbound move
Allows for future flexibility to make northern connections and bypass the Minneapolis
Transportation Interchange should that area become too congested
St. Louis Park received Environmental Response funds to clean up the National Lead/Golden
Auto site in order to reserve property for the freight connection
Removes at-grade freight rail crossing at Wooddale Avenue, Beltline Boulevard, and Cedar Lake
Parkway
Considerations
Commercial/Industrial property in St. Louis Park would be needed to build connection
Requires the closure of 29th Street railroad crossing
Would require a new siding to be built for TCWR west of the Twin Cities
Retains future congestion issues in the Target Field area while on BNSF’s Wayzata Sub
Limits freight rail expansion through the Minneapolis Transportation Interchange area
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 75
22
CHASKA CUT-OFF
Benefits
Takes rail traffic out of Minneapolis Transportation Interchange area
Considerations
Requires construction of a railroad bridge over the Minnesota River and a number of small
bridges or embankment through a wetland area.
Does not allow access to the Port of Camden or the ability to interchange with lines other than
UP
TCWR is unwilling to accept the major operating deficiencies that this route would create.
Requires property acquisitions/displacements in Chaska.
Requires a new rail bridge over the river
FORMER RAILROAD ALIGNMENT along Hwy 169
Benefits
Relatively flat grade through area
Considerations
Requires the removal of new housing developments and a pedestrian trail that have replaced
the track.
Requires reconfiguring the grade separation at Hwy 169 and Excelsior Blvd., creating a new at-
grade crossing at Excelsior Blvd.
Requires replacing the Hwy 5/Minnetonka Blvd. bridge to allow clearance underneath to
accommodate trains.
WESTERN MN CONNECTION with BNSF
Benefits
Takes rail traffic out of Minneapolis Transportation Interchange area
Considerations
Limits TCWR’s competitive advantage of being able to connect with BNSF and CPR
Complicates traffic that TCWR currently runs on the Minnesota Prairie Line, doubling the miles
that are hauled on the system and adding additional time to get to Twin Cities Markets
Requires upgraded track west of Granite Falls
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 76
23
COST ESTIMATES
The costs estimates associated with the alternatives can be seen in Exhibit 10. These costs are planning
level estimates only. The Kenilworth Corridor and MNS Sub routes used in the St. Louis Park Railroad
Study served as the basis for the cost estimates. Cost estimates for the Midtown Corridor, Chaska Cut-
Off, Old Railroad Alignment along Hwy 169 and the Western Connection were developed by TKDA as
part of this study.
The rehab costs associated with Kenilworth Corridor include upgrading it to a condition in which it can
be considered a permanent home for TCWR and CPR, including new track and structures from Louisiana
Avenue in St. Louis Park to Cedar Lake Junction. The TH 100 freight railroad bridge is also included in
the costs of the Kenilworth Corridor option. The estimated cost was provided by Mn/DOT and is said to
include the bridge and the additional costs for the TH 100 project that are associated with constructing
the freight railroad bridge. These are Mn/DOT’s costs, but are included due to being an additional
alignment cost. If the MNS Sub alignment is chosen, Mn/DOT has committed to use funds intended for
the freight rail bridge for rail relocation and mitigation in St. Louis Park.
The MNS Corridor’s estimate was meant to provide an estimate of what was needed to perform only the
construction as it was discussed with TCWR. Costs associated with noise or other mitigation were not
included in the estimates, aside from the 30% contingency.
EXHIBIT 10
Alignment Cost*
1 Kenilworth Corridor - Existing Alignment $20,000,000 - $120,000,000^
2 Midtown Corridor $136,000,000
3 MNS Sub Alignment through St. Louis Park $48,000,000
4 Chaska Cut-Off $105,000,000
5 Old Railroad Alignment along Hwy 169 $120,000,000
6 Western MN Connection with BNSF $60,000,000
*costs include 30% contingency to account for unknown factors and mitigation of issues
^$120,000,000 includes property takings associated with a shared Kenilworth Corridor
according to analysis performed by HDR and SWLRT Group.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 77
24
NEXT STEPS
The discussion group will forward this report to Mn/DOT, with a recommendation for a preferred freight
rail alignment, for inclusion in the Statewide Freight Rail Study Plan. Additional engineering work and
public outreach will need to be done on the preferred alignment to determine impacts in need of
mitigation and to identify mitigation options. Hennepin County will work with the discussion group to
identify funding options for further study of the preferred alignment and for future construction and
mitigation costs.
Going forward, in early 2010, the preferred alignment will be chosen and an environmental analysis and
preliminary engineering will be performed. Once public involvement and impact mitigation is compete,
final design can commence with construction to begin shortly thereafter.
RECOMMENDATION
The Hennepin County Staff would like to recommend to the Hennepin County Regional Railroad
Authority to conduct the environmental and preliminary engineering analysis for the preferred option
along the MNS Sub through St. Louis Park.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: Update & Policy Discussion SWLRT Project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Page 78
Meeting Date: May 24, 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:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 7 and June 14.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session on June 7 and the
regularly scheduled Study Session on June 14, 2010.
In addition, the City Manager would request that discussion continue from the last Study Session as
to prioritization of certain study session agenda items to be discussed further into the future
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the regularly scheduled study session on June 14, 2010. In addition, on occasion, special study
sessions are required as is the case for June 7. For that reason, please find attached the tentative
agenda and proposed discussion items scheduled for that date.
Lastly, at the previous Study Session the City Manger handed out a summary of topics that in the
past the Council has asked be brought back for further discussion. The Manager asked that the
Council review the document such that a discussion could occur at this Study Session as to the
priority of the items from a scheduling perspective. Attached is a copy of the document.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for June 7 and June 14, 2010
Summary of Items for Future Council Discussion
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session
Tentative Discussion Items
Special Study Session, Monday, June 7, 2010 – 6:15 p.m.
1. Draft Rental Property License Changes – Inspections (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss with City Council proposed draft revisions to the City’s rental property
licensing ordinance.
2. Convention and Visitor Bureau (CVB) – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff is seeking Council direction as to whether staff should continue to proceed with the
formation of a CVB and the creation of a lodging tax.
End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m. with EDA meeting starting immediately thereafter.
Study Session, Monday, June 14, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2011 Budget Discussion – Finance/Administrative Services (90 minutes)
Staff and Council will discuss the 2011 Budget Guiding Principles and overall budget
process.
3. Louisiana Court – Community Development (45 minutes)
Staff will discuss with City Council the financial status and potential re-financing of Project
for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana Court Development.
4. Communications – 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:
• Purchase Agreement for 7015 Walker
• Property Maintenance Compliance Tools
• Highway 100 Rescoping Update
End of Meeting: 8:55 p.m.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Future Study Session
City Council Items for Follow-up 5/19/10
• Affordable Housing Update
• Turf
• Charitable Gambling
• Civic Facility Study
• Replacement of BN Bridge over Virginia Ave
• Human Rights Commission Annual Report
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report
• Women, Minority Owned and Small Business Policy
• Council Workshop Recap
• Convention and Visitors Bureau
• Environmental Inventory/Update (added since last meeting)
• Discussion on City Attorney Services (added since last meeting)
Other Major Studies and Projects Underway or Upcoming
• Fire Station Replacement Project
• SW LRT -
¾ DEIS
¾ Preliminary Design
¾ Station Area Planning
¾ Transportation Analysis
• Freight Rail Study
• Hwy 100 Rescoping
• Eliot and Cedar Manor Reuse Study
• Completion of Hwy 7 and Wooddale Project
• Planning and Design for Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Project
• 2011 Budget Preparation
• Dispatch
• Small Area Retail Market Analysis
• Lake St./Walker Ave Area Study
• Fiber Study (added since last meeting)
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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:
Communications (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: May 24, 2010
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:
April 2010 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and
expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds should be a
primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use
of tax levy dollars.
For the month of April, actual expenditures should generally run about 33% of the annual budget.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 30.5% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 28.9%. Both are consistent when comparing the prior year
expenditures through April. Certain revenues tend to be slightly harder to gauge in this same way
due to the timing of when they are received.
Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied with a
general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues are at 53% of budget through the month of April. This is
primarily due to the full receipt of most 2010 liquor license and business license payments.
Many of these payments were received late in 2009 and are deferred to 2010 to accurately
reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. When looking at strictly permit revenue
through April, it is at 33.5% of budget. This is slightly higher than the 31% of budget at
this same point in time in 2009, and Staff will continue to monitor the permit revenues
closely throughout the year.
• The Human Resources budget shows that 100% of the training revenue has been received
for the year under Charges for Services. This reflects that the 2010 University of Park
program fees were billed out in January for all external participants.
• Other recoveries revenue under the Police Department will exceed budget in 2010 by as
much as $15,000. This is due to a process improvement that has been implemented in 2010
to better handle and account for Property Room cases.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: April 2010 Monthly Financial Report
Expenditures:
• Public Works Operations has spent 37% of the Supplies budget through April, which
includes $142,000 spent for road salt. This compares to approximately $101,000 expended
for salt last year at this time. Staff will monitor this area closely going into the 4th quarter of
2010. Staff will also analyze other supplies expenses within this area throughout the summer
months, such as asphalt, to note any significant variances from budget.
