HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/01/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2009
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
(box lunches provided for Council)
Discussion Items
1. 6:00 p.m. Draft Agenda - 2009 City Council Workshop
2. 6:30 p.m. Legislative Update
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Special Study Session Minutes January 5, 2009
3b. City Council Minutes January 5, 2009
3c. Special City Council Minutes January 12, 2009
3d. City Council Study Session Minutes January 12, 2009
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The
items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent
calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions
Recommended Action:
Motion to appoint citizen representative Anthony Deos to the Human Rights
Commission filling a vacancy for a term expiring December 31, 2010.
Meeting of January 20, 2009
City Council Agenda
6. Public Hearings
6a. Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to
Cedar Lake Road
Recommended Action:
1. Close public hearing.
2. Motion to Approve First Reading Ordinance authorizing creation of Special
Service District #5 and schedule Second Reading of Ordinance for
February 2, 2009.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements.
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for
Athletic Facility Improvements at 2501 Highway 100 South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for floodplain
modifications at 2501 Highway 100 South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for fill in excess of
400 cubic yards at 2501 Highway 100 South
9. Communication
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting of January 20, 2009
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve Resolution Adopting the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
4b. Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance Vacating Easements for the Ellipse on
Excelsior Redevelopment and approve the summary ordinance for publication
4c. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4d. Approve for Filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 22, 2008
4e. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes December 10, 2008
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: January 5, 2009
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:
Draft Agenda - 2009 City Council Workshop
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback on the second draft of the workshop agenda which has been
prepared based on City Council input during the Special Study Session on January 5.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the proposed agenda acceptable to the City Council?
BACKGROUND:
During the study session on January 5 the City Council provided input on the draft agenda for our
workshop later this month. In listening to the conversation, it was staff’s impression the Council
was in agreement with the agenda with the exception of agenda item #4 on Saturday relating to the
budget process for 2010. In a nutshell, it was staff’s feeling that the Council was looking for more
depth in that conversation
Based on that input, staff has revised the agenda to deepen the conversation regarding our 2010
budget. The revised agenda is attached and the changes made since the last meeting are highlighted
in BLUE. You will note that the discussion regarding the budget includes a proposed dialogue on
the services the City provides and whether the services are mandated/required or more
discretionary/value added in nature. To assist with this conversation, staff is intending to provide to
the Council a document which outlines this information. This dialogue, along with the conversation
on the Long Range Financial Plan earlier in the day, should begin to allow the Council to
understand the financial challenges we face and the number and types of services the City provides.
You will also note that this portion of the agenda still proposes that we spend time reaching
agreement on how we want to go about discussing the City’s financial plan and budget during 2009
in preparation for 2010 and beyond.
I am hopeful the proposed agenda is more in line with the City Council’s desires. I realize there may
be an interest by the City Council in quickly entering into discussing solutions and I appreciate how
attentive the Council is to the City’s financial health as related to the services we provide and the
economic turmoil going on around us. I also recognize that the approach being suggested by staff
may not be as assertive as hoped for. In recognition of that, let me share a few thoughts with you –
• It goes without saying that society and government are in a dynamic period of change – and
that is not necessarily a bad thing.
• In the final analysis, there will never be enough resources available to us, in part because the
thirst for services can never be fully quenched.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject Draft Agenda - 2009 City Council Workshop
• The City is in good financial condition and is well positioned to weather storms that may be
coming, including the potential loss of our 2009 MVHC payment. However, ultimately our
resources are finite.
• The economic downturn being experienced provides the opportunity and impetus for us to
thoughtfully plan and be proactive.
• Given that we have finite resources, both financial and staff, we likely will need to prioritize
and/or change the way we do business to insure we are responsibly providing the services
necessary to insure the long term health of the community and the financial condition of the
City.
• Before we undertake a thoughtful and responsible process of planning, prioritizing and/or
changing the way we do business, the Council should first understand what the challenges
are that we face and have a deeper understanding of the extensive services we provide to our
constituents. Knowing that each service we provide has a constituency, this understanding
will help provide a platform to make informed decisions.
• After we have attained this thorough understanding, the intent is for the Council to then
begin the process of undertaking the necessary steps to decide how to allocate our resources
in a way that is responsible and insures our community remains strong and healthy.
I hope my thoughts have provided more context to the approach I am recommending to you. Our
Workshop in late January is the start of a journey. If we are committed to taking the time to
develop a responsible plan for the future, this journey should end later in 2009 with a very successful
conclusion and thoughtful plan for 2010 and beyond.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The practice of the City Council has been to use an off-site facility for the workshop and keep costs
to a minimum. This same approach is proposed for this coming workshop and is budgeted for
accordingly.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The results of the upcoming conversations on our financial plans will have a direct relationship to
Vision SLP and the City Council adopted Strategic Directions.
Attachment: Draft Agenda
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject Draft Agenda - 2009 City Council Workshop
City Council Workshop 2nd Draft
Agenda
Friday, January 30
4:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Site: AAA
City Council with Tom Harmening and Nancy Gohman
Bridget Gothberg Facilitates
Proposed Workshop Outcomes:
• Participants will determine their recommitment to the four Strategic Directions.
• Participants will have a clear understanding of the community’s perceptions of the City via
the Decision Resources Survey with agreement on next steps for discussing and addressing
these results.
• Participants will have a clear understanding of the City’s updated Long Range Financial
Management Plan and the opportunities and challenges it portrays.
• Participants will have a general understanding of the services the City currently
provides.
• Participants will reach agreement on the approach for attaining a deeper understanding of
the City’s finances and the services it delivers, and the preparation and adoption of the
2010 budget, including an approach for citizen engagement (if any).
1. Connections and Agenda Review
This is intended to serve as a workshop “warm-up” for the group and agreement on
“House Rules”.
2. Revisit Vision SLP and Strategic Directions
This is intended to be a “Big Bowl” discussion and allow for a renewed understanding and
progress report on where we have been with Vision and the four Strategic Directions, with
a discussion on our ongoing commitment to Vision and the Strategic Directions.
DINNER
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject Draft Agenda - 2009 City Council Workshop
3. Review and Discuss Decision Resources Survey
This discussion will be a follow-up to a presentation being made by Bill Morris on the
survey results at the January 26 Study Session. This is intended to be free wheeling
discussion on the results as related to Vision and the Strategic Directions. Based on the
results of the survey as compared to Vision and the Strategic Directions, what are we
doing well, what are we missing, what might we do differently?
4. Review of and recommitment to City Council group norms
The intent of this discussion is to revisit the Group Norms and Expectations that were
previously developed and adopted by the Council. What are we doing well? What is
missing that would make this an even higher performing Council?
5. Closure
This is intended to be a wrap up conversation and an opportunity to set the stage for the
next day.
6. Adjournment (no later than 9 p.m.)
Saturday, January 31
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Site: AAA
City Council, City Manager and Department Heads
Bridget Gothberg Facilitates
1. Check-in
2. Connecting
Since the City Council and all Department Directors are not often together at one time,
we will undertake some type of exercise to get us all rolling in a positive way for the day
(Phil – this won’t be touchy-feely).
3. Review updated Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP)
This is intended to allow for a thorough review and understanding of the City’s updated
Long Range Financial Management Plan. This will include a presentation on the
challenges and opportunities facing us in 2010 and beyond. This will also set the stage for
the budget discussion to follow.
LUNCH
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject Draft Agenda - 2009 City Council Workshop
4. Discuss Current City Services and Budget Process for 2010
This discussion will be broken into two pieces as follows:
• Undertake an overview of the internal and external services the City provides
with a general understanding of the following –
• What are the services the City has to provide (mandates from the
Fed’s, State or City ordinance/Charter)?
• What are the services the City needs to provide?
• What are the discretionary/value added services the City provides?
• What are the services we should stop providing?
• What are the services we would like to do, but are not providing now?
• Given the financial challenges and opportunities facing the City, as noted
earlier in the discussion on the LRFMP, undertake a discussion on how we
should carry out the budget setting process for 2010 (including any citizen
engagement the Council may wish to consider). Staff will provide one or more
examples for Council consideration and to stimulate conversation. This
discussion is NOT intended to solve our budget issues – rather, it is intended
to identify the approach that would be the most productive and responsible way
to determine how we should allocate resources.
5. Pulling it all together
This is intended to allow time to wrap up loose ends and, if time permits, discuss other
topics of mutual interest.
6. Closure and Adjournment (no later than 3 p.m.)
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
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: SPECIAL
TITLE:
2009 Legislative Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested. Staff has prepared a list of legislative issues and priorities for Council’s
review and discussion with Hennepin County Commissioner Dorfman, Representative Steve Simon,
Representative Ryan Winkler and Senator Ron Latz.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Council met with staff and the city’s lobbyists, Vic Moore and Dennis McGrann, on November 10,
2008 to discuss 2009 legislative priorities, which are attached to this report. Does the Council still
agree with the issues identified in the attached report regarding priorities for 2009? Is there anything
else the City Council would like staff and our legislative delegation to pursue?
BACKGROUND:
Staff has prepared the attached preliminary list of issues and concerns that the Council wanted to
discuss and make known to our legislators. As has been the case in previous years, as the 2009
legislative session progress, additional issues may come to light.
Securing funding for major transportation projects is the primary focus of the city’s legislative
initiatives in 2009. There is a possibility that the city could receive substantial funding for the TH7
& Louisiana grade separated intersection through the reauthorization of the federal surface
transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, which expires in September 2009. We are also actively pursuing
economic stimulus funding for the TH7.Wooddale project.
It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory issues.
Administrative Services has been pleased with the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic
Moore, Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann of Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen. Mr. Moore
will be a part of this discussion and available for questions.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Funding for our lobbyists is included in the EDA budget.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Legislative Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Promoting regional transportation issues and securing transportation funding is aligned with the
Council’s Strategic Direction of being a Connected and Engaged Community. Staff has aligned
2009 activities to promote specific intersections, transportation corridors and projects.
Attachments: 2009 Legislative Issues and Priorities
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Legislative Update
City of St. Louis Park
2009 Legislative Issues and Priorities
1. Grade Separated Crossing at Hwy 7 and Wooddale
Purpose: To secure an additional $8 – $10 million to construct a $20 million grade separated
intersection (interchange) at Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue.
Status: Staff successfully secured $5.8 million in STP funding through the Metropolitan Council’s
TAB process in March 2006. More than $3 million in right-of-way purchases have been completed
by the city at its cost and initiative in anticipation of this project. The City has also spent
considerable dollars in completing the engineering design for the project. The Council has met with
Commissioner Dorfman to discuss funding needs and MnDOT has verbally committed $1 million
to this project in 2013. Staff is working to identify additional sources of funding for remaining
project dollars, including economic stimulus funding. Assuming funding can be secured, it is hoped
that this project will be let for bid in spring/summer 2009.
Background: This project will require a combination of local, county, state and Federal dollars to
finance the reconstruction of the at-grade intersection of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue in St.
Louis Park to a grade separated intersection.
Currently, the capacity and safety of this at-grade signalized intersection could be characterized as
poor at best. Based on a recent traffic analysis, the intersection is currently operating at a level of
service D. This project will allow for the separation of regional and local traffic which will vastly
improve the regional transportation systems and provide a safe crossing for pedestrians and bikes.
The regional systems alluded to are Hwy 7, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail immediately to the
south, and the proposed future dedicated bus way or LRT system. Currently, as part of Hennepin
County’s Southwest Corridor transit study, a transit station is proposed adjacent to the intersection
of Hwy 7 and Wooddale.
Without this intersection improvement project, these other regional systems will likely not be
possible or the operation of existing ones will continue to worsen due to congestion and safety
concerns. Reconstruction of this intersection to a grade separated intersection is the only practical
long term solution to this infrastructure problem.