• Personal Services expenditures appear to slightly exceed budget in a few General Fund
departments. These departments, such as Administration, Community Development, and
Finance have portions of staff time and cost that will be allocated to the EDA.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• The Organized Recreation budget for Services and Other Charges is at 54% of budget. This
is because the full 2010 Community Education contribution in the amount of $187,000 was
paid to the School District in January, which is consistent with prior years.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being stewards
of financial resources.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:37:56R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00-14,889,605.00-|14,653,275.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,294,768.00- 144,440.32- 1,209,808.19- 1,084,959.81- 52.72 |2,515,000.00-1,138,793.58- 45.28
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 311,750.00- 28,671.31- 81,117.26- 230,632.74- 26.02 |312,000.00-107,877.72- 34.58
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,598,787.00- 55,836.78- 401,045.50- 1,197,741.50- 25.08 |1,647,214.00-389,029.06- 23.62
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,138,018.00- 112,389.09- 217,118.57- 920,899.43- 19.08 |1,201,900.00-200,805.60- 16.71
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000.00- 12,752.02- 44,288.79- 55,711.21- 44.29 |100,000.00-34,797.74- 34.80
4001 REVENUES 20,332,928.00-354,089.52-1,953,378.31-18,379,549.69-9.61 |20,429,389.00-1,871,303.70-9.16
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,132,004.00 1,197,406.71 5,755,603.62 12,376,400.38 31.74 |18,496,154.00 5,945,590.52 32.15
6210 SUPPLIES 846,535.00 31,023.27 233,772.92 612,762.08 27.62 |766,135.00 204,978.27 26.75
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 67,775.00 23,687.23 39,520.60 28,254.40 58.31 |70,775.00 14,846.83 20.98
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,922,858.00 209,942.51 970,015.82 2,952,842.18 24.73 |4,160,215.00 1,142,983.24 27.47
6001 EXPENDITURES 22,969,172.00 1,462,059.72 6,998,912.96 15,970,259.04 30.47 |23,493,279.00 7,308,398.86 31.11
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 861,274.96- 1,722,550.04- 33.33 |2,678,910.00-876,303.28- 32.71
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00- 15,970.66- 14,215.76- 12,715.76 947.72 |2,000.00-1,030.19- 51.51
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-41,058.25- 11.73
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 75.00-553.00-553.00 |200.00-
8200 MISC REVENUE 100.00-35.54-35.54-64.46- 35.54 |167.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,785,425.00-231,399.94-814,331.83-1,971,093.17-29.24 |3,030,910.00-918,759.22-30.31
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8580 MISC EXPENSE 181,181.00 181,181.00 |181,000.00 59.77 .03
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 19,000.00 1,788.19 5,994.00 13,006.00 31.55 |19,000.00 6,973.13 36.70
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 200,181.00 1,788.19 5,994.00 194,187.00 2.99 |200,000.00 7,033.61 3.52
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 51,000.00 878,358.45 4,237,196.82 4,186,196.82-8,308.23 |232,980.00 4,525,369.55 1,942.39
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 878,358.45 4,237,196.82 4,186,196.82-8,308.23 |232,980.00 4,525,369.55 1,942.39
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 3
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:37:56R5509FIN1 LOGIS001
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00-4,014,872.00-|4,073,118.00-
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-182.00-512.00-5,763.00-8.16 |4,035.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 71,219.00-8,612.79- 14,932.25- 56,286.75- 20.97 |55,702.00-999.44- 1.79
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,073,900.00- 150,862.96- 302,244.69- 771,655.31- 28.14 |1,141,598.00-320,052.29- 28.04
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 906,900.00- 63,497.98- 198,894.02- 708,005.98- 21.93 |883,000.00-223,407.27- 25.30
4001 REVENUES 6,073,166.00-223,155.73-516,582.96-5,556,583.04-8.51 |6,153,418.00-548,494.00-8.91
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,440,416.00 199,056.99 968,252.46 2,472,163.54 28.14 |3,503,813.00 1,051,364.64 30.01
6210 SUPPLIES 906,881.00 63,339.97 179,619.14 727,261.86 19.81 |872,131.00 185,073.11 21.22
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,353.75 4,353.75 233.75- 105.67 |4,120.00 3,909.36 94.89
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,712,749.00 68,851.69 599,857.46 1,112,891.54 35.02 |1,703,002.00 597,789.28 35.10
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |15,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 6,071,166.00 335,602.40 1,752,082.81 4,319,083.19 28.86 |6,098,418.00 1,838,136.39 30.14
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 13,000.00-3,471.56- 5,556.56-7,443.44- 42.74 |12,000.00-3,400.00- 28.33
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 5,440.00-5,440.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 13,000.00-3,471.56-10,996.56-2,003.44-84.59 |12,000.00-4,160.08-34.67
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|6.98
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,514.89 5,377.36 9,622.64 35.85 |4,961.30
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,514.89 5,416.36 9,583.64 36.11 |4,968.28
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 110,490.00 1,229,919.65 1,229,919.65-|67,000.00-1,290,450.59 1,926.05-
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 110,490.00 1,229,919.65 1,229,919.65-|67,000.00-1,290,450.59 1,926.05-
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 4
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
01000 GENERAL FUND
100 GENERAL
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 14,889,605.00-14,889,605.00-|14,653,275.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-45,205.00-|45,205.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 62.24-62.24 |239.12-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 28,486.99- 56,513.01- 33.51 |85,000.00-28,451.88- 33.47
4001 REVENUES 15,019,810.00-7,083.33-28,549.23-14,991,260.77-.19 |14,783,480.00-28,691.00-.19
6001 EXPENDITURES
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 14,588.00 18,188.00 18,188.00-|
6001 EXPENDITURES 14,588.00 18,188.00 18,188.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME
8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,583,825.00- 215,318.74- 861,274.96- 1,722,550.04- 33.33 |2,678,910.00-876,303.28- 32.71
8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-61,747.43 261,747.43- 30.87- |350,000.00-41,058.25- 11.73
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,783,825.00-215,318.74-799,527.53-1,984,297.47-28.72 |3,028,910.00-917,361.53-30.29
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |672.81
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,681.00 180,681.00 |180,000.00 672.81 .37
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 17,622,954.00-207,814.07-809,888.76-16,813,065.24-4.60 |17,632,390.00-945,379.72-5.36
100 GENERAL 17,622,954.00-207,814.07-809,888.76-16,813,065.24-4.60 |17,632,390.00-945,379.72-5.36
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 5
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
110 ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 183,360.00-500.00- 188,531.67-5,171.67 102.82 |215,500.00-152,260.00- 70.65
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-8,000.00-|8,000.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |947.30-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 95.31-271.17-271.17 |97.00-
4001 REVENUES 191,360.00-595.31-188,802.84-2,557.16-98.66 |223,500.00-153,304.30-68.59
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 444,400.00 30,785.70 160,778.65 283,621.35 36.18 |531,500.00 162,923.95 30.65
6210 SUPPLIES 3,100.00 294.43 2,805.57 9.50 |3,700.00 620.55 16.77
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 476,972.00 34,360.49 126,498.80 350,473.20 26.52 |455,635.00 136,822.98 30.03
6001 EXPENDITURES 924,472.00 65,146.19 287,571.88 636,900.12 31.11 |990,835.00 300,367.48 30.31
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE |167.50-
8001 OTHER INCOME |167.50-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |.71
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |.71
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 733,112.00 64,550.88 98,769.04 634,342.96 13.47 |767,335.00 146,896.39 19.14
110 ADMINISTRATION 733,112.00 64,550.88 98,769.04 634,342.96 13.47 |767,335.00 146,896.39 19.14
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 6
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
120 FINANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-8,053.00- 12,079.50- 36,238.50- 25.00 |50,000.00-11,727.75- 23.46
4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-8,053.00-12,079.50-36,238.50-25.00 |50,000.00-11,727.75-23.46
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 920,800.00 66,823.02 322,148.39 598,651.61 34.99 |937,200.00 319,905.55 34.13
6210 SUPPLIES 4,225.00 290.06 886.14 3,338.86 20.97 |4,225.00 862.37 20.41
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 152,905.00 913.34 28,678.89 124,226.11 18.76 |162,555.00 35,974.42 22.13
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,077,930.00 68,026.42 351,713.42 726,216.58 32.63 |1,103,980.00 356,742.34 32.31
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 75.00-375.00-375.00 |200.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 75.00-375.00-375.00 |200.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE 500.00 500.00 |500.00 22.75 4.55
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 500.00 |500.00
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 22.75 2.28
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,030,612.00 59,898.42 339,258.92 691,353.08 32.92 |1,054,980.00 344,837.34 32.69
120 FINANCE 1,030,612.00 59,898.42 339,258.92 691,353.08 32.92 |1,054,980.00 344,837.34 32.69
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 7
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
130 HUMAN RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 9,000.00-623.00- 9,026.00-26.00 100.29 |9,000.00-5,461.00- 60.68
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 264.00-264.00 |
4001 REVENUES 9,000.00-623.00-9,290.00-290.00 103.22 |9,000.00-5,461.00-60.68
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 482,400.00 31,763.12 151,568.97 330,831.03 31.42 |481,000.00 157,388.77 32.72
6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 330.22 496.78 1,503.22 24.84 |2,000.00 629.56 31.48
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 160,550.00 4,520.73 53,330.79 107,219.21 33.22 |160,550.00 58,990.53 36.74
6001 EXPENDITURES 644,950.00 36,614.07 205,396.54 439,553.46 31.85 |643,550.00 217,008.86 33.72
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 635,950.00 35,991.07 196,106.54 439,843.46 30.84 |634,550.00 211,547.86 33.34
130 HUMAN RESOURCES 635,950.00 35,991.07 196,106.54 439,843.46 30.84 |634,550.00 211,547.86 33.34
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 8
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-1,760.00- 3,620.00-5,380.00- 40.22 |12,000.00-2,765.00- 23.04
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 594,000.00- 90,813.93- 147,424.81- 446,575.19- 24.82 |585,000.00-155,104.48- 26.51
4001 REVENUES 603,000.00-92,573.93-151,044.81-451,955.19-25.05 |597,000.00-157,869.48-26.44
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,001,700.00 92,383.13 438,984.92 562,715.08 43.82 |1,023,000.00 325,022.19 31.77
6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 95.66 208.65 1,491.35 12.27 |3,000.00 182.53 6.08