Financial options the city is pursuing include the Development Fund/HRA Levy, Elmwood TIF
District, Excelsior Boulevard TIF District extension, Hennepin County, Mn/DOT (Contribution &
Const. Eng. Services), Mn/DOT (Municipal Agreement Program), and Land Sale (Soomhek Rug /
STEP building parcel).
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Legislative Update
2. Elmwood TIF District and Excelsior Boulevard TIF District – Hwy 7/Wooddale
Project
Staff is working with our state delegation to extend the life of the Elmwood TIF District by 10 years.
Currently, the Elmwood TIF District is a Renovation and Renewal district that expires in 2019. If
the state legislature would extend the life of the district by an additional 10 years, it will provide
additional resources to and help pay for the Hwy 7/Wooddale project.
The Excelsior Boulevard TIF District will expire in August 2009. As an alternative to extending the
Elmwood District, staff suggests consideration be given the extending the life of this district for a
limited period of time to help pay for the improvements at 7/Wooddale.
Staff proposes that a bill be introduced to extend both districts with further analysis then undertaken
to determine the most appropriate option to pursue.
3. Glencoe Switching Yard
Purpose: To secure the remaining $3.06 million for a $4.06 million project to construct a rail
switching yard in Glencoe, Minnesota that would create economic development for Glencoe and
would relocate the Twin Cities & Western Railroad’s train blocking operations from St. Louis Park,
Hopkins and Minnetonka.
Status: A capital budget request in the amount of $700,000 was approved during the 2006
legislative session thanks to the tireless efforts of St. Louis Park’s local and state elected officials, and
$300,000 in local matches have been secured. Recently, Staff and MnDOT have worked together to
submit a grant application to the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) for the remaining funding
needed. MnDOT will be notified of the FRA’s decision by spring 2009.
Background: In 2001, the St. Louis Park Railroad Advisory Task Force recommended that the
Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TC&W) blocking operations be eliminated in St. Louis Park,
Hopkins and Minnetonka and relocated to a new switch yard west of the three cities. The TC&W
blocking operations generate noise levels that exceed the State of Minnesota nighttime noise
standards. In addition, the switching operations cause vibrations and they often disrupt local
transportation systems because at-grade crossings are temporarily blocked by trains conducting
switching operations.
The Glencoe Railroad Congestion Mitigation Project involves constructing four siding tracks to
accommodate the anticipated amount of rail car maneuvering/switching operations at this new
facility. It is a nine acre site and the City of Glencoe was selected as the preferred site for a switch
yard because it would consolidate operations, it would provide for noise mitigation for residents in
Glencoe (existing rail car maneuvers would be relocated to the west or east side of town), and it
would provide opportunities for economic development.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Legislative Update
Anticipated project costs of $4,060,000 for the yard include the land acquisition, construction
management and design costs. Proposed funding sources include $3.76 million of federal and state
funds, and $300,000 from a local match e.g. cities, railroad etc. The site will be owned by the
McLeod County Rail Authority and be operated by TC&W.
The earliest construction start date, assuming funding is secured, is planned for September 2009; the
yard is expected to then be fully operational by the fall of 2010.
4. TH 100 Full Build Project
Purpose: To keep the TH 100 Full Build Project on track for its proposed bid 2014 letting date.
Status: In the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, the TH100 full build
project has been identified as an expansion project. This means that if the plan would place this
project on hold until 2010 when the policy plan amendment is adopted. The TH100 project is
among several other identified “expansion” projects, identified in the 2004 TIP, which will be re-
scoped to see if they can be built at a lower cost.
If the project proceeds, it will be on a smaller scale than originally proposed by MnDOT. MnDOT
is still working on the revised configuration and staff estimates that the final design will cost
approximately $75 million, which is half of the original project cost.
In addition, the 2030 plan identifies the bridges that span TH100 at Hwy 7 and Hwy 5 as
structurally deficient. Each bridge is classified as Tier II, which means that the bridges need to be
replaced by 2018.
Background:
The 2006 interim project added a third lane in each direction by decreasing lane widths from 12 feet
to 11 feet and eliminating or severely reducing shoulders along that stretch of highway. The third
lane is required for the full build project so that MnDOT can keep a minimum of two lanes open in
each direction during construction.
Improvements not included as a part of the interim project include construction of the noise walls,
which MnDOT agreed to construct no later than 2015, width expansion of lanes, construction of
on/off ramps, and bridge and storm water improvements. Bridges spanning TH 100 at Hwy. 7 and
Hwy 5, and storm sewers conveyance systems have no more than 10-15 years of useful life left and
are deteriorating. In addition, there are approximately 20 residents who live in uncertainty because
their homes are within the future right-of-way of the new project.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Legislative Update
5. Grade Separated Crossing Project at Highway 7 & Louisiana Avenue
Purpose: To secure $13 million to construct a $20 million grade separated intersection
(interchange) at Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
Status:
The project is programmed to be constructed in 2011-2012, and would provide for a separated
grade interchange. This project will not only mitigate congestion and accidents at the intersection
itself, but will accommodate further growth and redevelopment in the immediate area, including
current expansion at Methodist Hospital, a future nearby light rail station, and other adjacent
redevelopment activity.
The City of St. Louis Park has received $7.0 million from the Metropolitan Council and
Transportation Advisory Board in accordance with the federal Surface Transportation Program
(STP) for the construction of this grade separated crossing.
Background: The city owns the property or right of way in all four quadrants of the intersection so
right of way acquisition for this project will not be necessary or minimal. The city has commenced
the design process for this project. Assuming full funding can be obtained, it is expected to
construct this project in the spring of 2011.
This project will require a combination of local, state and federal dollars to finance the
reconstruction of the at-grade intersection of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue in St. Louis Park to a
grade separated intersection. Staff is actively pursuing SAFETEA-LU funding for this project.
6. I-394/TH100 Collector-Distributor Roads
Purpose: To secure $1.8 million of a required $2.4 million to make improvements to the eastbound
and westbound lanes of the TH 100 Commuter-Distributor Road at I-394.
Status: The cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park, in partnership with MnDOT have been
working to find a solution to the congestion and flow of traffic in the vicinity TH100 and I-394.
This project is supported by MnDOT but is not in their current list of project due to funding
constraints.
Background: The Trunk Highway 100 & Interstate 394/Xenia Avenue/Park Place Boulevard
Collector-Distributor Road Improvement Project will benefit residents in St. Louis Park and the
metropolitan region by improving the safety of the east and west bound traffic flow on I-394 and in
the vicinity of Park Place and Xenia Avenue, as well as on TH100.
The traffic analysis indicates that the TH 100 Collector-Distributor (C-D) Road currently operates
poorly in the eastbound and westbound directions during the morning and evening peak periods.
Further analysis for year 2027 conditions indicate operations will continue to worsen based on
normal growth of regional trips to a service level of E-F.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Legislative Update
To mitigate for this, an additional eastbound and westbound lane on the TH100 C-D Road needs
to be constructed to bring this area into acceptable levels of service.
7. Southwest Transitway
Purpose: Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority proposes to build and construct the Southwest
Transitway from Eden Prairie to Minneapolis in 2015. A Light Rail Transit (LRT) line servicing the
cities of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie will improve mobility
and will help maintain a competitive business environment and high quality of life for the entire
Southwest Metro Area.
Status: Transit planning for the Southwest Corridor continues with the Hennepin County Regional
Rail Authority (HCRRA). Approximately a year ago, three alternatives were chosen to move
forward for further study. These alternatives will be the focus of the next step in the process - the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). If the Southwest Transitway process stays on
schedule, the HCRRA intends to proceed with the necessary studies to apply for federal funding and
be operational by 2015.
Background: A significant partnership represented by the Southwest Policy Advisory Committee has
been formed over the past six years among public sector and private interests in the Southwest Metro
area led by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) and includes the cities of
Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Edina, Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis; the Metropolitan
Council; Metro Transit and SouthWest Metro Transit, Three Rivers Park District, and the Twin
West, Minneapolis Regional, and Eden Prairie Chambers of Commerce.
With direction and guidance from the Southwest Policy Advisory Committee, a Feasibility Study
was completed in 2003 that concluded that light rail is a feasible alternative to serve the travel needs
of this area given the projected growth in population and employment projected for the Southwest
part of the region, and in 2007, an Alternative Analysis (AA) narrowed the range of viable
alternatives to three possible light rail routes.
Southwest Transitway is expected to serve nearly 30,000 trips per day, significantly contribute to
managing congestion in the fastest growth area of the region, provide access to jobs and support
economic development, provide a competitive travel choice, and offer a cost-effective transportation
option and the Southwest Transitway is expected to be a competitive candidate for Federal New
Starts funding.
8. Levy Limits and LGA
Background: The city would like to see the 3.9% levy cap overturned during the 2009 legislative
session. Given the state’s $5 billion biennium budget deficit and anticipated decreases in funding
from the state, the levy cap limits the Council’s ability to fund and plan for city needs and is unduly
restrictive.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Legislative Update
9. Other Legislative Issues
Residential Care Facilities
The League of Minnesota Cities has convened a stakeholder group made up of local, state and
county entities as well as care providers to discuss issues related to residential care facilities (formerly
known as group homes). Vic Moore co-chairs this group and the hope is for the providers, the
LMC and the other government agencies to agree on a 2009 Legislative platform if it is needed.
Housing Improvement Areas
In 1996, the state legislature granted cities the authority to establish Housing Improvement Areas
(HIA) without special legislation. This legislation will sunset on June 30, 2009. Vic Moore has
been working with our state delegation to introduce a bill that would remove the sunset provision.
St. Louis Park has found the HIA legislation to be a valuable tool for reinvestment in condominium
neighborhoods.
Additional Items for the LMC and AMM:
In addition to the Levy limits and concerns about the state’s distribution of LGA, there are three
other financial issues that the city would like to see addressed:
• No sales tax on city purchases similar to school districts
• Truth-in-taxation notices – state should change the form so it shows change in property
value and increase in city levy
Proposed Bill allowing cities to adopt more restrictive property maintenance program codes.
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has been meeting with representatives from several
metropolitan area communities regarding the effects of last years Minnesota Supreme Court case
involving the City of Morris and their rental licensing program. In that case the city required
property owners to upgrade pre-existing electrical systems to current code requirements which the
Supreme Court determined was not permissible under the law. Given the fact that other cities have
similar requirements that Morris did (does note include SLP) they are concerned that they do not
now have the statutory authority to administer their existing ordinances for various types of
property maintenance, time of sale, and rental programs which require upgrading older structures.
Staff has been engaged with the LMC discussion and reviewed our currant ordinances with the city
attorney. The Supreme Court only affirmed what is statutorily permitted - a city may have property
maintenance programs provided they do not require bringing an existing building into compliance
with newer or current building codes. Our code and programs for maintenance are consistent with
that determination and not effected by the Court decision.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Legislative Update
However, several cities have been requiring older buildings be installed with newer safety equipment
including guard railings or GFI electrical outlets. The Supreme Court decision does jeopardize these
types of improvements to existing houses being required and therefore they have requested the
League of Minnesota Cities take a lead in drafting a bill that would allow cities to have greater
latitude in adopting newer code requirements for existing buildings.
Staffs position is that the proposed bill is not necessary to maintain our property maintenance
programs. Our concern is over the unintended consequences that could develop from the legislative
process, possibly limiting the effectiveness of our program.
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 5, 2009
The meeting convened at 6:50 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Loran Paprocki and
Susan Sanger and C. Paul Carver via phone.
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Organization Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
1. Review City Council Workshop Agenda
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report on the Workshop Agenda.
Council and staff had discussion on the proposed agenda, suggesting more discussion on details, not
process, to better understand the long-range challenges they may be facing. Council also suggested
department heads provide function requests such as: must have, should have, nice to have, and
would like to have but not currently doing, so they can better understand if they are efficiently
delivering service or under or over serving.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
2. November 2008 Monthly Financial Reports
3. Conditional Use Permits in the Zoning Ordinance
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 5, 2009
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: C. Paul Carver
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) Assistant
Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
2. Presentations
2a. Cisco Systems Donation to City Telephone System
Mr. Pires introduced Tim Graca, Account Manager for Cisco Systems. Mr. Graca stated
they were proud to make a donation of 80 telephones and one gateway to the City of St.