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 47,750.00 681.50-862.02 46,887.98 1.81 |56,750.00 8,007.53 14.11
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,051,150.00 91,797.29 440,055.59 611,094.41 41.86 |1,083,750.00 333,212.25 30.75
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 448,150.00 776.64-289,010.78 159,139.22 64.49 |486,750.00 175,342.77 36.02
135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 448,150.00 776.64-289,010.78 159,139.22 64.49 |486,750.00 175,342.77 36.02
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 9
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00-17,250.00- 25,750.00- 40.12 |8,200.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-1,250.00- 6,250.00-8,750.00- 41.67 |15,000.00-6,250.00- 41.67
4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-1,250.00-23,500.00-34,500.00-40.52 |23,200.00-6,250.00-26.94
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 546,200.00 34,143.79 164,909.05 381,290.95 30.19 |534,000.00 163,336.29 30.59
6210 SUPPLIES 86,150.00 6,787.94 18,954.77 67,195.23 22.00 |90,500.00 7,668.14 8.47
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 26,000.00 3,837.73 22,162.27 14.76 |26,000.00 3,599.81 13.85
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 423,392.00 30,793.29 120,635.76 302,756.24 28.49 |502,942.00 157,742.32 31.36
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,081,742.00 71,725.02 308,337.31 773,404.69 28.50 |1,153,442.00 332,346.56 28.81
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |37.02
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 14.00 34.00 34.00-|3.07
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 14.00 34.00 34.00-|40.09
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,023,742.00 70,489.02 284,871.31 738,870.69 27.83 |1,130,242.00 326,136.65 28.86
140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,023,742.00 70,489.02 284,871.31 738,870.69 27.83 |1,130,242.00 326,136.65 28.86
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 10
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 516,850.00 38,676.68 185,262.49 331,587.51 35.84 |562,500.00 216,969.34 38.57
6210 SUPPLIES 23,500.00 2,682.56 9,126.79 14,373.21 38.84 |30,800.00 3,579.01 11.62
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 23,527.15 23,556.10 23,556.10-|2,931.46
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 860,316.00 6,082.27 226,690.92 633,625.08 26.35 |877,970.00 246,482.73 28.07
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,400,666.00 70,968.66 444,636.30 956,029.70 31.74 |1,471,270.00 469,962.54 31.94
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC REVENUE 35.54-35.54-35.54 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 35.54-35.54-35.54 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 7.41 42.31 42.31-|25.85
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 7.41 42.31 42.31-|25.85
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,400,666.00 70,940.53 444,643.07 956,022.93 31.75 |1,471,270.00 469,988.39 31.94
145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,400,666.00 70,940.53 444,643.07 956,022.93 31.75 |1,471,270.00 469,988.39 31.94
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 11
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 3,000.00-3,000.00-|3,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 3,000.00-3,000.00-|3,000.00-
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 188,280.00 8,334.16 39,277.16 149,002.84 20.86 |184,980.00 33,344.31 18.03
6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 93,525.00 18,257.72 24,177.72 69,347.28 25.85 |104,245.00 48,731.83 46.75
6001 EXPENDITURES 281,905.00 26,591.88 63,454.88 218,450.12 22.51 |289,225.00 82,076.14 28.38
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 278,905.00 26,591.88 63,454.88 215,450.12 22.75 |286,225.00 82,076.14 28.68
150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 278,905.00 26,591.88 63,454.88 215,450.12 22.75 |286,225.00 82,076.14 28.68
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 12
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
160 POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 303,500.00- 28,671.31- 80,977.83- 222,522.17- 26.68 |303,500.00-107,877.72- 35.54
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 800,582.00- 55,836.78- 151,892.68- 648,689.32- 18.97 |809,009.00-159,748.76- 19.75
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 109,700.00-4,956.50- 20,865.50- 88,834.50- 19.02 |109,700.00-27,199.75- 24.79
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 4,418.69- 9,287.80-9,287.80 |
4001 REVENUES 1,213,782.00-93,883.28-263,023.81-950,758.19-21.67 |1,222,209.00-294,826.23-24.12
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,609,294.00 425,817.60 2,025,039.54 4,584,254.46 30.64 |6,546,794.00 2,123,410.03 32.43
6210 SUPPLIES 141,050.00 1,850.28 15,378.66 125,671.34 10.90 |150,900.00 27,671.59 18.34
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,775.00 160.08 9,526.77 24,248.23 28.21 |35,775.00 6,524.63 18.24
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 521,783.00 32,275.10 118,608.81 403,174.19 22.73 |547,053.00 143,166.75 26.17
6001 EXPENDITURES 7,305,902.00 460,103.06 2,168,553.78 5,137,348.22 29.68 |7,280,522.00 2,300,773.00 31.60
8001 OTHER INCOME
8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 1,500.00- 15,970.66- 14,215.76- 12,715.76 947.72 |2,000.00-1,030.19- 51.51
8001 OTHER INCOME 1,500.00-15,970.66-14,215.76-12,715.76 947.72 |2,000.00-1,030.19-51.51
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8580 MISC EXPENSE |500.00
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 500.00 20.81 79.49 420.51 15.90 |500.00 75.79 15.16
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 500.00 20.81 79.49 420.51 15.90 |1,000.00 75.79 7.58
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,091,120.00 350,269.93 1,891,393.70 4,199,726.30 31.05 |6,057,313.00 2,004,992.37 33.10
160 POLICE 6,091,120.00 350,269.93 1,891,393.70 4,199,726.30 31.05 |6,057,313.00 2,004,992.37 33.10
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 13
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 76,700.00 5,057.91 24,099.24 52,600.76 31.42 |76,500.00 24,950.15 32.61
6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 264.98 8,440.02 3.04 |8,705.00 368.96 4.24
6001 EXPENDITURES 86,255.00 5,057.91 24,364.22 61,890.78 28.25 |86,055.00 25,319.11 29.42
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 86,255.00 5,057.91 24,364.22 61,890.78 28.25 |86,055.00 25,319.11 29.42
161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 86,255.00 5,057.91 24,364.22 61,890.78 28.25 |86,055.00 25,319.11 29.42
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 14
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
165 FIRE PROTECTION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-2,576.53- 12,457.33- 27,542.67- 31.14 |50,000.00-10,296.70- 20.59
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 300,000.00-8,239.82- 291,760.18-2.75 |300,000.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-7,802.35- 8,582.35-4,582.35 214.56 |4,000.00-792.50- 19.81
4001 REVENUES 344,000.00-10,378.88-29,279.50-314,720.50-8.51 |354,000.00-11,089.20-3.13
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,826,180.00 176,834.16 852,328.75 1,973,851.25 30.16 |2,815,680.00 887,829.55 31.53
6210 SUPPLIES 71,810.00 4,217.77 7,522.34 64,287.66 10.48 |71,810.00 21,876.63 30.46
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 2,600.00 2,400.00 52.00 |5,000.00 1,790.93 35.82
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 219,183.00 8,849.51 39,071.16 180,111.84 17.83 |224,183.00 52,964.73 23.63
6001 EXPENDITURES 3,122,173.00 189,901.44 901,522.25 2,220,650.75 28.87 |3,116,673.00 964,461.84 30.95
8001 OTHER INCOME
8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 178.00-178.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 178.00-178.00 |
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,778,173.00 179,522.56 872,064.75 1,906,108.25 31.39 |2,762,673.00 953,372.64 34.51
165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,778,173.00 179,522.56 872,064.75 1,906,108.25 31.39 |2,762,673.00 953,372.64 34.51
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 15
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,987,288.00- 128,923.79- 982,289.19- 1,004,998.81- 49.43 |2,162,500.00-938,021.88- 43.38
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 45.00-207.00-207.00 |184.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |95.86-
4001 REVENUES 1,987,288.00-128,968.79-982,496.19-1,004,791.81-49.44 |2,162,500.00-938,301.74-43.39
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,713,100.00 107,502.12 509,185.95 1,203,914.05 29.72 |1,915,500.00 601,987.30 31.43
6210 SUPPLIES 21,500.00 79.19 2,125.22 19,374.78 9.88 |22,300.00 4,584.95 20.56
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 63,627.00 6,456.79 23,202.11 40,424.89 36.47 |71,627.00 13,961.56 19.49
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,798,227.00 114,038.10 534,513.28 1,263,713.72 29.72 |2,009,427.00 620,533.81 30.88
8001 OTHER INCOME
8200 MISC RECEIPTS 100.00-100.00-|
8001 OTHER INCOME 100.00-100.00-|
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 18,000.00 1,745.97 5,838.20 12,161.80 32.43 |18,000.00 6,195.61 34.42
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 18,000.00 1,745.97 5,838.20 12,161.80 32.43 |18,000.00 6,195.61 34.42
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 171,161.00-13,184.72-442,144.71-270,983.71 258.32 |135,073.00-311,572.32-230.67
170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 171,161.00-13,184.72-442,144.71-270,983.71 258.32 |135,073.00-311,572.32-230.67
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 16
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 825,800.00 54,799.17 273,115.60 552,684.40 33.07 |826,500.00 284,717.56 34.45
6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 120.44 420.28 3,579.72 10.51 |4,500.00 901.38 20.03
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 24,100.00 4,437.75 5,446.73 18,653.27 22.60 |22,950.00 2,833.21 12.35
6001 EXPENDITURES 854,900.00 59,357.36 278,982.61 575,917.39 32.63 |854,950.00 288,452.15 33.74
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 854,900.00 59,357.36 278,982.61 575,917.39 32.63 |854,950.00 288,452.15 33.74
175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 854,900.00 59,357.36 278,982.61 575,917.39 32.63 |854,950.00 288,452.15 33.74
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 17
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00- 10,560.00- 22,760.00- 52,240.00- 30.35 |75,000.00-35,180.00- 46.91
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-1,350.00- 328,650.00-.41 |436,000.00-
4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-10,560.00-24,110.00-380,890.00-5.95 |511,000.00-35,180.00-6.88
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 750,000.00 46,237.16 218,155.77 531,844.23 29.09 |844,000.00 228,983.77 27.13
6210 SUPPLIES 7,050.00 205.68 551.14 6,498.86 7.82 |7,050.00 88.54 1.26
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 70,750.00 1,363.79 8,860.63 61,889.37 12.52 |70,750.00 9,910.74 14.01
6001 EXPENDITURES 829,800.00 47,806.63 227,567.54 602,232.46 27.42 |923,800.00 238,983.05 25.87
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 424,800.00 37,246.63 203,457.54 221,342.46 47.89 |412,800.00 203,803.05 49.37
176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 424,800.00 37,246.63 203,457.54 221,342.46 47.89 |412,800.00 203,803.05 49.37
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 18
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-120.00-150.00-30.00 125.00 |270.00-
4270 FINES & FORFEITS 250.00-139.43-110.57- 55.77 |500.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-240,913.00- 209,087.00- 53.54 |490,000.00-228,333.00- 46.60