Louis Park in appreciation for their involvement with the Republican National Convention
in September.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Study Session Minutes November 24, 2008
It was noted on page three, item #3, the first paragraph, second sentence should state: “Staff
is requesting…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. City Council Special Study Session Minutes December 1, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Minutes December 1, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes January 5, 2009
3d. Joint City Council / School Board Minutes December 8, 2008
It was noted on page one, the sixth paragraph, should state: “The School Board and City
Council…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3e. Closed Executive Session December 8, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
3f. City Council Study Session Minutes December 8, 2008
The minutes were approved as presented.
3g. City Council Special Study Session Minutes December 15, 2008
It was noted on page two, item #1, the first paragraph, second sentence should state: “…
but statue language designates…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3h. City Council Minutes December 15, 2008
It was noted on page five, item #8e, the ninth paragraph, should state: “… with the
exception that the tower be allowed in the DNR wetlands area and flood plain.
Councilmember Paprocki also wanted to permit heights without a CUP, as is currently
available in residential districts, making heights match those in residential districts.”
It was noted on page six, item #8e, the third paragraph, should state: “Councilmember
Paprocki rejected the rewording of the motion…”
It was noted on page two, item #5a, the first sentence should state: “… names of Carl
Robertson…”
It was noted on page six, item #8e, the second paragraph, should state: “… consider
permitting heights up to 45 feet with a CUP…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes January 5, 2009
Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 09-001, Declaring 2009 City Council Meeting
Dates.
4b. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 09-002, designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor
as the City’s Official Newspaper for year 2009.
4c. Motion to Adopt Resolution No. 09-003, authorizing award of the 2009 St. Louis
Park Arts and Culture Grants.
4d. Motion to Approve Second Reading of Ordinance No. 8268-09 vacating easements
for the Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment, approve summary ordinance and
authorize publication.
4e. Motion to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2369-09 amending the
Zoning Ordinance relating to Service land use in the Office (O) zoning district, and
approve the summary ordinance for publication.
4f. Motion to adopt a Resolution No. 09-004, accepting a donation from Cisco
Systems, Inc. in the form of eighty IP telephones and one gateway.
4g. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 09-005, authorizing final payment in the amount
of $40,363.72 for the Minnetonka Boulevard Trail Improvement Project - Project
No. 2004-0302 with DMJ Corporation, Contract No. 105-07.
4h. Accept for Filing Planning Commission Minutes December 3 2008.
4i. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
4j. Final Payment Resolution No. 09-006 – Contract 59-08 – Valley Paving, Inc. –
Project No. 2007-1100.
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes January 5, 2009
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2009 Mayor Pro-Tem
Resolution No. 09-007
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
adopt Resolution No.09-007 appointing Councilmember Sanger as Mayor Pro-Tem for
2009.
The motion passed 6-0.
8b. Mulberry’s Dry Cleaning - Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Resolution Nos. 09-008 and 09-009
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated she felt the variance is justified, as it is a very small
commercial site with limited uses. She also liked the environmentally friendly approach,
stating they plan to use no chemicals in their process.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to adopt
Resolution No. 09-008 approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the In-Vehicle
Service and Resolution No. 09-009 allowing a 65 foot variance to allow a 35 foot setback
from residential property for Mulberry’s Dry Cleaning.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if by granting the variance, it would allow someone at a
future date to establish a drive-through. Mr. Morrison stated it would not.
Councilmember Basill asked if would apply to a change of use. Mr. Morrison stated a
similar use, but it would come back before Council for approval.
The motion passed 6-0.
8c. Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to communication
towers and antennas
Ordinance No. 2367-09
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger asked for confirmation that, other than in respect to the CUP and
the wetland and flood plain, nothing else changed since first reading. Mr. Morrison stated
she was correct.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes January 5, 2009
Councilmember Omodt asked what the difference was between “approve” and “waive” a
second reading. Mr. Scott stated that technically they are waiving the second reading, which
means they don’t actually read the entire ordinance. He further stated the actual action is to
waive the action and then secondly it is to adopt the ordinance.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to waive the
second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2367-09 amending the Zoning Ordinance
relating to communication towers and antennas, and adopt the summary ordinance and
authorize publication.
The motion passed 5-1. (Councilmember Paprocki opposed)
9. Communications
Councilmember Paprocki reminded everyone that environmentally friendly and economically smart
are usually the same thing. He further asked that people check their tire pressure and noted that for
every degree they turn down their thermostat, it will save them money.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 12, 2009
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro-Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 6:20 pm.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro-Tem Sue Sanger, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt
and Loran Paprocki.
Council members absent: Mayor Jeff Jacob and C. Paul Carver.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Larrea).
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
Mayor Pro-Tem Sanger opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m.
No speakers were present. Mayor Pro-Tem Sanger closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve the first reading of an Ordinance vacating easements for the Ellipse on Excelsior
redevelopment and set the second reading for January 20, 2009.
The motion passed 5-0.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JANUARY 12, 2009
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro-Tem Sue Sanger, Mayor Jeff Jacobs (via telephone), John
Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, and Loran Paprocki.
Council members absent: C. Paul Carver.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Inspections
Director (Mr. Hoffman), Parks & Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Public Works Director (Mr.
Rardin), Assistant Finance Director (Mr. Swanson) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Larrea).
Guest: Arnie Gregory (Principal of Greco Development), Brent Roger (Greco Development),
Collin Kaas (Kaas Wilson Architects), Link Wilson (Kaas Wilson Architects) and two representatives
of Ehlers and Associates.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
It was noted that the Special Study Session scheduled for Tuesday, January 20, 2009 and the Study
Session on January 26, 2009 will both begin at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Harmening noted that Councilmember Carver was contacted by a St. Louis Park resident
serving in the armed services who requested that his refuse fees be waived just as Waste Management
does in other communities. This item will be added to a future study session for discussion as a
Council policy item.
2. Conditional Use Permits for Institutional Uses in Residential Districts
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
It was the consensus of the Council that the following uses would be covered under the CUP
process: religious institutions and schools with more then 20 students. It was also decided that there
will be a special consideration process regarding Bed and Breakfasts and its off street parking.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 3d) Page 2
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes January 12, 2009
3. Greco Development’s Preliminary TIF Application for the redevelopment of the
southeast corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report to the Council.
Mr. Gregory of Greco Development presented to the Council regarding the redevelopment of the
southeast corner of 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue and the preliminary TIF Application.
Councilmember Paprocki stated he would like to see low income housing incorporated in this
project.
Councilmember Omodt would like the development group to proceed with the project.
Mayor Pro-Tem Sanger would like to look at the option of removing the commercial property
component.
Councilmember Basill would like to go back to the public process if the City is going to consider
adding low income housing or removing the commercial space. He would like to move forward
with the project as it is.
It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with the proposed project.
4. Utility Rate Study
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
A representative of Ehlers and Associates presented the Water and Sanitary Sewer, Storm Water and
Refuse Funds Utility Rate Study to the Council.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that under the tier system multi-unit buildings may be over
charged for their water usage. The representative of Ehlers and Associates confirmed that the City
will have to distribute under the tier system.
The representative of Ehlers and Associates confirmed with the Council that they are comfortable
with the assumptions made by City staff in the report.
Councilmember Basill noted that education on water usage should be incorporated into the new
system.
Mayor Pro-Tem Sanger is in agreement with the proposal. She would like to have more stringent
rules regarding use of sprinkler systems while it is raining and golf course use of water for irrigation.
It was the consensus of the Council to revisit this issue at a future study session.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 3d) Page 3
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes January 12, 2009
5. 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan
Mr. Harmening presented to the Council an overview of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects
for the next five years.
It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with the proposed projects for 2009, to discuss
long-term financial planning at a future meeting, and postpone any discussions regarding staffing for
a month or so.
It was noted that the 2009 component of the CIP plan will be presented to the Council at the next
City Council meeting.
6. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening referenced a recent newspaper article regarding a St. Louis Park woman and the
remodeler she had hired to do work on her home. He informed the Council that information was
left out of the article, including that there were two contractors rather than one.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. Highway 7/ Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
8. Highway 7/ Merge Lane Modifications at Blake Road
9. Update on Contact for Development of Vacant City Lot located at 5609 Wood Lane
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Resolution Adopting the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to adopt the five year capital improvement plan?
This program provides a method for replacing, upgrading and repairing the City’s capital assets.
The funding for purchases contemplated in 2009 is adequate assuming the utility financing plans are
approved. Good financial planning requires us to examine our needs on a long range basis. This
program allows the City Council to review plans and evaluate each project as well as plan for the
necessary funding.
BACKGROUND:
The Council reviewed the CIP at study sessions in December and January. The next five years are
potentially the greatest construction period ever for the City of St. Louis Park. We have three major
city building construction projects and two extremely large bridge projects scheduled during this
period. This is on top of a regular cycle of street reconstruction projects, utility infrastructure
improvements, and replacement of existing vehicles and equipment. It is vital that we plan well to
maintain financially stability and affordability while doing these projects and to keep our financing
costs to a minimum.
Only those projects included in the CIP for 2009 are authorized for purchase during the next year.
The out years (2010-2013) are for planning purposes only and do not represent a firm commitment
to construct or purchase any specific assets until authorized by the City Council. Any projects
estimated to cost more than $100,000 will be formally bid and brought back for acceptance by the
Council.
There is one additional program that has been inserted in the plan since the discussion last Monday
– ramp improvements for the I394 and Park Place Boulevard intersection. This is an unfunded
project for 2013 at this point and is just in the rough stages of defining what needs to be done.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This capital plan will allow the city to finance its infrastructure and equipment needs for the next
five years.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Many of the projects in the CIP have a direct relationship to the Strategic Directions adopted by the
City Council.
Attachments: Resolution
Projects and Funding Sources by Department Report
Projects by Funding Source Report
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_______
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2009-2013
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report
from the Finance Director related to proposed capital spending for 2009-2013; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital stock in order to
enhance the city’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council and
staff exercise over the physical plant of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
MN, that:
1. The 2009-2013 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted.
2. The City Manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal year
2009 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes.