4001 REVENUES 450,370.00-120.00-241,202.43-209,167.57-53.56 |490,500.00-228,603.00-46.61
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,230,300.00 78,248.99 390,749.14 839,550.86 31.76 |1,217,000.00 414,821.76 34.09
6210 SUPPLIES 479,500.00 14,363.47 177,807.72 301,692.28 37.08 |374,500.00 136,313.02 36.40
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 799,300.00 47,725.23 175,498.50 623,801.50 21.96 |894,300.00 227,024.95 25.39
6001 EXPENDITURES 2,509,100.00 140,337.69 744,055.36 1,765,044.64 29.65 |2,485,800.00 778,159.73 31.30
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,058,730.00 140,217.69 502,852.93 1,555,877.07 24.43 |1,995,300.00 549,556.73 27.54
177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,058,730.00 140,217.69 502,852.93 1,555,877.07 24.43 |1,995,300.00 549,556.73 27.54
01000 GENERAL FUND 51,000.00 878,358.45 4,237,196.82 4,186,196.82-8,308.23 |232,980.00 4,525,369.55 1,942.39
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 19
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
02000 PARK AND RECREATION
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,014,872.00-4,014,872.00-|4,073,118.00-
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 261,000.00- 93,319.68- 152,682.88- 108,317.12- 58.50 |259,298.00-153,059.07- 59.03
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-400.00- 3,563.00- 27,837.00- 11.35 |34,000.00-2,755.00- 8.10
4001 REVENUES 4,351,974.00-93,719.68-156,245.88-4,195,728.12-3.59 |4,411,118.00-155,814.07-3.53
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 715,280.00 40,180.87 200,286.69 514,993.31 28.00 |729,162.00 228,572.85 31.35
6210 SUPPLIES 59,451.00 1,069.42 5,870.02 53,580.98 9.87 |59,451.00 13,401.13 22.54
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 455,677.00 5,240.98 245,509.45 210,167.55 53.88 |502,597.00 255,492.74 50.83
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,230,408.00 46,491.27 451,666.16 778,741.84 36.71 |1,291,210.00 497,466.72 38.53
8001 OTHER INCOME
8100 INTEREST |760.08-
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-4,000.00- 4,350.00- 10,650.00- 29.00 |14,000.00-1,500.00- 10.71
8200 MISC REVENUE 5,440.00-5,440.00 |
8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-4,000.00-9,790.00-5,210.00-65.27 |14,000.00-2,260.08-16.14
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 39.00 39.00-|3.79
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 15,000.00 1,424.00 5,134.48 9,865.52 34.23 |4,728.02
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 15,000.00 1,424.00 5,173.48 9,826.52 34.49 |4,731.81
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,121,566.00-49,804.41-290,803.76 3,412,369.76-9.32-|3,133,908.00-344,124.38 10.98-
200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,121,566.00-49,804.41-290,803.76 3,412,369.76-9.32-|3,133,908.00-344,124.38 10.98-
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 20
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
201 RECREATION CENTER
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 630,000.00- 40,569.92- 91,683.98- 538,316.02- 14.55 |679,000.00-115,118.28- 16.95
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 744,500.00- 49,587.08- 151,597.86- 592,902.14- 20.36 |722,000.00-171,060.11- 23.69
4001 REVENUES 1,374,500.00-90,157.00-243,281.84-1,131,218.16-17.70 |1,401,000.00-286,178.39-20.43
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 785,638.00 35,027.68 175,674.26 609,963.74 22.36 |792,467.00 197,813.68 24.96
6210 SUPPLIES 170,350.00 8,573.70 28,358.24 141,991.76 16.65 |170,350.00 35,811.51 21.02
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 480,870.00 27,303.72 128,334.67 352,535.33 26.69 |491,950.00 112,263.61 22.82
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,436,858.00 70,905.10 332,367.17 1,104,490.83 23.13 |1,454,767.00 345,888.80 23.78
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8550 INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES |3.19
8501 OTHER EXPENSE |3.19
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 62,358.00 19,251.90-89,085.33 26,727.33-142.86 |53,767.00 59,713.60 111.06
201 RECREATION CENTER 62,358.00 19,251.90-89,085.33 26,727.33-142.86 |53,767.00 59,713.60 111.06
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 21
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
202 PARK MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,275.00-182.00-512.00-5,763.00-8.16 |4,035.00-
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-10,500.00-|10,700.00-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 30,000.00-2,599.36- 6,975.36- 23,024.64- 23.25 |26,000.00-10,865.98- 41.79
4001 REVENUES 46,775.00-2,781.36-7,487.36-39,287.64-16.01 |36,700.00-14,900.98-40.60
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 926,500.00 56,903.81 276,354.48 650,145.52 29.83 |969,400.00 298,059.79 30.75
6210 SUPPLIES 97,755.00 13,700.90 23,913.14 73,841.86 24.46 |93,555.00 26,868.21 28.72
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,353.75 4,353.75 233.75- 105.67 |4,120.00 3,888.39 94.38
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 361,340.00 27,709.53 94,324.68 267,015.32 26.10 |369,510.00 101,134.26 27.37
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 7,000.00 7,000.00 |7,000.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,396,715.00 102,667.99 398,946.05 997,768.95 28.56 |1,443,585.00 429,950.65 29.78
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,349,940.00 99,886.63 391,458.69 958,481.31 29.00 |1,406,885.00 415,049.67 29.50
202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,349,940.00 99,886.63 391,458.69 958,481.31 29.00 |1,406,885.00 415,049.67 29.50
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 22
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
203 WESTWOOD HILLS
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,400.00- 14,814.75- 43,881.00- 42,519.00- 50.79 |82,600.00-42,203.09- 51.09
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 270.00-951.00-951.00 |82.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,400.00-15,084.75-44,832.00-41,568.00-51.89 |82,600.00-42,285.09-51.19
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 421,200.00 26,762.78 124,927.53 296,272.47 29.66 |420,586.00 137,001.92 32.57
6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 1,375.50 3,053.22 23,946.78 11.31 |26,700.00 2,464.85 9.23
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 45,250.00 780.20 8,201.71 37,048.29 18.13 |44,500.00 9,814.58 22.06
6001 EXPENDITURES 493,450.00 28,918.48 136,182.46 357,267.54 27.60 |491,786.00 149,281.35 30.35
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 325.00- 1,860.00-1,860.00 |100.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 325.00-1,860.00-1,860.00 |100.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 90.89 242.88 242.88-|233.28
8501 OTHER EXPENSE 90.89 242.88 242.88-|233.28
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,050.00 13,599.62 89,733.34 317,316.66 22.04 |409,186.00 107,129.54 26.18
203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,050.00 13,599.62 89,733.34 317,316.66 22.04 |409,186.00 107,129.54 26.18
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 23
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
204 ENVIRONMENT
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 6,050.00- 6,050.00-6,050.00 |
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 86,000.00-2,158.61- 13,996.83- 72,003.17- 16.28 |110,000.00-551.08- .50
5200 MISCELLANEOUS |1,318.00-
4001 REVENUES 86,000.00-8,208.61-20,046.83-65,953.17-23.31 |110,000.00-1,869.08-1.70
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 108,648.00 8,409.60 35,244.40 73,403.60 32.44 |108,898.00 27,024.37 24.82
6210 SUPPLIES 19,425.00 1,329.66 2,793.86 16,631.14 14.38 |19,425.00 5,853.18 30.13
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 223,470.00 2,591.49 78,708.35 144,761.65 35.22 |158,470.00 78,291.66 49.40
6001 EXPENDITURES 351,543.00 12,330.75 116,746.61 234,796.39 33.21 |286,793.00 111,169.21 38.76
8001 OTHER INCOME
8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 2,000.00 853.44 653.44 1,346.56 32.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00- 90.00-
8001 OTHER INCOME 2,000.00 853.44 653.44 1,346.56 32.67 |2,000.00 1,800.00-90.00-
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 267,543.00 4,975.58 97,353.22 170,189.78 36.39 |178,793.00 107,500.13 60.13
204 ENVIRONMENT 267,543.00 4,975.58 97,353.22 170,189.78 36.39 |178,793.00 107,500.13 60.13
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 24
5/18/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 16:40:46R5509FIN1 LOGIS005
21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object
2010
20104/30/2010 <==========================================>20092010
Description
Annual
Budget
Current
Period
YTD
Actual
Budget
Balance
Per Cent
Used
|
|
Prior Year
Budget
Same Period Prior
Year YTD Actual
Per Cent
Used
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES
4001 REVENUES
4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 26,517.00-2,562.79- 8,882.25- 17,634.75- 33.50 |11,000.00-999.44- 9.09
4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES |9,120.77-
5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00- 10,641.54- 35,806.80- 65,193.20- 35.45 |101,000.00-37,326.18- 36.96
4001 REVENUES 127,517.00-13,204.33-44,689.05-82,827.95-35.05 |112,000.00-47,446.39-42.36
6001 EXPENDITURES
6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 483,150.00 31,772.25 155,765.10 327,384.90 32.24 |483,300.00 162,892.03 33.70
6210 SUPPLIES 532,900.00 37,290.79 115,630.66 417,269.34 21.70 |502,650.00 100,674.23 20.03
6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT |20.97
6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 146,142.00 5,225.77 44,778.60 101,363.40 30.64 |135,975.00 40,792.43 30.00
7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |8,352.00
6001 EXPENDITURES 1,162,192.00 74,288.81 316,174.36 846,017.64 27.21 |1,130,277.00 304,379.66 26.93
8001 OTHER INCOME
8501 OTHER EXPENSE
4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,034,675.00 61,084.48 271,485.31 763,189.69 26.24 |1,018,277.00 256,933.27 25.23
205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,034,675.00 61,084.48 271,485.31 763,189.69 26.24 |1,018,277.00 256,933.27 25.23
02000 PARK AND RECREATION 110,490.00 1,229,919.65 1,229,919.65-|67,000.00-1,290,450.59 1,926.05-
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: April 2010 Financial Report Page 25
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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:
City/School Cable TV Operations Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council support an agreement to enhance the partnership with the School District
related to Cable TV services that will also save the city between $40,000 and $50,000 annually?
BACKGROUND:
During the course of staff’s 2010 budget work, staff from the city and St. Louis Park Public Schools
met to discuss several of its current partnerships, including our partnership regarding Cable TV.
Currently, the city has a franchise agreement with Comcast Cable until 2021. Proceeds from this
agreement (generated by franchise fees billed to the customer) are utilized to fund Cable TV
operations at the city and a portion of the city’s General Fund. Additionally, the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission and the City Council have been awarding two annual
grants to St. Louis Park Public Schools each year for operations of the district’s channel (Channel
14), equipment in the district’s television studio and equipment for use by students and district staff
(approximately $50,000 annually). The city also maintains an agreement with the district for use of
its studio for Community TV and other ParkTV productions, while paying an hourly rate for its
use.