3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final
approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
2009 2013thru
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
Cable TV
20090007 61,50061,500Council Chambers equipment replacement 2
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 61,500 61,500
20090009 304,590304,590Mobile Production Van 1
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 304,590 304,590
20090011 9,0009,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units 2
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 9,000 9,000
20100008 4,0004,000Video server 2
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 4,000 4,000
20100009 9,0009,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel Units 2
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 9,000 9,000
20100010 6,0006,000Replacement digital camcorders 2
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 6,000 6,000
20120013 18,00018,000Replacement Edit Systems 2
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 18,000 18,000
412,090375,090 19,000 18,000Cable TV Total
Inspections
20061600 95,00095,000City Hall / Police Station Landscaping 2
Capital Replacement Fund 95,000 95,000
20081700 13,000,0008,000,000 5,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 2
G.O. Bonds 5,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000
Police & Fire Pension 3,000,000 3,000,000
20081900 6,000,0006,000,000MSC Complex Expansion 3
G.O. Revenue Bonds 6,000,000 6,000,000
Sanitary Sewer Utility 0 0
Solid Waste Utility 0 0
Stormwater Utility 0 0
Water Utility 0 0
20091599 100,000100,000City Hall HVAC 1
Capital Replacement Fund 100,000 100,000
20091600 500,000500,000City Hall Space Reallocation 3
Capital Replacement Fund 500,000 500,000
20091700 150,000150,000City Hall Garage Roof n/a
Capital Replacement Fund 150,000 150,000
19,845,0006,195,000 8,000,000 5,150,000 500,000Inspections Total
Parks & Recreation
20044230 22,39222,392Ford Park Redevelopment 1
Park Improvement Fund 22,392 22,392
20071010 315,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 75,000Tree Replacement 2
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 4
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
Park Improvement Fund 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 75,000 315,000
20090010 50,00050,000Aquatic Park Sand/Water Play Area n/a
Park Improvement Fund 50,000 50,000
20090020 52,00052,000Aquila Park Lighting Upgrade - Field 2 n/a
Park Improvement Fund 52,000 52,000
20090030 48,00048,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 4)n/a
Park Improvement Fund 48,000 48,000
20090040 185,000185,000Aquila Park Parking Lot & Trail Reconstruction n/a
Park Improvement Fund 185,000 185,000
20090050 60,00060,000Beehive Restoration Project, Phase II n/a
Park Improvement Fund 60,000 60,000
20090060 15,00015,000Bronx Park Field Improvements n/a
Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
20090090 13,00013,000Carpenter Park Tennis Court Resurface 3
Park Improvement Fund 13,000 13,000
20090130 90,00090,000Playground Equip Repl-Carpenter, Mdwbrk, Parkview 3
Park Improvement Fund 90,000 90,000
20090140 25,00025,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 25,000 25,000
20090170 42,00042,000Jersey Park Sun Shelter, Trail & BB Court Improv n/a
Park Improvement Fund 42,000 42,000
20090180 40,00040,000Trail Mill & Overlay (Jordan & Keystone Parks)n/a
Park Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000
20090200 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph. I n/a
Park Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000
20090210 30,00030,000Aquila Park - Basketball Courts n/a
Park Improvement Fund 30,000 30,000
20090220 15,00015,000Splash Pad Structure Improv & Surface Repl n/a
Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
20090230 10,00010,000Westwood Trail Signs n/a
Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000
20090240 10,00010,000Hurd Park Community Garden n/a
Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000
20090250 42,00042,000Ainsworth Park Field Improvements and Irrigation n/a
Park Improvement Fund 42,000 42,000
20090260 100,000100,000Dakota Park Fencing, Lights, Dugout & Storage Bldg n/a
Park Improvement Fund 100,000 100,000
20090270 65,00065,000Dakota Park Parking Lots Reconstruction n/a
Park Improvement Fund 65,000 65,000
20090280 50,00050,000Dakota Park Picnic Shlter Rmvl & Sun Shelter Add n/a
Park Improvement Fund 50,000 50,000
20090290 20,00020,000Dakota Park Trail Reconstruction n/a
Park Improvement Fund 20,000 20,000
20090300 45,00045,000Beltline Trail Reconstruction n/a
Park Improvement Fund 45,000 45,000
20090310 10,00010,000Carpet for Banquet Room at Rec Center n/a
Capital Replacement Fund 10,000 10,000
20090320 10,00010,000Aquila Park Fast Pitch Softball Improvements n/a
Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000
20090330 20,00020,000Surveilance Cameras at Rec Ctr Parking Lot n/a
Park Improvement Fund 20,000 20,000
20100020 100,000100,000Aquila Park Field Lighting (Field 5)n/a
Park Improvement Fund 100,000 100,000
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 5
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
20100050 35,00035,000Cedar Lake Boulevard Trail from JCC West n/a
Park Improvement Fund 35,000 35,000
20100140 135,000135,000Playground Equip Repl-Browndale & Wolfe n/a
Park Improvement Fund 135,000 135,000
20100160 15,00015,000Rec Center Offices Carpet Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
20100170 30,00030,000Walker Trail Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 30,000 30,000
20100180 55,00055,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 55,000 55,000
20100190 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II n/a
Park Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000
20100220 10,00010,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000
20100230 15,00015,000Westwood Hills Bridge Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
20100240 25,00025,000Trail Reconst - Monterey at Rec Ctr to Exc Blvd n/a
Park Improvement Fund 25,000 25,000
20100250 10,00010,000City Wide Natural Resource Inventory 2
Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000
20100260 25,00025,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 25,000 25,000
20100270 40,00040,000Carpenter Park Irrigation n/a
Park Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000
20100280 20,00020,000Oak Hill Park Reroof Central & Rustic Shelters n/a
Park Improvement Fund 20,000 20,000
20110010 23,00023,000Cedar Manor Park Sun Shelter n/a
Park Improvement Fund 23,000 23,000
20110020 35,00035,000Cedar Manor Park Trail Access n/a
Park Improvement Fund 35,000 35,000
20110030 10,00010,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 10,000 10,000
20110040 90,00090,000Louisiana Oaks & Walker Park Irrigation Upgrades n/a
Park Improvement Fund 90,000 90,000
20110060 165,000165,000Playground Equip - Aquila, Dakota, Nelson. Jorvig n/a
Park Improvement Fund 165,000 165,000
20110070 30,00030,000Rec Center Sign and Banner Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 30,000 30,000
20110080 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000
20110110 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph III n/a
Park Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000
20110120 75,00075,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 75,000 75,000
20110130 25,00025,000Westwood Hills Raptor Building n/a
Park Improvement Fund 25,000 25,000
20110140 100,000100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 100,000 100,000
20110160 23,00023,000Willow Park Sun Shelter Addition n/a
Park Improvement Fund 23,000 23,000
20110170 45,00045,000Lacrosse Field at Cedar Manor Park w/Irrigation n/a
Park Improvement Fund 45,000 45,000
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 6
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
20110180 30,00030,000Aquila Park Storage Building - Replace and Move n/a
Park Improvement Fund 30,000 30,000
20110190 25,00025,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot Mill, Overlay, Landscape n/a
Park Improvement Fund 25,000 25,000
20110200 15,00015,000Senior High School Tennis Court Overlay n/a
Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
20110210 6,0006,000Canoe Landings Upgrades (signs, landscape)n/a
Park Improvement Fund 6,000 6,000
20110220 25,00025,000Minihaha Creek Restoration (Partner w/Watershed)n/a
Park Improvement Fund 25,000 25,000
20110230 1,000,0001,000,000Birchwood & Northside Park Improvements n/a
Park Improvement Fund 1,000,000 1,000,000
20120020 50,00050,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth & Nelson Parks n/a
Park Improvement Fund 50,000 50,000
20120040 40,00040,000Field Renovation-Louisiana Oaks & Walker n/a
Park Improvement Fund 40,000 40,000
20120050 110,000110,000Playground Equip Rpl-Oak Hill #1 & 2, Jersey n/a
Park Improvement Fund 110,000 110,000
20120060 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement n/a
Park Improvement Fund 50,000 50,000
20120070 55,00055,000Sun Shelter Addition - La Oaks #2 & Pennsylvania n/a
Park Improvement Fund 55,000 55,000
20120080 200,000200,000Tower Park Redevelopment n/a
Park Improvement Fund 200,000 200,000
20120090 30,00030,000Natural Themed Climbing Structure for Westwood n/a
Park Improvement Fund 30,000 30,000
20120110 15,00015,000Replace Fence at Paul Frank Baseball Field n/a
Park Improvement Fund 15,000 15,000
20120120 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #1 n/a
Park Improvement Fund 60,000 60,000
20120130 180,000180,000Field Lights at Jr. High School n/a
Park Improvement Fund 180,000 180,000
20130010 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #2 n/a
Park Improvement Fund 60,000 60,000
20130020 80,00080,000Banquet & Gallery Rooms at Rec Center n/a
Park Improvement Fund 80,000 80,000
20130030 100,000100,000Keyless Entry System n/a
Park Improvement Fund 100,000 100,000
20130040 180,000180,000Louisiana Oaks Field Lights n/a
Park Improvement Fund 180,000 180,000
20130050 50,00050,000Creekside Park Renovation n/a
Park Improvement Fund 50,000 50,000
20130060 90,00090,000Playground Equip Repl-Blackstone, Justad, Rainbow n/a
Park Improvement Fund 90,000 90,000
20130110 60,00060,000Reconstruct Front Desk Area at Rec Center n/a
Park Improvement Fund 60,000 60,000
E - XX01 4,899,701588,928 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106 1,090,572Annual Equipment Replacement Program n/a
Capital Replacement Fund 588,928 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106 1,090,572 4,899,701
10,091,0931,758,320 1,723,048 2,336,047 2,488,106 1,785,572Parks & Recreation Total
Public Works
20031400 280,000280,000Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 3
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 7
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
Special Assessments 158,750 158,750
State of Minnesota 121,250 121,250
20040420 5,413,1185,000 5,408,118Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3
EDA Development Fund 5,000 275,000 280,000
Hennepin County 3,892,118 3,892,118
Unfunded 1,241,000 1,241,000
20040440 2,900,0002,900,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)5
Hennepin County 2,500,000 2,500,000
Unfunded 400,000 400,000
20041700 15,000,00015,000,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
Developer Agreement 69,000 69,000
State of Minnesota 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000
Tax Increment - Elmwood 6,046,000 6,046,000
U.S. Government 5,885,000 5,885,000
20050500 100,0005,000 95,000Street Project - W44th Street 4
Unfunded 5,000 95,000 100,000
20052000 240,00020,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 100,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1
20062000 625,000625,000Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation 1
Water Utility 625,000 625,000
20072400 250,000250,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)2
Stormwater Utility 250,000 250,000
20081000 1,400,0001,400,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)2
Pavement Management Fund 1,400,000 1,400,000
20081100 40,0002,000 38,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 5)2
Municipal State Aid 2,000 38,000 40,000
20081101 54,00054,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 5)2
Municipal State Aid 54,000 54,000
20081200 350,000350,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 4
Municipal State Aid 25,000 25,000
State of Minnesota 325,000 325,000
20081400 895,00075,000 820,000Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation 1
Water Utility 75,000 820,000 895,000
20082500 225,000225,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 2
Tax Increment - Elmwood 225,000 225,000
20082600 1,392,9621,392,962Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 2
Met Council Grant 872,040 872,040
Tax Increment - Elmwood 520,922 520,922
20090001 282,341282,341Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)n/a
Pavement Management Fund 244,456 244,456
PW Operations Budget 37,885 37,885
20090003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
PW Operations Budget 85,000 85,000
20090004 60,00060,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
Pavement Management Fund 50,000 50,000
PW Operations Budget 10,000 10,000
20090005 100,000100,000Railroad Proj. - Crossing Protection @ 2 crossings 3
Unfunded 100,000 100,000
20090006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
Stormwater Utility 20,000 20,000
20090008 100,000100,000Water Project - Security Improvements 2
Water Utility 100,000 100,000
20091000 925,09735,000 890,097Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)3
Pavement Management Fund 35,000 890,097 925,097
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 8
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
20091100 613,000613,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)3
Municipal State Aid 613,000 613,000
20091101 120,00010,000 110,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)3
Municipal State Aid 10,000 110,000 120,000
20091300 760,000760,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
Water Utility 760,000 760,000
20091400 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
Stormwater Utility 200,000 200,000
20091500 1,400,0001,400,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 2
State of Minnesota 700,000 700,000
Stormwater Utility 700,000 700,000
20092000 50,00050,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 2
Developer Agreement 25,000 25,000
Municipal State Aid 25,000 25,000
20092200 69,79569,795Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #5)2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 69,795 69,795
20092300 262,500262,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #17 & FM Rehab 2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 262,500 262,500
20100001 220,816220,816Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)n/a
Pavement Management Fund 182,173 182,173
PW Operations Budget 38,643 38,643
20100003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
PW Operations Budget 85,000 85,000
20100004 60,00060,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
Pavement Management Fund 50,000 50,000
PW Operations Budget 10,000 10,000
20100005 340,000340,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5
Hennepin County 340,000 340,000
20100006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
Stormwater Utility 20,000 20,000
20101000 1,093,85240,000 1,053,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4
Pavement Management Fund 40,000 1,053,852 1,093,852
20101100 280,00012,000 268,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)4
Municipal State Aid 12,000 268,000 280,000
20101200 500,000500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 3
Hennepin County 500,000 500,000
20101300 581,70050,000 531,700Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation 1
Water Utility 50,000 531,700 581,700
20101301 3,500,0003,500,000Water Project - WTP #6 GAC Upgrade 1
Water Utility 3,500,000 3,500,000
20101400 00Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
Water Utility 00
20101500 250,000250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 2
Water Utility 250,000 250,000
20101600 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
Stormwater Utility 200,000 200,000
20102200 180,000180,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6)2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 180,000 180,000
20102300 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls 2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 150,000 150,000
20110001 225,232225,232Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)n/a
Pavement Management Fund 185,816 185,816
PW Operations Budget 39,416 39,416
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 9
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
20110003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
PW Operations Budget 85,000 85,000
20110004 60,00060,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
Pavement Management Fund 50,000 50,000
PW Operations Budget 10,000 10,000
20110006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
Stormwater Utility 20,000 20,000
20111000 1,635,66460,000 1,575,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4
Pavement Management Fund 60,000 1,575,664 1,635,664
20111100 420,00020,000 400,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 3)4
Municipal State Aid 20,000 400,000 420,000
20111200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
Stormwater Utility 200,000 200,000
20111400 278,000278,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
Water Utility 278,000 278,000
20112200 110,000110,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7)2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 110,000 110,000
20120001 229,737229,737Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)n/a
Pavement Management Fund 189,533 189,533
PW Operations Budget 40,204 40,204
20120003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
PW Operations Budget 85,000 85,000
20120004 60,00060,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
Pavement Management Fund 50,000 50,000
PW Operations Budget 10,000 10,000
20120006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
Stormwater Utility 20,000 20,000
20120100 22,095,000495,000 500,000 10,550,000 10,550,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.2
U.S. Government 7,630,000 7,630,000
Unfunded 495,000 500,000 10,550,000 2,920,000 14,465,000
20121000 1,325,12161,000 1,264,121Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)4
Pavement Management Fund 61,000 1,264,121 1,325,121
20121200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
Stormwater Utility 200,000 200,000
20121300 1,950,0001,950,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 2
Tax Increment - Elmwood 1,950,000 1,950,000
20121301 1,989,0511,989,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 2
Tax Increment - Elmwood 1,989,051 1,989,051
20121302 500,00030,000 470,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 2
Tax Increment - Elmwood 30,000 470,000 500,000
20121303 500,00030,000 470,000Traffic Signal - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.4
Unfunded 30,000 470,000 500,000
20121304 277,500277,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 2
Municipal State Aid 30,000 30,000
State of Minnesota 247,500 247,500
20121305 252,500252,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 2
Municipal State Aid 27,500 27,500
State of Minnesota 225,000 225,000
20121400 00Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
Water Utility 00
20121500 1,110,00010,000 1,100,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1
Water Utility 10,000 1,100,000 1,110,000
20122200 80,00080,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8)2
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 10
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
Sanitary Sewer Utility 80,000 80,000
20122300 475,000475,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #3 and FM Rehab 2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 475,000 475,000
20130001 234,331234,331Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)n/a
Pavement Management Fund 193,323 193,323
PW Operations Budget 41,008 41,008
20130003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
PW Operations Budget 85,000 85,000
20130004 60,00060,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
Pavement Management Fund 50,000 50,000
PW Operations Budget 10,000 10,000
20131000 79,77279,772Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)4
Pavement Management Fund 79,772 79,772
20131100 515,0006,000 509,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 1)2
Municipal State Aid 6,000 509,000 515,000
20131200 3,500,0003,500,000Water Project - Replace/Upgrade Residential Meters 2
Water Utility 3,500,000 3,500,000
20131201 150,000150,000Water Project - WTP VFD Pump Upgrades 2
Water Utility 150,000 150,000
20131400 260,0005,000 255,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
Water Utility 5,000 255,000 260,000
20132200 110,000110,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #1)2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 110,000 110,000
20132300 125,500125,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 FM Rehab 2
Sanitary Sewer Utility 125,500 125,500
20140100 200,000100,000 100,000Street Project - I394 Ramp / CD Road Improvement 5
20141100 7,0007,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)2
Municipal State Aid 7,000 7,000
20141101 20,00020,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)3
Special Assessments 20,000 20,000
M - XX06 52,21552,215Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets n/a
Unfunded 52,215 52,215
M - XX07 49,2209,270 9,550 9,836 10,130 10,434Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals n/a
PW Operations Budget 9,270 9,550 9,836 10,130 10,434 49,220
M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair n/a
PW Operations Budget 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000
M - XX10 658,886123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019 132,036Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
PW Operations Budget 123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019 132,036 658,886
M - XX11 157,500150,000 7,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 2
Unfunded 150,000 7,500 157,500
M - XX12 42,96642,966Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements n/a
Unfunded 42,966 42,966
TEMP-0001 35,00035,000Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)5
Other 17,500 17,500
Water Utility 17,500 17,500
82,249,37631,369,474 10,092,965 13,350,976 23,516,601 3,919,360Public Works Total
Technology
20080211 300,000300,000Citywide Telephone System 3
Capital Replacement Fund 300,000 300,000
TRF-001 250,00050,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000On-going PC Hardware Replacement 2
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 11
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
Capital Replacement Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000
TRF-002 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000On-going PC Software Replacement 2
Capital Replacement Fund 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000
TRF-003 625,000125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000On-going Local Area Network Servers/Electronics 2
Capital Replacement Fund 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 625,000
TRF-112 110,000110,000Park WiFi Deconstruction 1
EDA Development Fund 110,000 110,000
TRF-212 20,00020,000Enhanced Web Backup Solution 2
Capital Replacement Fund 20,000 20,000
TRF-213 50,00050,000Citywide Technology Study 3
Unfunded 50,000 50,000
TRF-214 25,00025,000Folder Replacement in Support Services 3
Capital Replacement Fund 25,000 25,000
TRF-215 300,000300,000Public Works Software Consolidation/Replacement 5
Unfunded 300,000 300,000
TRF-216 10,00010,000Network Vulnerability Assessment 4
Unfunded 10,000 10,000
TRF-218 100,00050,000 50,000On-going SAN Storage Additions 1
Capital Replacement Fund 50,000 50,000 100,000
TRF-219 75,00025,000 25,000 25,000SAN Addition for Documents Imaging 1
Capital Replacement Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 75,000
TRF-220 100,000100,000Email Archival and Document Management Solution 3
Unfunded 100,000 100,000
TRF-221 4,0004,000Point of Sale Equipment for Concessions 5
Unfunded 4,000 4,000
TRF-222 6,0006,000Wireless Equipment for Assessing Field Work 4
Unfunded 6,000 6,000
TRF-223 5,0005,000NeoGov software for HR 3
Capital Replacement Fund 5,000 5,000
TRF-224 49,98049,980GIS Server / Structure 3
Unfunded 49,980 49,980
TRF-301 12,00012,000Color Copier Replacement - Floor 2 CH 3
Capital Replacement Fund 12,000 12,000
TRF-302 100,000100,000Citywide Switch Upgrades 1
Capital Replacement Fund 100,000 100,000
TRF-303 20,00020,000SAN Addition for Cable TV Video Storage 3
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 20,000 20,000
TRF-304 12,00012,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, Dakota-Louisiana 4
Unfunded 12,000 12,000
TRF-305 10,00010,000Fiber Strands - West End (Connect COP Shop)3
EDA Development Fund 10,000 10,000
TRF-306 12,00012,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, La Ave-Hopkins 4
Unfunded 12,000 12,000
TRF-307 15,00015,000Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3
EDA Development Fund 15,000 15,000
TRF-308 65,00065,000City Hall Production Copiers 3
Capital Replacement Fund 65,000 65,000
TRF-309 30,00030,000MSC, Utilities Copiers 3
Capital Replacement Fund 30,000 30,000
TRF-310 3,0003,000City Hall Counter Copiers 3
Capital Replacement Fund 3,000 3,000
TRF-311 7,5007,500Health Inspections Tablet PCs 4
Unfunded 7,500 7,500
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 12
Total2009 2010 2011 2012 2013DepartmentProject# Priority
TRF-312 40,00020,000 20,000Fiber Conduit - TBD 4
Unfunded 20,000 20,000 40,000
TRF-313 7,7007,700Nature Center / Lenox Wireless Hotspots 3
Unfunded 7,700 7,700
TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center Copiers 3
Unfunded 50,000 50,000
3,414,1801,135,180 857,000 420,000 387,000 615,000Technology Total
GRAND TOTAL 116,011,73940,833,064 20,692,013 21,257,023 26,909,707 6,319,932
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 13
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
2009 2013thru
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
20090007 61,50061,500Council Chambers equipment replacement 2
20090009 304,590304,590Mobile Production Van 1
20090011 9,0009,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units 2
20100008 4,0004,000Video server 2
20100009 9,0009,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel Units 2
20100010 6,0006,000Replacement digital camcorders 2
20120013 18,00018,000Replacement Edit Systems 2
TRF-303 20,00020,000SAN Addition for Cable TV Video Storage 3
432,090395,090 19,000 18,000Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment
Grant Total
Capital Replacement Fund
20061600 95,00095,000City Hall / Police Station Landscaping 2
20080211 300,000300,000Citywide Telephone System 3
20090310 10,00010,000Carpet for Banquet Room at Rec Center n/a
20091599 100,000100,000City Hall HVAC 1
20091600 500,000500,000City Hall Space Reallocation 3
20091700 150,000150,000City Hall Garage Roof n/a
E - XX01 4,899,701588,928 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106 1,090,572Annual Equipment Replacement Program n/a
TRF-001 250,00050,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000On-going PC Hardware Replacement 2
TRF-002 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000On-going PC Software Replacement 2
TRF-003 625,000125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000On-going Local Area Network Servers/Electronics 2
TRF-212 20,00020,000Enhanced Web Backup Solution 2
TRF-214 25,00025,000Folder Replacement in Support Services 3
TRF-218 100,00050,000 50,000On-going SAN Storage Additions 1
TRF-219 75,00025,000 25,000 25,000SAN Addition for Documents Imaging 1
TRF-223 5,0005,000NeoGov software for HR 3
TRF-301 12,00012,000Color Copier Replacement - Floor 2 CH 3
TRF-302 100,000100,000Citywide Switch Upgrades 1
TRF-308 65,00065,000City Hall Production Copiers 3
TRF-309 30,00030,000MSC, Utilities Copiers 3
TRF-310 3,0003,000City Hall Counter Copiers 3
8,364,7011,708,928 1,483,048 1,024,047 2,513,106 1,635,572Capital Replacement Fund Total
Developer Agreement
20041700 69,00069,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20092000 25,00025,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 2
94,00094,000Developer Agreement Total
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 14
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EDA Development Fund
20040420 280,0005,000 275,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3
TRF-112 110,000110,000Park WiFi Deconstruction 1
TRF-305 10,00010,000Fiber Strands - West End (Connect COP Shop)3
TRF-307 15,00015,000Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3
415,000140,000 275,000EDA Development Fund Total
G.O. Bonds
20081700 10,000,0005,000,000 5,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 2
10,000,0005,000,000 5,000,000G.O. Bonds Total
G.O. Revenue Bonds
20081900 6,000,0006,000,000MSC Complex Expansion 3
6,000,0006,000,000G.O. Revenue Bonds Total
Hennepin County
20040420 3,892,1183,892,118Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3
20040440 2,500,0002,500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)5
20100005 340,000340,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5
20101200 500,000500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 3
7,232,1184,732,118 2,500,000Hennepin County Total
Met Council Grant
20082600 872,040872,040Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 2
872,040872,040Met Council Grant Total
Municipal State Aid
20081100 40,0002,000 38,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 5) 2
20081101 54,00054,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 5)2
20081200 25,00025,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 4
20091100 613,000613,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)3
20091101 120,00010,000 110,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)3
20092000 25,00025,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 2
20101100 280,00012,000 268,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)4
20111100 420,00020,000 400,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 3)4
20121304 30,00030,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 2
20121305 27,50027,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 2
20131100 515,0006,000 509,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 1)2
20141100 7,0007,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 2)2
2,156,500729,000 160,000 288,000 463,500 516,000Municipal State Aid Total
Other