In 2009, the City Council directed staff to pursue an agreement with the school district that would
allow for continued use of the production studio and continued operation of the district’s channel,
but with the elimination of the annual school district grants. It is expected that doing so would, at a
minimum, save the Cable TV fund the $35,000 operations grant annually. Equipment for school
productions would be provided directly by the city instead of the grant.
The city’s challenge
When the city re-negotiated its franchise agreement in 2006, the City Council made the decision to
take on an additional channel (Channel 16) and staff, even though it was known that the Cable TV
fund would not be able to fully support this level of production for the entirety of the current
franchise. As staff looked at this issue, it was clear that reducing the contribution to the General
Fund was not an option. The General Fund relies in part on franchise fees, and in fact is expected to
see an increased contribution from the Cable TV Fund annually until 2021.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: City/School Cable TV Operations
The school district’s challenge
The School District has had many ups and downs related to its channel, TV production class
offerings, etc. over its history. Between budget cuts and other educational requirements taking
precedence, it has not been able to maintain the level or quality of programming and production
that it is certainly capable of doing with its resources. Currently, the district has only one staff person
involved in production and programming of its channel, and these duties are only a part of the many
duties for which his position is responsible. The district does not feel that it has the resources to put
toward enhancing its productions now or in the foreseeable future.
Proposed Agreement: In considering an agreement, staff examined the following areas:
Broadcast Coverage
• The School District currently broadcasts School Board meetings live approximately four
times monthly (regular meetings and work sessions) during the school year. Under the
agreement, city staff assumes responsibilities for this coverage. City staff has been covering the
meetings during the 2009-2010 school year in anticipation of this agreement.
• The School District currently broadcasts an unknown amount of other programming
(concerts, plays, etc.). The city’s On Location could take on a few of these productions each year
(major concerts, etc.) but it is likely that the district will lose some of this programming.
• Under the agreement, city staff would be available to train students/district staff to cover
single-camera shoots of other school-related events. This is how these events were broadcast in
the past, but the district will no longer have a staff person dedicated to this task.
• Under the agreement, the city will also provide video on demand and Web streaming
services for the district.
Studio Use
• In the past, the city was limited in its hours of use, plus the city paid $25/hour for school
district staff assistance. The agreement eliminates fees and greatly expands hours of use for
city staff. Since January 2010, the city and district have been operating on these new terms in
anticipation of the agreement.
• Studio training – Staff began and continues receiving advanced training in the TV studio
and is prepared to assume control at any time.
TV Grant
• The TAC and City Council approved $53,000 in operations/equipment grants for
2009/2010. Following council direction, payment was remitted to the district for the
operation portion of the grant ($35,000) and a partial equipment grant (approximately
$10,000) with the understanding that it would be the last grants awarded to the district.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: City/School Cable TV Operations
Programming
• The agreement calls for the city to take over programming of Channel 14 on July 1, 2010.
The District’s Role
The district has supported the agreement from the very beginning of discussions and has been fully
supportive of the city’s elimination of the grants and assumption of control of the channel. It was
hoped that a class tied directly to TV production would also be a part of the agreement in terms of
producing content for the district. However, it was determined by the city and the district that the
class did not line up with operations as hoped (the class focuses on pursuits more related to the study
of film than actual production of programming). Still, as noted earlier, the city is very willing to
pursue opportunities to engage students in the production of television programming and will
remain open to that going forward.
TAC Recommendation
The City’s Telecommunications Advisory Commission has been actively involved in the details
surrounding this agreement and made a recommendation at its May 13th, 2010 meeting to the
Council to approve the agreement.
School District Action
The School District has approved the agreement by consent of its board chair and superintendent.
Summary
In summation, pursuing an operations agreement based on the above would yield, at a minimum,
the following benefits:
• The city’s Cable TV fund would become more stable (to the tune of $35,000-plus annually)
without compromising its current programming
• The city (and thereby community members) would have increased access and control of a
fully capable TV Studio and equipment at no cost
• The School Board meetings would receive the attention of the city’s professional production
staff
• The district would no longer need to provide staff support for its cable channel
• Students would be able to receive training from our in-house professionals which the city
and district hopes would eventually create more programming for the community while also
engaging students in an exciting and creative learning experience
• The city would be able to utilize students to enhance and increase its own productions
• The city and school district would have more flexibility in the amount and type of
programming produced and available to the public, thereby creating more opportunities for
sharing city and school news with residents
• School district productions would be available through Video on Demand in addition to live
web streaming
• Continued strong city – school partnership and efficiencies for community-wide benefit
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: City/School Cable TV Operations
Next Steps
If the agreement is approved by Council, it will take full effect on July 1, 2010, however little change
will actually be noticed as city staff has already assumed most of the roles outlined in the agreement.
This practice was necessary to test and keep smooth the transition of responsibility.
There are a few additional details in the agreement regarding facility access (installation of a gate,
pass through for cables) that will further enable quality productions related to the district by our
own Location crew. Those improvements will also be pursued upon execution of the agreement.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Finalizing the agreement would help the Cable TV fund remain sustainable until 2021, the end of
the current franchise. This includes sustainability for both operations and equipment supported by
the fund. As stated previously, the agreement would save the city’s cable TV Fund a minimum of
$35,000 annually. Any additional duties for city staff will be absorbed into currently allocated hours.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to remaining a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Draft Agreement
Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: City/School Cable TV Operations
DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
EDUCATIONAL ACCESS CHANNEL 14 AND THE COMMUNITY TV STUDIO
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this Seventh day of June, Two
Thousand and Ten, by and between the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and St. Louis Park
Independent School District No. 283 (“District”).
RECITALS
A. The mission of the City of St. Louis Park Information Resources Department, which
includes the Communications Division, is to provide the St. Louis Park community
with effective communications, responsive technology and support services and vital
information to embrace change, empower people and enhance customer service.
B. The purpose of this agreement is to establish the terms and conditions under which
the City will assume management of Educational Access Cable Channel 14 (“the
Channel”) and operating procedures for the School District TV studio.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and
undertakings herein contained, the parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. The Recitals are incorporated into the Agreement.
2. Studio Use. The television studio facility at the St. Louis Park Senior High
school will be made available for community use under the following conditions:
1. Any use of the studio by teachers or students will take priority over community
use during school hours. As requested and available, the studio will be available
for city use, including Community TV productions.
2. Community use of the television studio between the hours of 4pm and 9pm
weekdays, or on weekend days will need to be scheduled through the district
facilities permitting system.
3. The studio facility will not be made available for community use on designated
days when the senior high building is closed.
4. City employees will be present while the television studio facility is to be used by
community members.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: City/School Cable TV Operations
5. Access to the facility for City employees will be determined by The District in a
manner that satisfies the District’s security policies. Any City staff and
community members entering the facility during schools hours will follow all
prescribed check-in and check-out procedures.
6. Internet access will be provided in the studio facility in accordance with the
school district’s Acceptable Use Policy
3. Programming. The City will assume responsibility for all programming
management of the Channel effective no later than July 1, 2010. The District shall provide a section
on its website, which directs users to www.parktv.org for any and all cable television inquiries. Any
District request for video production of a presentation or performance by student(s) must have
properly executed copyright clearances and student privacy permissions.
4. Cablecast coverage. The City will schedule and coordinate all cablecast coverage
for the channel, and it will provide the following: live and replayed coverage of all regularly
scheduled and special board of education meetings; live and replayed High School Commencement;
and live or taped events as selected by City staff upon execution of this agreement. The City will also
provide Video on Demand services on its website of these productions. The District will be
responsible for producing any additional content (i.e. concerts, plays, etc.). Additionally, the City
will provide live Web streaming and Video on Demand services for the District.
5. Training. District staff will train City staff on use of the studio and equipment
supplied by the District. City staff will train any students/staff interested in producing content for
the Channel or assisting City staff on its other programming.
6. Costs. Costs associated with the agreement will be allocated as follows:
6.1 Equipment Grant. The District will no longer receive an annual equipment
grant from the City. The City will assume responsibility for maintenance and repair of all
equipment related to the studio and its use, except for equipment used for School Board or
student production. All new studio equipment purchased after July 1, 2010 will be the
property of the City and ongoing maintenance will be provided by the City. Equipment
purchased with grant funds prior to July 1, 2010 will remain property of ISD #283. The
District will supply a current equipment inventory for the studio, control room, editing
suites and other areas in use for production. In turn, the City will supply an annual
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Subject: City/School Cable TV Operations
inventory of all city-owned equipment that will be housed at the district television studio
facility.
6.2 Operations Grant. The District will no longer receive an operations grant
from the City.
6.3 Facilities. The District will ensure adequate safety features, including a gate
at the High School football field and a “pass-through” are available inside the gymnasium, to
facilitate coverage of events at those locations. The District will provide adequate signal
wiring from the main gymnasium and auditorium at St. Louis Park Senior High School
from agreed upon origination points to the studio control room for live cable-casting and
other live and delayed uses. The City will not make any physical changes to the district TV
studio facilities equipment or aesthetics unless prior consent is granted by the ISD #283
Director of Information Services
7. Liability Limitation. Each party is liable to the other only to the extent the
negligent actions or inactions of one proximately cause direct out-of-pocket cost to the other. No
party is responsible for lost services, lost revenues, lost profits, indirect, consequential or special
damages or attorneys’ fees incurred by another.
8. Indemnity and Duty to Defend. The City and the District agree to indemnify
and hold each other harmless from any and all liability on account of injury to third parties or
damage to third party property occasioned by the negligent actions or inactions of another. The
party seeking to be indemnified and defended shall provide timely notice to the others when the
claim is brought. The party undertaking the defense shall retain all rights and defenses available to
the party indemnified and no immunities are hereby waived that are otherwise available to the City
or the District. Said provision notwithstanding, each party to this agreement shall indemnify and
hold harmless all other parties to this agreement only to the extent allowed by law.
9. Insurance. Each party represents that it carries the insurance coverages necessary
for school District, municipal or joint powers organizations under Minnesota law. No party waives
its immunities under Chapter 466.
10. Termination. The agreement, including the use of the current TV studio or
equipment, will remain in effect until the expiration of City’s franchise agreement with Comcast in
2021. This Agreement may be terminated only under the following circumstances:
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Subject: City/School Cable TV Operations
10.1 By mutual agreement of the parties expressed in writing.
10.2 By material breach of a party that has not been cured after written notice and
a reasonable opportunity to cure.
11. Dispute Resolution. If the City and the District cannot agree on any matter
arising out of this Agreement, after a reasonable period of good faith negotiations, they agree to
engage a qualified third party to mediate the disagreement, and share the costs of the mediator on an
equal basis. The parties will work in good faith with the mediator to find an acceptable solution and
must reduce any settlement agreement to writing. Any such agreement must be incorporated into
and made a part of this Agreement. If a mediated agreement cannot be reached, each party has
available to it all rights in law or equity.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officers of the undersigned have executed
this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto.
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
By____________________________
Its ________________________
By____________________________
Its ________________________
St. Louis Park Independent School District No. 283
By____________________________
Its ________________________
By____________________________
Its ________________________
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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:
Policy Statement Minority-Owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. This report is intended to provide information on a policy statement in
support of minority-owned, women’s business enterprises and small business in contracting,
professional services and purchasing. If more discussion is needed, staff can bring this report back to
another study session. If Council is satisfied with this report, the policy statement will be brought to
a regular council meeting for formal approval.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does Council wish to discuss this report at another study session?
• Are there any changes that need to be made?
• If the report is acceptable does the Council wish to proceed with approval of the policy?
BACKGROUND:
On April 12, 2010 the Council had a conversation about contracting as it relates to minority-owned,
women’s enterprises and small business. It was the consensus of the Council to develop a policy
statement supporting minority-owned, women’s business enterprises and small business in our
contracting, professional services and purchasing.
Council agreed that the policy statement is to encourage, support and make use of minority-owned,
women’s business enterprises and small business when possible. Data will not be required for
certification or tracking. Council agreed that the policy will be to encourage business opportunities
and provide information.
Next steps
• Attached is a resolution for Council approval supporting minority-owned, women’s
business enterprises and small business.
• If more discussion is needed, staff can bring this report back to another study session.
• If Council is satisfied with this report, the policy statement will be brought to a regular
council meeting for formal approval.
• Once approved, it will be incorporated into the purchasing guide for use by staff.
• Staff will also be proactive in informing agencies and organizations related to this policy
and provide information on contracting, professional services and purchasing.
• Staff will place and regularly update information related to purchasing, contracts and
professional services on our website to proactively support minority-owned, women’s
business enterprises and small business in contracting, professional services and
purchasing.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Policy Statement Minority-Owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
“St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”
Attachments: Draft Resolution regarding support of minority-owned, women’s business
enterprises and small business.
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Policy Statement Minority-Owned, Women’s Business Enterprises and Small Business
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESS,
WOMEN’S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES AND
SMALL BUSINESS
WHEREAS, the City Council met and discussed the importance of small and minority-owned
businesses and women’s enterprises in contracting, professional services and purchasing.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS:
The City of St. Louis Park is committed to encourage and support minority-owned business and
women’s business enterprises and small business, as defined by SBA regulations, when prudent as it
relates to contracting, professional services and purchasing. Such efforts shall:
A. Including such firms upon their request, when qualified, on solicitation electronic mailing
lists;
B. Dividing total requirements, when economically prudent, into smaller tasks or quantities to
permit participation by such firms;
C. Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage
participation by such firms;
D. Using the services and assistance of organizations such as the SBA (Small Business
Association), MWBE (Minority and Women Business Enterprises) and MN-NAWBO
(National Association of Women Business Owners);
E. Encourage prime contractors, when subcontracting is anticipated, to take the positive steps
listed above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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:
2009 Solid Waste Annual Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of solid waste activities in 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have any concerns or questions relating to the solid waste program?
BACKGROUND:
History
Contract
On October 1, 2008 the City entered into a 5-year contract with Eureka Recycling for collection
and processing of recycling materials and with Waste Management for the collection and disposal of
garbage and yard waste.
2009 Annual Report
Each year staff prepares a report that summarizes the solid waste program activities that occurred
during the previous year. The report includes the following information: amount of materials
collected, customer’s level of service, recycling participation, city clean up days data, county
household hazardous waste event data for the event held in SLP, program education, educational
tagging, performance indicators, solid waste program finances, and future goals & initiatives.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As noted in the attached report, the Refuse Fund has a healthy fund balance.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above 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: 2009 Solid Waste Report
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Public Works Department
2009 Annual Solid Waste Report
April 28, 2010
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 2
2009 PUBLIC WORKS
ANNUAL SOLID WASTE PROGRAM REPORT
1. PURPOSE
This report summarizes the activities of the Solid Waste Program for 2009.
The purpose of the Solid Waste program is to provide a service responsive to citizens’
needs to ensure a vital community. Program goals include: High Quality Service,
Environmental Stewardship, Cost Effective Services, Effective Communication, and
the Continual Evaluation of Program and Industry.
2. COLLECTION
Waste Management collected residential garbage and yard waste, and Eureka
Recycling collected recycling during 2009. The numbers in this report include
tonnages as reported from Waste Management and Eureka Recycling. Garbage
collection tonnages are slightly down from 2008 with an increase in yard waste and
recycling tonnages. The slight increase in yard waste is likely due to wet weather
late into the season, which increases the weight of yard waste. The decrease in
garbage may be indicative of a down economy, and the increase in recycling may be
the result of efforts to educate residents about recycling.
The following table summarizes the tonnages collected for garbage, recycling, and
yard waste for 2007, 2008 and 2009. The tonnages include materials collected
curbside and at the clean up events.
Yearly Collection Summary
Tons Collected Item 2007 2008 2009
% Change
2008 - 2009
Garbage 9,300 9,031 8,799 - 2.6
Recycling 3,861 3,562 3,652 + 2.5
Yard Waste 3,039 3,651 3,663 + 0.3
Total 16,200 16,243 16,114
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 3
• Garbage
The City of St. Louis Park has a volume based pay-as-you-throw program
designed to encourage recycling and waste reduction. Residents are free to
choose the service level and cart size that best fits their needs. The levels of
service and rates changed in late 2009. Residents may now choose from 12
(instead of 8) levels of service using combinations of 30-, 60-, or 90-gallon
carts. Due to the change, monthly totals were not available for all service
levels as indicated by "n/a" in the table below.
Customers by Level of Service
Service Level
2007
Monthly
Average 1
2008
Monthly
Average 2
2009
Monthly
Average
30 gallons 4,008 4,011 4,087
60 gallons 5,713 5,694 5,728
90 gallons 2,014 2,009 2,045
120-180 gallons 440 429 n/a
120 gallons n/a n/a 25
150 gallons n/a n/a 10
180 gallons n/a n/a 313
210 gallons n/a n/a 0
240 gallons n/a n/a 0
270 gallons 22 23 23
360 gallons 16 16 14
450 gallons 0 0 1
540 gallons 1 1 1
Avg. Total Customers 12,220 12,144 12,209
1 Numbers were not available due to issues with the conversion of the new
Utility Billing Database system. February numbers were used for March through
December.
2 Service levels were not available for the first half of the year, used 2007 percentages.
Garbage tonnages decreased by 2.6% from 2008. Garbage tonnages include
collection of carts, bulk items, recycling residuals, and cleanup day events.
Waste Management collected garbage and bulk items from January 1 -
December 31, 2009. Recycling residuals include items picked up from recycling
bins that are not recyclable and are therefore disposed of as garbage. Eureka
collects recycling residuals. Bulk items include household goods such as sofas,
fans, basketballs, yard and garden equipment, and pianos that are disposed of
as garbage.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 4
The table below shows the breakdown of garbage tonnages collected from
residents in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The tonnages collected in 2009 were lower
than in 2007 and 2008, which is consistent with what was experienced across
the metro area.
Garbage Collection Summary
Tons Collected Item
2007 2008 2009
Carts 8,691 8,427 8,304
Bulky Items 488 523 452
Recycling Residuals 78 59 22
Cleanup Events 43 22 21
Total 9,300 9,031 8,799
Note the significant decrease in the amount of recycling residuals over the past
three years. This suggests that residents are doing a better job of keeping non-
recyclables out of their recycling bins.
Garbage Collection
9,300 9,031 8,799
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2007 2008 2009Tons Collected
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 5
• Recycling
Recycling includes collection of bins, textiles, appliances, tires, metal,
appliances and electronics from the curb and cleanup events. Eureka collected
bin materials and textiles, and Waste Management collected appliances, tires,
metal and electronics.
The amount of recycling collected in 2009 increased by 2.5% from 2008 event
though participation rates were lower. Recycling participation is the
percentage of households who actually set out recyclables in a given period of
time (October is measured by the County annually) as compared to the total
number of households in the program (100%). The table below shows yearly
participation in the recycling program.
Year Participation
2007 67%
2008 71%
2009 66%
Recycling tonnages have slightly fluctuated over the past three years, as shown
in the table below. Appliance tonnages have steadily decreased over the same
time period. Household goods, collected at the City's two cleanup events,
showed a significant increase in 2009, after switching from Bridging, Inc. to the
Vietnam Veterans.
Recycling Collection Summary
Tons Collected Item
2007 2008 2009
Bins 3,811 3,514 3,452
Appliances 1 35 35 26
Electronics 1 8 6 4
Tires 0.6 1.1 .6
Metals 6 4 2
Household Goods n/a 2 167
Total 3,861 3,562 3,652
1 Appliance and electronic tonnages are based on Hennepin County Re-TRAC
conversions: appliances = 150lbs and electronics = 75lbs. The electronics
conversion factor changed in 2009 to 70lbs.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 6
Recycling Collection
3,861 3,562 3,652
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2007 2008 2009Tons Collected
The city received a SCORE grant of $100,387 from Hennepin County in 2009.
The grant agreement requires the city to make every effort possible to meet or
exceed the 2007 base year figure used by Hennepin County in the SCORE
funding comparison.
Notice that recycling was lower every month in 2009 with the exception of
October and December. October and December showed the highest amount of
recycling activity in 2009.
Overall, recycling tonnage decreased by 209 tons (about 5%) from 2007 to 2009.