TEMP-0001 17,50017,500Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)5
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 15
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
17,50017,500Other Total
Park Improvement Fund
20044230 22,39222,392Ford Park Redevelopment 1
20071010 315,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 75,000Tree Replacement 2
20090010 50,00050,000Aquatic Park Sand/Water Play Area n/a
20090020 52,00052,000Aquila Park Lighting Upgrade - Field 2 n/a
20090030 48,00048,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 4)n/a
20090040 185,000185,000Aquila Park Parking Lot & Trail Reconstruction n/a
20090050 60,00060,000Beehive Restoration Project, Phase II n/a
20090060 15,00015,000Bronx Park Field Improvements n/a
20090090 13,00013,000Carpenter Park Tennis Court Resurface 3
20090130 90,00090,000Playground Equip Repl-Carpenter, Mdwbrk, Parkview 3
20090140 25,00025,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a
20090170 42,00042,000Jersey Park Sun Shelter, Trail & BB Court Improv n/a
20090180 40,00040,000Trail Mill & Overlay (Jordan & Keystone Parks)n/a
20090200 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph. I n/a
20090210 30,00030,000Aquila Park - Basketball Courts n/a
20090220 15,00015,000Splash Pad Structure Improv & Surface Repl n/a
20090230 10,00010,000Westwood Trail Signs n/a
20090240 10,00010,000Hurd Park Community Garden n/a
20090250 42,00042,000Ainsworth Park Field Improvements and Irrigation n/a
20090260 100,000100,000Dakota Park Fencing, Lights, Dugout & Storage Bldg n/a
20090270 65,00065,000Dakota Park Parking Lots Reconstruction n/a
20090280 50,00050,000Dakota Park Picnic Shlter Rmvl & Sun Shelter Add n/a
20090290 20,00020,000Dakota Park Trail Reconstruction n/a
20090300 45,00045,000Beltline Trail Reconstruction n/a
20090320 10,00010,000Aquila Park Fast Pitch Softball Improvements n/a
20090330 20,00020,000Surveilance Cameras at Rec Ctr Parking Lot n/a
20100020 100,000100,000Aquila Park Field Lighting (Field 5)n/a
20100050 35,00035,000Cedar Lake Boulevard Trail from JCC West n/a
20100140 135,000135,000Playground Equip Repl-Browndale & Wolfe n/a
20100160 15,00015,000Rec Center Offices Carpet Replacement n/a
20100170 30,00030,000Walker Trail Replacement n/a
20100180 55,00055,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement n/a
20100190 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II n/a
20100220 10,00010,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement n/a
20100230 15,00015,000Westwood Hills Bridge Replacement n/a
20100240 25,00025,000Trail Reconst - Monterey at Rec Ctr to Exc Blvd n/a
20100250 10,00010,000City Wide Natural Resource Inventory 2
20100260 25,00025,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a
20100270 40,00040,000Carpenter Park Irrigation n/a
20100280 20,00020,000Oak Hill Park Reroof Central & Rustic Shelters n/a
20110010 23,00023,000Cedar Manor Park Sun Shelter n/a
20110020 35,00035,000Cedar Manor Park Trail Access n/a
20110030 10,00010,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement n/a
20110040 90,00090,000Louisiana Oaks & Walker Park Irrigation Upgrades n/a
20110060 165,000165,000Playground Equip - Aquila, Dakota, Nelson. Jorvig n/a
20110070 30,00030,000Rec Center Sign and Banner Replacement n/a
20110080 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement n/a
20110110 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph III n/a
20110120 75,00075,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement n/a
20110130 25,00025,000Westwood Hills Raptor Building n/a
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 16
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
20110140 100,000100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement n/a
20110160 23,00023,000Willow Park Sun Shelter Addition n/a
20110170 45,00045,000Lacrosse Field at Cedar Manor Park w/Irrigation n/a
20110180 30,00030,000Aquila Park Storage Building - Replace and Move n/a
20110190 25,00025,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot Mill, Overlay, Landscape n/a
20110200 15,00015,000Senior High School Tennis Court Overlay n/a
20110210 6,0006,000Canoe Landings Upgrades (signs, landscape)n/a
20110220 25,00025,000Minihaha Creek Restoration (Partner w/Watershed)n/a
20110230 1,000,0001,000,000Birchwood & Northside Park Improvements n/a
20120020 50,00050,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth & Nelson Parks n/a
20120040 40,00040,000Field Renovation-Louisiana Oaks & Walker n/a
20120050 110,000110,000Playground Equip Rpl-Oak Hill #1 & 2, Jersey n/a
20120060 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement n/a
20120070 55,00055,000Sun Shelter Addition - La Oaks #2 & Pennsylvania n/a
20120080 200,000200,000Tower Park Redevelopment n/a
20120090 30,00030,000Natural Themed Climbing Structure for Westwood n/a
20120110 15,00015,000Replace Fence at Paul Frank Baseball Field n/a
20120120 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #1 n/a
20120130 180,000180,000Field Lights at Jr. High School n/a
20130010 60,00060,000Dakota Park Softball Field #2 n/a
20130020 80,00080,000Banquet & Gallery Rooms at Rec Center n/a
20130030 100,000100,000Keyless Entry System n/a
20130040 180,000180,000Louisiana Oaks Field Lights n/a
20130050 50,00050,000Creekside Park Renovation n/a
20130060 90,00090,000Playground Equip Repl-Blackstone, Justad, Rainbow n/a
20130110 60,00060,000Reconstruct Front Desk Area at Rec Center n/a
5,181,3921,159,392 615,000 1,862,000 850,000 695,000Park Improvement Fund Total
Pavement Management Fund
20081000 1,400,0001,400,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)2
20090001 244,456244,456Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)n/a
20090004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20091000 925,09735,000 890,097Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)3
20100001 182,173182,173Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)n/a
20100004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20101000 1,093,85240,000 1,053,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4
20110001 185,816185,816Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)n/a
20110004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20111000 1,635,66460,000 1,575,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4
20120001 189,533189,533Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)n/a
20120004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20121000 1,325,12161,000 1,264,121Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)4
20130001 193,323193,323Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)n/a
20130004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20131000 79,77279,772Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)4
7,704,8071,729,456 1,162,270 1,349,668 1,876,197 1,587,216Pavement Management Fund Total
Police & Fire Pension
20081700 3,000,0003,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 2
3,000,0003,000,000Police & Fire Pension Total
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 17
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
PW Operations Budget
20090001 37,88537,885Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)n/a
20090003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20090004 10,00010,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20100001 38,64338,643Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)n/a
20100003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20100004 10,00010,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20110001 39,41639,416Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)n/a
20110003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20110004 10,00010,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20120001 40,20440,204Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)n/a
20120003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20120004 10,00010,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
20130001 41,00841,008Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)n/a
20130003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a
20130004 10,00010,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a
M - XX07 49,2209,270 9,550 9,836 10,130 10,434Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals n/a
M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair n/a
M - XX10 658,886123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019 132,036Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
1,430,262275,761 287,577 283,093 295,353 288,478PW Operations Budget Total
Sanitary Sewer Utility
20081900 00MSC Complex Expansion 3
20092200 69,79569,795Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #5)2
20092300 262,500262,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #17 & FM Rehab 2
20102200 180,000180,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6)2
20102300 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls 2
20112200 110,000110,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7)2
20122200 80,00080,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8)2
20122300 475,000475,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #3 and FM Rehab 2
20132200 110,000110,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #1)2
20132300 125,500125,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #7 FM Rehab 2
1,562,795332,295 330,000 110,000 555,000 235,500Sanitary Sewer Utility Total
Solid Waste Utility
20081900 00MSC Complex Expansion 3
00Solid Waste Utility Total
Special Assessments
20031400 158,750158,750Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 3
20141101 20,00020,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)3
178,750158,750 20,000Special Assessments Total
State of Minnesota
20031400 121,250121,250Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 3
20041700 3,000,0002,000,000 1,000,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20081200 325,000325,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 4
20091500 700,000700,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 2
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 18
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
20121304 247,500247,500Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on W Lake St 2
20121305 225,000225,000Railroad Proj. - Repl RR Xing Signals on Alabama 2
4,618,7503,146,250 472,500 1,000,000State of Minnesota Total
Stormwater Utility
20072400 250,000250,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)2
20081900 00MSC Complex Expansion 3
20090006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
20091400 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20091500 700,000700,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 2
20100006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
20101600 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20110006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
20111200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
20120006 20,00020,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs n/a
20121200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3
1,830,000970,000 220,000 220,000 220,000 200,000Stormwater Utility Total
Tax Increment - Elmwood
20041700 6,046,0006,046,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20082500 225,000225,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 2
20082600 520,922520,922Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 2
20121300 1,950,0001,950,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 2
20121301 1,989,0511,989,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 2
20121302 500,00030,000 470,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 2
11,230,9736,791,922 30,000 4,409,051Tax Increment - Elmwood Total
U.S. Government
20041700 5,885,0005,885,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1
20120100 7,630,0007,630,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.2
13,515,0005,885,000 7,630,000U.S. Government Total
Unfunded
20040420 1,241,0001,241,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3
20040440 400,000400,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)5
20050500 100,0005,000 95,000Street Project - W44th Street 4
20090005 100,000100,000Railroad Proj. - Crossing Protection @ 2 crossings 3
20120100 14,465,000495,000 500,000 10,550,000 2,920,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.2
20121303 500,00030,000 470,000Traffic Signal - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.4
M - XX06 52,21552,215Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets n/a
M - XX11 157,500150,000 7,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 2
M - XX12 42,96642,966Bus Shelter Project - Shelter Replacements n/a
TRF-213 50,00050,000Citywide Technology Study 3
TRF-215 300,000300,000Public Works Software Consolidation/Replacement 5
TRF-216 10,00010,000Network Vulnerability Assessment 4
TRF-220 100,000100,000Email Archival and Document Management Solution 3
TRF-221 4,0004,000Point of Sale Equipment for Concessions 5
TRF-222 6,0006,000Wireless Equipment for Assessing Field Work 4
TRF-224 49,98049,980GIS Server / Structure 3
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 19
TotalSourceProject# Priority 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TRF-304 12,00012,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, Dakota-Louisiana 4
TRF-306 12,00012,000Fiber Conduit - Excelsior Blvd, La Ave-Hopkins 4
TRF-311 7,5007,500Health Inspections Tablet PCs 4
TRF-312 40,00020,000 20,000Fiber Conduit - TBD 4
TRF-313 7,7007,700Nature Center / Lenox Wireless Hotspots 3
TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center Copiers 3
17,707,861715,180 2,318,000 10,752,215 3,802,000 120,466Unfunded Total
Water Utility
20062000 625,000625,000Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20081400 895,00075,000 820,000Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20081900 00MSC Complex Expansion 3
20090008 100,000100,000Water Project - Security Improvements 2
20091300 760,000760,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20101300 581,70050,000 531,700Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation 1
20101301 3,500,0003,500,000Water Project - WTP #6 GAC Upgrade 1
20101400 00Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20101500 250,000250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 2
20111400 278,000278,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20121400 00Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
20121500 1,110,00010,000 1,100,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1
20131200 3,500,0003,500,000Water Project - Replace/Upgrade Residential Meters 2
20131201 150,000150,000Water Project - WTP VFD Pump Upgrades 2
20131400 260,0005,000 255,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3
TEMP-0001 17,50017,500Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)5
12,027,2008,710,000 1,070,000 288,000 1,155,000 804,200Water Utility Total
115,571,73939,813,064 20,672,013 21,207,023 26,759,707 7,119,932GRAND TOTAL
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4a)
Subject: Approve 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan Page 20
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Waive Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance Vacating Easements for the Ellipse on
Excelsior Redevelopment and approve the summary ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is there a need for the easements that are proposed to be vacated?
BACKGROUND:
The Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment site is located on the northwest corner of France Avenue and
Excelsior Boulevard. It includes nine lots addressed 3900, 3912, 3920 Excelsior Boulevard; 3409,
3413, 3417 Glenhurst Avenue South; and 3408, 3412, 3416 France Avenue South. City Council
approved a preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development (PUD) for a mixed use
building on the property. A condition of those approvals was successful applications to vacate
existing easements on the property. City Council approved vacation of six other easements on the
site to accommodate the Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment. Two more easements still need to be
vacated.
This request includes vacation of two 2-foot wide easements along the north line of Excelsior
Boulevard. The easements are for street, roadway, pathway, watermain, drainage and utility
purposes. The applicant made the request because proposed staircases from first floor apartments
encroach into the easements.
It is City policy to prohibit permanent structures from encroaching on public right-of-way
(easements in this case). Based on the location of existing utilities and the proposed redevelopment
plan, the City does not need the two easements. Easement vacations are approved by ordinance.
The 2-foot wide easements were originally put in place to facilitate Excelsior Boulevard streetscape
improvements. The Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment will include five feet of landscaping adjacent
to the Excelsior Boulevard sidewalk, interrupted by seven staircases, that encompasses the easements
to be vacated.
Hennepin County and utility companies were notified of the request. The City did not receive any
objections.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Ordinance and summary for publication
Map of easements to be vacated
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC)
ORDINANCE NO._____-09
AN ORDINANCE VACATING STREET, ROADWAY, PATHWAY, WATERMAIN,
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AT
3900, 3912 and 3920 Excelsior Boulevard
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property
abutting upon both sides of the easements proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of
said petition was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on January 1, 2009 and the City Council
conducted a public hearing upon said petition and determined that the easements are not needed for
public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said easements be vacated.
Section 2. The easements described on attached Exhibits “A” and “B” as now dedicated
and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, are vacated.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the
Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon recording of the ELLIPSE ON
EXCELSIOR final plat with Hennepin County, but not less than fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading January 12, 2009
Second Reading January 20, 2009
Date of Publication January 29, 2009
Date Ordinance takes effect February 13, 2009
Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2009
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC)
EXHIBIT “A”
Description of Easement to be Vacated
That particular roadway, pathway, drainage, watermain and utility easement originally dedicated in
Document Number 6718584, Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and
now to be vacated, described as follows:
The Southeasterly 2.00 feet of the following described tract of land:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range
24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the
Southwesterly line of “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota” which point is 50
feet Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of Excelsior Avenue also known as
U.S. Trunk Highway #169, thence Southwesterly parallel with the center line of Excelsior
Avenue a distance of 30 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described,
thence Northwesterly along a line drawn at right angles to said Excelsior Avenue, a distance
of 190 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with the center line of Excelsior Avenue a distance
of 140 feet; thence Southeasterly along a line drawn at right angles to Excelsior Avenue a
distance of 190 feet to a point 50 feet Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of
said Excelsior Avenue; thence Northeasterly parallel with said center line 140 feet to the
actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and
situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
The Northwesterly 2.00 feet of the Southeasterly 19.00 feet of both Lots 7 and 8, Block 5,
Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat on file and of
record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Also the Southeasterly 2.00 feet of the following described tract of land:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24
described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of “Minikahda Oaks,
Hennepin County, Minnesota: which is distant 50 feet at right angles from the centerline of
Excelsior Avenue; thence Southwesterly parallel with said center line of Excelsior Avenue 30
feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles to Excelsior Avenue 190 feet to a point on the
centerline of Greeley Avenue extended Southerly; thence at an angle of 48 degrees 17
minutes to the right 97 feet along said extended center line to the Southwesterly line of
“Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota”; thence Southeasterly 258.4 feet along
last mentioned line, to beginning, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC)
EXHIBIT “B”
Description of Easement to be Vacated
That particular street, utility and drainage easement originally dedicated in Document Number
6733685, Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated,
described as follows:
The Northwesterly 2.00 feet of the Southeasterly 19.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 5, Minikahda Oaks,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to said plat on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 6
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC)
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.___
AN ORDINANCE VACATING EASEMENTS
3900, 3912 and 3920 Excelsior Boulevard
This ordinance states that street, roadway, pathway, watermain, drainage and utility easements will be vacated at 3900,
3912 and 3920 Excelsior Boulevard.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2009
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 29, 2009
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4b) Page 7
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC)
Map of Easements to be Vacated
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period January 3, 2008 through January 16,
2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
50.80TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
343.34STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
394.14
2,006.36EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
2,006.36
5,000.00FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVICABDO EICK & MEYERS LLP
5,000.00
155.12GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
155.12
125.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEACTION FLEET INC
125.00
2.07-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSADAMSON INDUSTRIES CORP
33.97GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
31.90
201.85EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION RESOURCES CORP
201.85
1,540.00ELEVATOR MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALL CITY ELEVATOR INC
1,540.00
6.84-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSALL STAR SPORTS
2,585.37HOCKEYGENERAL SUPPLIES
2,578.53
100.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAMEM
100.00
113.84INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGAMERICA'S BEST ROOFING INC
113.84
1,960.80PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT SOIL TESTING SERVICESAMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I
1,960.80
2.57-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSAMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC
42.07WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
39.50
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
28.93GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
137.70PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
50.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
95.92ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
132.87VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
453.11TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
39.63WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
39.62SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
978.45
865.47PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
865.47
440.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPA
440.00
194.60ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
194.60
25.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSARBOR DAY FOUNDATION
25.00
465.70OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
465.70
200.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSATOM
40.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
240.00
2,971.11EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBALVIN, AARON
2,971.11
390.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
390.00
283.50EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBARNES, PAUL
283.50
220.96SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
220.96
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
667.22ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
667.22
175.91WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBERO, JOSEPH
175.91
129.28ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
129.28
526.24EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBORKEN, AARON
526.24
1,779.90OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
1,779.90
95.37GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSBOYER TRUCK PARTS
95.37
50.52EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBRINK, SCOTT
50.52
9,094.94ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
627.36GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
196.00WIRELESS G & A LEGAL SERVICES
9,918.30
1,400.28PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES RENTAL EQUIPMENTCANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
1,400.28
2,835.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCARDIAC SCIENCE INC
2,835.00
2,050.08DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
2,050.08
8,480.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
8,480.00
2,125.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECERTIFIED PLUMBING INC
2,125.00
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
121.84GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
76.68WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
198.52
115.00ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
55.10HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
95.25WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
684.82WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
24.32VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
974.49
2,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGCITY IMAGE COMMUNICATIONS
2,500.00
15,461.00ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
15,461.00
484.42NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
484.42
681.50BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICECRAWFORD DOOR SALES CO INC.
681.50
8.75IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
8.75
131.61POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
78.13POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
54.89DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
6.95NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
271.58
5.10INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER
5.10
280.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-MOORE, KIM
280.00
181.99GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
181.99
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,471.79INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
2,471.79
510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEDEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
510.00
212.25ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
212.25
40,363.72PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDMJ CORPORATION
40,363.72
135.00PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES PRINTING & PUBLISHINGDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
1,529.71POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
1,664.71
383.93EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
383.93
20,205.71STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEELECTRIC PUMP INC
20,205.71
30,271.64EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTELK RIVER CHRYSLER INC
30,271.64
816.45GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESESPRESSO MIDWEST INC
816.45
308.75COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGEVANS-STARK DESIGN
308.75
170.00POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESEVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS
42.00POLICE G & A DELIVERY
212.00
2,672.50NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTEXECUTIVE OFFICE CONCEPTS LTD
2,672.50
18.11ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
45.43POLICE G & A POSTAGE
63.54
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
615.70ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
615.70
90.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTFUDDRUCKERS
90.00
750.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGHIZONI, DAVE
750.00
557.93GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
78.29BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
636.22
2,672.76DATA SYSTEM MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO
2,672.76
412.50BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
412.50
3,752.73WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
3,752.73
930.68OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONSHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
315.16OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
1,245.84
8,000.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY SENTENCING TO
4,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
16,000.00
2,064.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
87.95PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
2,151.95
1,287.50OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES
1,287.50
16.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEHENSTEIN, PAM
16.00
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,761.57DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTHEWLETT-PACKARD CO
1,761.57
726.04PAINTINGGENERAL SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
726.04
20.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
301.80GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
5.72SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
211.92ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
539.44
2.76GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
12.69POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
144.18PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.66WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.42SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
236.71
33.93ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
33.93
60.75HUMAN RESOURCES CITEHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
60.75
171.17GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
171.17
150.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIIMC
150.00
472.56PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
472.56
1,154.95CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
1,154.95
72.13SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSINDELCO
72.13
425.79GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
425.79
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
124.50GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINVER GROVE FORD
124.50
25.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIPMA - MINNESOTA CHAPTER ADMIN
25.00
73.81ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
52.77POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
126.58
220.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSISA
220.00
899.16EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONJASMER, JERRY
899.16
214.50-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSJEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
3,514.50OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,300.00
281.90WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEJOHN HENRY FOSTER MN
281.90
150.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, QUINTIN
150.00
285.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, SHAWN
285.00
50,620.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJUST-RITE CONSTRUCTION INC
50,620.00
501.60ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
501.60
5,543.00CE INSPECTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
5,543.00
110.37-TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTSLANDLOGIC
1,808.37APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,698.00
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
478.76ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
478.76
9,552.20EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
9,552.20
40.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
40.00
59.93GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
59.93
240.24IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
37,949.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICES
1,392.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES
6,696.00NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
46,277.24
120.48GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
2,928.98SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER
3,049.46
2,000.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMACTA
2,000.00
20.00ADMINISTRATION BUDGET SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMAMA
20.00
2,591.80WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMANAGED SERVICES INC
2,591.80
11.91WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMASTEL, MARY ANN
11.91
24.28DAMAGE REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
39.46VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS
63.74
49.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMCGRAW HILL CONSTRUCTION ENR
49.00
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
4.19PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
51.78WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.97
92.43PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
92.43
66.31OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLSMES - MIDAM
66.31
1,510.94SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMETHODIST HOSPITAL
1,510.94
400.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMETRO CHIEF FIRE OFFICERS ASSN
400.00
4,000.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMETRO WATERSHED PARTNERS
4,000.00
3,613.50INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
285,423.79OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
289,037.29
69.45SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
34.19WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
103.64
13,166.44VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELSMIDWEST FUELS INVER GROVE HEIG
13,166.44
150.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMILLER, ANTHONY
150.00
343.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
343.00
214.80GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYMINNEAPOLIS RAG STOCK PLANT
214.80
93.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNEAPOLIS ST PAUL BUSINESS J
93.00
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
60.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CHAPTER NIGP
60.00
263.59GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMINNESOTA CONWAY
263.59
60.00NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION ASS
60.00
140.00ENTERPRISE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA ICE ARENA MGRS ASSOC
140.00
1,680.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG
64.00SEWER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
1,744.00
5,368.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
5,368.00
94.04GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
94.04
81.31COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMORRISON, GARY
81.31
76.80INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGMR ROOTER
76.80
70.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMSSA
70.00
664.64GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
664.64
616.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
616.00
172.60VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESMYERS TIRE SUPPLY CO
172.60
35.51TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
80.61PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
206.83GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,078.25GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
55.73WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
95.84SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
55.74SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
55.74STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
43.02EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
1,707.27
223.69WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSNICHOLS, CHRISTOPHER
223.69
525.76EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONNIELSEN, TAMMY
525.76
113.24STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICENORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY
113.24
1,430.00OPERATIONSTRAININGNSRMAA
1,430.00
103.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSO'DONNELL, THOMAS
103.00
93.02WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
93.02
27.77IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
77.61DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
294.62ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
110.84FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
40.00GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
157.58POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
41.47DARE PROGRAM OFFICE SUPPLIES
176.25SUPPORT SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES
179.41OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
163.51INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.57PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.38PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
19.38PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
19.38VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
4.07HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,340.84
869.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
869.00
827.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTPARK NICOLLET CLINIC
7,689.19OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,516.19
1,538.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPARK NICOLLET INSTITUTE
1,538.00
70.18GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSPARTS PLUS
70.18
5,240.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
818.77COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
6,058.77
10.00HUMAN RIGHTS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATPETTY CASH
5.60POLICE G & A POSTAGE
26.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
20.00SUPPORT SERVICES MOTOR FUELS
19.98TRAININGTRAINING
6.48TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
25.55OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
25.18PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
8.65SAFETY SERVICES MEETING EXPENSE
36.28TRAININGMEETING EXPENSE
9.00ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
6.16ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
27.00TRAININGMEETING EXPENSE
28.96ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.67ORGANIZED REC G & A POSTAGE
5.78ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
10.00ADULT SOFTBALL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
18.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
6.92ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
70.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
24.94OUTREACHGENERAL SUPPLIES
20.28WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
17.78WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
22.22SEWER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
453.43
3,900.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
360.00POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
448.17BROCHUREPOSTAGE
472.32WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
472.33SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
472.32SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
472.33STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
6,597.47
1,029.99STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
1,029.99
595.35ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
595.35
679.28WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
679.28
1,350.72EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONRAMRUP, RAY RAVINDRA
1,350.72
1,725.49FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
864.19REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
74.01WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
699.53SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,363.22
750.00IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESREYER COACHING & CONSULTING
750.00
989.61PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES RENTAL EQUIPMENTRICOH CUSTOMER FINANCE CORP
989.61
743.19HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRILEY, DETTMAN & KELSEY
743.19
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,063.74WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRMR SERVICES
2,063.74
70.20ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARROSA, NATE
70.20
1,277.30EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONRUD, JOSEPH
1,277.30
658.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRUDDY, WILLIAM
658.00
930.82SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSA-AG INC
930.82
4.52ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSAM'S CLUB
14.23-ORGANIZED REC G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
129.31HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OVERTIME
1,182.04WARMING HOUSE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,301.64
565.76WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.