2009 Recycling Tonnage Compared to 2007 Base Year
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov DecTons Collected2007
2009
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 7
• Yard Waste
Yard waste collected from residents in 2009 increased by less than 1% from
2008. The amount of yard waste depends upon the weather, as well as the
residents’ use of the yard waste program.
About 65% of the city’s households have the “No Grass Clippings” yard waste
option. Many residents leave their grass clippings on the lawn or use them in
compost bins. The City continues to promote residential composting.
The graph below shows yard waste tonnages collected from residents in 2007,
2008 and 2009.
Yard Waste Collection
3,039
3,651 3,663
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
2007 2008 2009Tons Collected
3. CLEAN UP EVENTS
Two clean up events were held for St. Louis Park residents in 2009 and one household
hazardous waste event was held for Hennepin County residents. The spring and fall
clean up events were sponsored by Waste Management and the household hazardous
waste event was sponsored by Hennepin County.
• 2009 Spring and Fall Clean Up Events
The spring and fall clean up events were held on June 13 and October 10 at the
Junior High from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. New for 2009 was the Vietnam
Veterans Donation Truck. The Vets accepted gently used home and garden
items. The City offered compost bins for sale; however none were sold at the
events.
The table below summarizes the items collected at the clean up events. In
2009, the events attracted 434 vehicles, a 21% decrease from 2008. In 2009,
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 8
the quantities of all items decreased except Construction and Demolition debris
and furniture donations.
2009 was the first year that residents had to pay for electronics, which may be
one of the reasons for the decrease in electronics tonnages.
As mentioned above, household goods showed a significant increase in 2009,
after switching from Bridging, Inc. to the Vietnam Veterans.
Cleanup Event Collection Summary
Item 2007 2008 2009
Trash 33.5 tons 19.02 tons 14.49 tons
C & D 1 9.24 tons 3.37 tons 7.04 tons
Metal 6.23 tons 3.99 tons 2.38 tons
Tires 59 tires 110 tires 58 tires
Electronics 2 6.60 tons 5.24 tons 2.99 tons
Appliances 182 appliances 232 appliances 96 appliances
Household Goods(reuse) not collected 2.5 tons 167 tons
Bikes (reuse) not collected 32 bikes 18 bikes
Attendees 748 vehicles 546 vehicles 434 vehicles
1 C & D is Construction and Demolition debris (not reused, considered trash)
2 Electronics were only collected at the fall event in 2007.
• 2009 Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event
Hennepin County sponsors annual Household Hazardous Waste collection events
throughout the county. St. Louis Park hosted one of the events, which was
held at the Louisiana Oaks Park parking lot. The event is open to all Hennepin
County residents. The collection event was held on June 11-13 from 9am to
4pm, which coincided with the spring clean up event. Many of the same
residents participated in both events. There were a total of 1,843 vehicles
that dropped off 142,663 pounds of hazardous waste.
Year # of Vehicles
2007 1,770
2008 1,323
2009 1,843
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 9
4. PROGRAM EDUCATION
Program education is a joint effort by the City, Eureka, and Waste Management. The
contract requires the haulers to facilitate ongoing communication with residents, host
an annual open house for all residents, offer tours of its facilities, provide articles for
publication or distribution, and assist the city with other educational efforts.
Staff provides public information and education through various media to encourage
waste reduction and recycling. Educational efforts in 2009 were focused on plastic
recycling, properly sorting recyclables, proper cart placement, and overfilled carts.
Staff participated in the following educational efforts in 2009:
• Park Perspective articles
• Individual mailings
• Visited with residents
• Earth and Arbor Day Celebration
• Explored partnership with
Schools
• National Night Out
• Cable television and the city’s
external web site
• Home Remodeling Show
• Distributed information at the
spring and fall cleanup events
• Tagging
Tagging
Tagging involves haulers leaving an educational tag on the cart, bin, or yard waste
container when non-compliance issues are found. The tables show that tagging
efforts have significantly increased since 2007.
Eureka's contract began on October 1, 2008. The tags issued in 2008 only include
October, November, and December.
Eureka Tag Summary
Number of Tags Issued Tag Description 2007 2008 2009
Not Out by 7am n/a 29 172
Used Plastic Bags n/a 971 5,910
Plastic Bottles Only n/a 2129 12,207
Non-Recyclable n/a 1390 8,052
Not Sorted Properly n/a 1429 6,956
Cardboard Not Flattened/Too Large n/a 281 811
Textiles n/a 18 111
Cannot Accept Hazardous Materials n/a 171 2161
Extra Bins Needed n/a 4 188
Thank You For Recycling Properly n/a 6 67
Total 6,428 36,635
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 10
Eureka issued 36,635 educational tags in 2009. The breakdown by month is
shown in the graph below.
2009 Eureka Monthly Tag Totals
2,587
853
2,988
3,622
4,032
3,463 3,329
2,332
2,844
3,200
3,491
3,894
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec# of TagsTags
Waste Management issued the most tags for residents for setting out bulk items that
were not prepaid, placing their cart in the street or sidewalk, and overfilling their
carts.
Waste Management Tag Summary
Number of Tags Issued Tag Description 2007 2008 2009
Cart in Street 676 734 3,651
Bulk Items 246 386 2,195
Extra Refuse Stickers 363 460 1,311
Boxes Cut & Bundled 302 229 14
Garbage in Yard Waste 171 116 576
Bag Trash 106 163 400
Miscellaneous Tags 1 411 1,256 897
Total 2,275 3,344 9,044
1 Total of the remaining tags. For 2007 and 2008 only - includes (waxed paper,
Styrofoam, gas containers, etc).
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 11
Waste Management issued 9,044 educational tags in 2009. The breakdown by
month is shown in the graph below.
2009 WM Monthly Tag Totals
1,415
408
613
787 764
436 467 406
1,119
629
776
1,005
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec# of TagsTags
A major reason for the increase in the issuance of educational tags from 2008
to 2009 is the hiring of a City Solid Waste Field Inspector who oversees the
haulers and holds them accountable.
5. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Staff and City Council have developed solid waste performance indicators that
measure quality and cost of the program in order to better monitor the contractor
and better evaluate the Solid Waste Program goals.
The continual monitoring, evaluation and responsiveness to residents should
ultimately increase the level of resident satisfaction with the solid waste program.
The Performance Indicators attachment shows the tracking of specific indicators for
the program.
6. FINANCES
During 2009, the total revenues were $2,603,182 and the total expenditures were
$2,598,211. In 2009, Hennepin County garbage disposal charges were $38/ton for the
first 3 months, then rising to $40/ton for the remainder of the year. In 2009, the
disposal costs for yard waste was $44/ton.
The Refuse Fund balance at the end of 2009 is estimated to be $2,599,054, which
reflects an increase of $4,971 or 0.19% from 2008. Capital reserves are being held for
the future purchase of yard waste / organics carts. The Finance Department has
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 12
recommended maintaining a minimum fund balance of $650,800 (three months of
revenue), beyond what is needed for capital expenditures.
See the attached graph for fund balance details. The 2010-2014 projections come
from the 2009 Utility Rate Study done by Elhers.
7. FUTURE GOALS AND INITIATIVES
The ultimate goal of the program changes is to increase St. Louis Park’s recycling,
reduce refuse and yard waste collected, and reduce service issues.
• Educate residents on new compostable bag ban
• Increase awareness of backyard composting
• Increase recycling according to Hennepin County requirements
• Research options for a multi-family recycling program
• Conduct a customer service satisfaction survey 2010 & 2012
• Conduct a program survey in 2011
• Waste Management and City staff will continue inspecting specific areas
frequently to ensure that households receiving the credit are not putting out
grass clippings for collection.
Attachments:
• Refuse Fund Balance Chart (1993-2013)
• Performance Indicators
O:\Pubwks\Solid Waste\Reports - City\2009\2009 Annual SW Report.doc
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual Report Page 13
Refuse Fund Balance($1,000,000)$0$1,000,000$2,000,000$3,000,000$4,000,000$5,000,0001993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Actual 1993 - 2008 Projected 2009 - 2013DollarsExpensesRevenuesFund BalanceMinimum Recommended BalanceMeeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual ReportPage 14
ST. LOUIS PARK SOLID WASTE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Waste Management Eureka Indicators Target Measure 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Target Measure 2008 2009 Recycling Rate 1 N/A 42% 42% 42% 45% 43% N/A N/A 45% 44% 45% Recycling Participation Rate 2 N/A 59% 73% 69% 71% 67% N/A N/A 85% 71% 89% Recycling Set Out Rate 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65% N/A 67% Recycling (Ton/Year/HH) 0.40 0.29 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.32 N/A N/A 0.40 0.29 0.30 Recycling (Cost/Year/HH) $48 $32 $28 $29 $29 $31 N/A N/A $48 $32 $36 Recycling (Cost/Ton/Year) $120 $109 $82 $82 $88 $97 N/A N/A $120 $111 $121 Garbage (Ton/Year/HH) 0.75 0.80 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.72 N/A N/A N/A Garbage (Cost/Year/HH) $156 $97 $97 $101 $101 $100 $100 $92 N/A N/A N/A Garbage (Cost/Ton/Year) $208 $130 $132 $135 $134 $141 $145 $128 N/A N/A N/A Yard Waste (Ton/Year/HH) 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.30 N/A N/A N/A Yard Waste (Cost/Year/HH) $36 $24 $26 $26 $26 $25 $30 $36 N/A N/A N/A Yard Waste (Cost/Ton/Year) $144 $84 $79 $86 $91 $100 $99 $120 N/A N/A N/A Complaints 4 ≤ 40 17 64 64 62 50 77 34 ≤ 20 5 18 Missed Pickups ≤ 416 1,225 529 315 498 379 498 200 ≤ 104 150 169 Contract Penalties 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 Program Satisfaction 5 90% N/A N/A N/A 85% N/A N/A 96% N/A N/A N/A Customer Service Satisfaction 5 80% N/A N/A 81% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NOTE: The 2008 recycling numbers for Waste Management were combined under Eureka. Recycling Target Measures were determined through discussions with Eureka and are based on the current recycling program. 1 Recycling Rate = Recycling Tonnage/(Recycling Tonnage + Garbage Tonnage). Recycling tonnage includes bin recyclables, tires, metal, electronics, appliances, textiles, and yard waste. 2 Recycling Participation Rate is the number of households that set out materials at least once over a period of one month, usually measured annually in October. 3 Set out rate is the average number of households that set out materials on any given day. 4 The Complaint category includes Litter, Property Damage, and the database Complaint category. The new Target Measure was determined by averaging the total complaints from 2003-2008. Actual complaints were 5% lower than the old target measure. Using 5% as a guide, the new Target Measure is 60 complaints per year, with 2/3 allowed for Waste Management and 1/3 for Eureka, which is based on the number of touches per address. 5 Satisfaction with the program is taken from the Solid Waste Program Survey results. 6 Satisfaction with customer service is taken from the Solid Waste Customer Service Satisfaction Survey results. Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 7) Subject: 2009 Solid Waste Annual ReportPage 15
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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:
Inspections Department 2009 Activities Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action needed, report is for informational purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
No policy consideration at this time.