565.76
16.01HOUSING REHAB G & A MEETING EXPENSESCHNITKER, MICHELE
16.01
147.42ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
147.42
115.93WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSEDOR, JAMIE
115.93
66.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEGAL, JUSTIN
66.00
68.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION
132.00HOUSING REHAB G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
200.00
160.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSHRM
160.00
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
43.52WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSOR, CHANVIRAK
43.52
2,861.08NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTSPECTRA
2,861.08
1,582.59WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSTRAND MFG CO
37.28SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
411.09STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,030.96
2,907.29EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTSTREICHER'S
2,907.29
936.09GENERAL REPAIR TIRESSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
936.09
246.69ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
944.00SOLID WASTE G&A ADVERTISING
1,190.69
525.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWEELEY, DAVID
525.00
4,398.25POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTACTICAL SOLUTIONS
4,398.25
79.98ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
79.98
383.40BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.
383.40
97.00MEETINGSBUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
97.00
2,900.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTESTAMERICA LABORATORIES INC
2,900.00
19.77-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,657.28BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,637.51
1,533.60TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICETOP NOTCH TREE CARE
1,533.60
1,901.35OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED
1,901.35
382.38OPERATIONSTELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
24.40WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
406.78
32.54SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
32.54
11,772.04CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
11,772.04
525.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVANG, WILLIAM
525.00
206.51BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
206.51
1,361.21VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
72.32COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,433.53
220.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEVIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
220.00
34.81ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVOELKER, STACY M
34.81
100.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWARREN, DEVIN
100.00
55,530.94SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT
23,200.90SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
25,051.88SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
01/14/2009CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 12:07:59R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
01/16/2009 -01/03/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
103.84SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
103,887.56
1,568.78WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
469.33WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,038.11
469.33WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
469.33
462.66PUBLIC WORKS G & A TRAININGWILLIAMS, TIM
462.66
38.12OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESWINDSCHITL, MARK
38.12
591.63EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S STATE WITHHOLDINGWISCONSIN DEPT OF REVENUE
591.63
3,935.08FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
4,495.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
264.31PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
381.12WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
13,524.80ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
940.09WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
21.84OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
23,563.18
2,250.00WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESXO COMMUNICATIONS
2,250.00
162.48VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSZIEGLER INC
73.80GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
236.28
Report Totals 873,216.93
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4c)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4d
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY
COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 22, 2008, 7 P.M.
THE REC CENTER
1. Call to Order
Chair Mr. Hallfin called the meeting to order at 6:59 p.m.
Commission members present: Jenny Coig, Bruce Cornwall (7:43 p.m.), George Foulkes, George
Hagemann, Steve Hallfin, Kirk Hawkinson, and Tom Worthington.
Commission members absent: None.
Staff present: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent, Stacy Voelker, Recording Secretary, and
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation.
Other present: None
2. Presentation: Traveling Baseball Association
Mr. Bob Keller, President, was present. Introductions were made.
Mr. Keller advised that each team was comprised of 12 – 13 players as follows: 12 players on the
U10, AA (B) team; 13 players on U11, AA team; no players on the U12 team; 12 players on the
U13, AA team; and we players each on the U14 (AA) and U15 (AAA) team. Mr. Keller advised the
associations discussed offering teams to age 16 with parents but feels they may stay with U15. Each
team plays 40 – 50 games which is a 15 game schedule plus four to five tournaments. One per year
they play out of town. This year they went to Michigan and were awarded second place.
Communication between the leagues and the city has been good. The Baseball Associations have met
to discuss merging but decided to stay as is at this time. Mr. Keller indicated the relationship
between the associations has improved. Mr. Keller advised the fee is currently $250 per person but
might be increased to $275 next year due to the economy. The fee covers new uniforms annually,
games and tournaments.
Mr. Foulkes inquired if registrant numbers are good; Mr. Keller indicated the numbers for next year
are good and they will have more teams than in the past.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired about traveling baseball. Mr. Keller advised this is the eighth year of
traveling; John Hynes began in 2002. Mr. Keller advised generally the same kids try out each year for
traveling. Mr. Keller indicated participants must live or attend school in St. Louis Park but will
allow other participants if space is available to fill the teams.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 22 2008
Mr. Foulkes inquired of Mr. Hallfin if the Little League is the same; Mr. Hallfin advised Little
League goes by city boundaries. Mr. Hallfin inquired if Traveling is affiliated with any other league;
Mr. Keller advised the association is associated with USSSA.
Mr. Hallfin briefly discussed the recent field dedication and inquired if there is more the city could
do. Mr. Keller advised that Jenny Buskey has been amazing. The association would like to see, and
can assist with, putting more in the Dale Petit field. Mr. Birno advised money is budgeted in the five
year Capital Improvement Plan to renovate that field. When closer to the beginning of the project,
staff will discuss with other parties, including the associations. Ms. Walsh indicated the baseball
association has been good about partnering on renovations and look forward to future projects. Mr.
Keller has received many compliments on other partnered field renovations with the city.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on fundraising; Mr. Keller indicated the association has received donations
from Hockey in past. Mr. Hallfin advised there have been discussions on accepting money from pull
tabs. Mr. Keller said the Slug Fest tournament which is held the third weekend in May, is their
largest fundraiser. Teams come from all over and play approximately 155 games from Friday through
Sunday. Mr. Keller indicated compliments have been received on the great field conditions.
Mr. Birno advised a grass in-field has been added at Louisiana Oaks Park and money from the
associations tournament helped with funding.
Mr. Hallfin, on behalf of the Commission, thanked Mr. Keller and the association for being a
forefront member of the youth community. Mr. Keller feels relationships with all the associations
and staff is fantastic. Appreciation was shared.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes September 17, 2008
It was moved by Commission member Mr. Hagemann to approve the minutes from
the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. The motion
passed 6-0.
4. New Business
a. Preliminary Plat for Al’s Bar site – Park Dedication (Sean Walther)
Mr. Walther indicated all new plats are brought before the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission and reviewed the park dedication proposed. A developer proposes a plat for
2.28 acres on the northwest corner of France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard. The developer
will pay an estimated $199,500 in park dedication fees and $29,925 in trail dedication fees if
approved.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 22 2008
Mr. Walther updated members on the status of the project which includes a five story
building (biggest issue with the neighborhood) to include 133 apartment units, 15,960
square feet of commercial space, surface and underground parking, and a corner plaza. Mr.
Walther advised there will be public art on the site but unsure of the details. There are many
issues to overcome and staff hopes the neighborhood will understand the project and
benefits. The building and area will be a nice gateway to St. Louis Park from the east. Mr.
Walther indicated some approvals are still pending but anticipates the project could be
approved by the end of the year.
Mr. Hallfin inquired if the plat includes the motel lot; Mr. Walther advised it does not. Mr.
Walther indicated the developer has approached the Motel but feels the fee the motel is
asking is too high. Mr. Walther is unsure of the status of discussions at this point.
Mr. Hagemann inquired if the plaza will be privately owned; Mr. Walther advised it will.
Mr. Hagemann inquired if the area at West 36th Street/Wooddale Avenue was public; Mr.
Walther it is. Ms. Walsh indicated the City Manager is strongly urging public art in the area.
Mr. Hagemann inquired if the city could acquire some ownership of all plazas to enable
public art installed; Mr. Walther advised the city hopes to include public art even in privately
owned areas.
Mr. Worthington asked if the park behind the project area could be renovated to attract local
residents. Ms. Walsh advised it is a low area and there are not many alternatives for park
renovation. Mr. Walther indicated the residential area is not conducive to families; more
likely young couples or singles. Mr. Hallfin feels the city should attempt to improve the park
as much as possible. Ms. Walsh advised the playground equipment in that park is only five
years old and a shelter has been added. Commission members feel some of the park
dedication received should be invested in that area.
Mr. Walther received comments from residents that they would like electricity in the shelter
and improvements to the path from the park to the Bass Lake trail. They prefer a gravel path,
not paved. Mr. Worthington commented it could be a great connection to the bike trail. Mr.
Walther advised a concern is traffic on France Avenue. They proposed a landscape median
for vehicles to realize it is not a through road. They are attempting to balance and
accommodate traffic.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the parking area. Mr. Walther indicated there will be a loading
zone on Excelsior Boulevard, under ground parking for residents, and retail parking in the
area.
Mr. Walther discussed the process and advised the plat is scheduled to go to Council in
December. If approved, construction will begin in the Spring of 2009.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 22 2008
Members conversed about a potential trail connection and the park. Members discussed
accepting park improvement money in lieu of land.
It was moved by Commission member Hallfin, seconded by Commission member
Hagemann, to accept an estimated $199,500 in park dedication fees and $29,925 in
trail dedication fees in lieu of land. The motion passed 7-0.
5. Old Business
a. Comprehensive Trail and Sidewalk Plan (Sean Walther)
Mr. Walther advised a recent update went to Council regarding the plan. Input was received
from various processes, prioritized, expenses were noted with the priorities, maps and budgets
were prepared for the plan. Mr. Walther and members reviewed the priorities and budget.
The high priorities are broken down into five years and secondary priorities were broken
down into 18 years. The plan is scheduled to begin in 2010. The high priorities are
concentrated on the north/south routes; routes that serve numerous destinations.
Mr. Hallfin inquired if a formal process will take place which includes letters to the
neighborhood. Mr. Walther indicated staff hopes to have money to assist in neighborhood
requests for smaller improvements to connect sidewalks where missing.
Mr. Hagemann inquired if public input was received for the Park Place/Xenia area. Mr.
Walther advised the road design was not conducive to original input. The plan for
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic on Park Place/Xenia was reviewed. Mr. Walther
indicated there will be numerous bicycle parking