BACKGROUND:
2009 continued as a busy year for department program activity. For 2009 the reduction in permit
value as compared to previous year’s record amount is due to a decrease in the start of large
commercial projects and fewer storm damage repair permits. We are pleased to inform all that
construction activity remained consistent.
The report identifies 2009 as a record year for the number of inspections performed, resulting from
the carryover of construction permitting completed in 2008 and continued strength in Point of Sale,
Business Licensing and Property Maintenance programs. The high number of inspections provides a
significant portion of public interaction for the City. Property inspections, service counter
customers, and phone calls affect many residents, businesses, and contractors working within the
City. Staff is acutely aware of the need to continue refining our professionalism to create a positive
experience for the public during these interactions as possible.
Construction activity, permitting, and projected revenue through the first four months of the year
are developing as projected. The staff will continue to monitor activity and budget projection
throughout the year.
VISION CONSIDERATIONS:
• “St Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”
• “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.”
• “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.”
Attachments: 2009 Inspections Department Activities Report
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
www.stlouispark.org
2009
Activities
Report
Inspections Department
• Construction Codes
• Property Maintenance
• Environmental Health
• Licensing/Permitting
• Facilities Maintenance
RESPECT CONTRIBUTION STEWARDSHIP
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Inspection 2009 Activity Report Page 2
2 2009 Activities Report
Highlights and Projects
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
Construction Codes
• Valuation for building permits in 2009 totaled $97million.
• The large projects included tenant finishes for the Shops at West End retail/entertainment
complex; Municipal Service Center renovation and site work; The Ellipse, a five-story residential
rental units and first floor retail; and the remaining storm repair related permits from the May
2008 storm.
• Construction inspectors performed a record 23,000 inspections
Property Maintenance
• Property Maintenance Programs are fee for service, except for complaint response.
• Minor re-organization to improve our business model; better service, at a lower cost.
• Property Maintenace inspectors performed over 3,800 inspections.
Environmental Health
• Conducts all food, pool and lodging annual inspections under MDH agreement
• Responds to noise, air, and food-borne illness complaints
• Reviews, approves and inspects all food equipment permits
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Inspection 2009 Activity Report Page 3
2009 Activities Report 3
Highlights and Projects
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
Service Counter-Licensing and Permitting
• Significant daily public contact at the second floor service counter included an average of 150
phone calls and 60 customers visiting the daily.
• Permit and license fees are reviewed annually to cover the costs of providing these services and
they are not born by the general tax base.
Facilities Maintenance
• Municipal Service Center renovation
• Two more Special Service Districts were added for a total of six managed by Facilities
Maintenance.
Community Involvement
• Inspection Staff are actively engaged in meeting with the public to provide helpful information
and increase awareness of City Inspection programs; Home Remodeler’s Fair; City-wide open
house; and National Night Out neighborhood picnics.
Projects
• Began the renovation and site improvements at the Municipal Service Center to be completed
early summer 2010
• Completed a City Hall exterior repair project
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Inspection 2009 Activity Report Page 4
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
4 2009 Activities Report
Construction Codes and Property Maintenance
Permit Valuations
In Millions of $20042005200620072008250
200
150
100
50
0
2009Permit Valuations
In Millions of $20052006200720081500
1250
1000
750
500
0
2009Point of Sale
Permits Issued
(Residential)
Construction Code
Permits Issued Number of Permits
Building 2,909
Electrical 1,707
Mechanical 1,105
Plumbing 1,155
Sewer/Water 200
Cert. of 14
Occupancy
(change in use)
Total Permits 7,090
Significant Projects:
West End tenant finishes, Homewood
Suites, MSC Renovation and Site Im-
provements and the Ellipse.
Inspections Number of Insp
Building 13,625
Electrical 3,922
Mechanical 2,621
Plumbing 2,783
Sewer/Water 510
Cert. of 74
Occupancy
Total Inspections 23,535
Property Maintenance
This function includes the Property
Maintenance Certificate Program;
non-owner occupied rental inspections;
and complaint responses to list a few:
Programs Number of Inspections
Point of Sale 1,890
(r e sidential/commercial)
Multi-Family Rental 945
(74 buildings)
Non-Owner Occupied 323
(rental) including:
Single family, townhome, and
condominiums
Complaint Response and 685
Property Evaluations
Compliance Actions
Formal Complaints 14
Other Programs Number of Inspections
Underground Garages (CO) 100
Graffiti Complaints 84
Bench Inspections 50
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Inspection 2009 Activity Report Page 5
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
2009 Activities Report 5
Environmental Health and Licensing
Environmental Health
The Environmental Health-Sanitarian Inspectors performed many other inspections in addition to the annual licensed
establishment inspections. Plan review for 14 new and revised food establishments occurred in 2009.
MDH Programs and Number of Inspections
Food and Beverage 250 Public Sanitary Facilities 84
Establishments
Temp. Food Service 100 Lodging (Building & Units) 8
Total Number of Inspections 442
The Environmental Health Inspectors provided food safety inspections for the Parktacular Celebration, Farmers Market,
Empty Bowls and other temporary food events. There were a total of three citations issued by the Environmental Health
Staff for non-compliance of the food code. The Environmental Health Inspectors also investigate any reported food borne
illnesses. The investigation includes visiting a food establishment that was listed as a potential source.
Licensing
One of the functions of the Administrative Division is to process all permit applications and schedules inspections for
construction codes and property maintenance staff. A total of 2,888 business and contractor licenses were issued in
2009. Listed below are types and amount of licenses issued annually:
Business
Rental -
Multi-Family Buildings - 298; Units - 6,988
Non-Owner Occupied S.F. Homes/Others - 588
Courtesy Bench - 50 Benches
Commercial Entertainment - 3
Environmental Emissions -11
Massage Therapy Establishments -3
Sexually Oriented Businesses low impact -2 Temporary Services
Tobacco - 34 Food Service - 50
Vehicle Parking Facilities - 70 Outdoor Retail Sales - 5
Pawnbrokers -1 Carnivals - 2
Dog Kennels - 2 Petting Zoo - 1
Billboards - 30 Solicitor Registrations - 61
Dog Licensing MDH Delegation
1-2-3 Year License - 779 Food and Beverage Establishments - 211
Off Leash - Resident - 220 Public Sanitary Facilities - 53
Off Leash Non-Resident - 18 Lodging - 8 Buildings; 796 Rooms
Contractor
Mechanical - 249
Solid Waste - 26
Tree Maintenance - 50
Competency Cards - 50
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Inspection 2009 Activity Report Page 6
6 2009 Activities Report
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
Facility Maintenance
Facility Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance is an internal support
organization with operating responsibility for City
Hall, Police Station, Fire Stations 1 and 2, Westwood
Nature Center, Municipal Service Center, and specific
equipment functions. Long-term capital improvements
to these sites are coordinated by this division including
management of related construction projects.
The division assists other City departments in the
area of property management, residential/commercial
demolitions, and coordination of the City’s participation
in the Hennepin County Sentence-To-Service (S.T.S.)
program.
This division also provides fee based management and
maintenance services to the Special Service Districts, 1-
6. Two districts were added in 2009; District #5 Park
Place Blvd and District #6 – 36th St W.
This division operates with a full-time staff consisting
of one superintendent and five public service workers.
Part-time help is used seasonally. Large projects
requiring increased staff levels are accomplished by
supplemental staff drawn from other divisions.
Major Capital Improvements for 2009 were:
• Exterior building repair and renovation at City Hall
• Municipal Service Center Renovation and Site
Improvements project coordinator
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Inspection 2009 Activity Report Page 7
Inspections Department
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Inspection 2009 Activity Report Page 8
Meeting Date: May 24, 2010
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:
Hwy 7 / Wooddale Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None - the purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on this project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or concerns you might have.
BACKGROUND:
History
On September 8, 2009 the City awarded a contract to Ames Construction, Inc. (Ames) of
Burnsville, Mn. in the amount of $11,568,953.11 for the Highway 7 & Wooddale Avenue
Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-1700. The contract called for completion of the south
frontage road by November 15, 2009 with full access at all intersections on the project by September
1, 2010. The project was to be substantially complete by November 1, 2010 with final project
completion no later than June 1, 2011.
Construction Progress
Based on a variety of factors, Ames did not complete the south frontage road last Fall as required by
the contract. Ames claims that delays in utility relocations in turn delayed its work. The City
disputes the fact that utilities caused any delays and that even if some delay occurred, Ames is not
entitled to any additional compensation. Additionally, during April 2010, unexpected
contamination was encountered beneath the asphalt pavement of Highway 7.
Ames has submitted a revised project schedule allowing for substantial completion of the project in
2010. On May 12, 2010 Mn/DOT, Ames, and City staff agreed to a revised schedule that allows
for:
o 11 weeks of head to head traffic on Highway 7 (one lane in each direction separated by a
barrier) along with two weekend closures that provide for the necessary tie-ins at project ends
to switch traffic from one stage to the next.
o Substantial completion by November 19, 2010. Substantial completion is defined as the
completion of all contract work with the exception of the following:
a. Permanent striping (pavement markings).
b. Turf establishment and plantings.
c. Special texture surfaces and painting for the walls and bridges.
Meeting of May 24, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Hwy 7/Wooddale Project Update
Ames has notified Mn/DOT and the City they feel entitled to compensation associated with delays
in the contract start date and utility relocations. The City Attorney has been involved in these
discussions which are still on going.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
There will be additional costs associated with the unexpected contamination encountered beneath
the Highway 7 pavement. Those costs are unknown at this time as the situation continues to evolve.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St.
Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: None.
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager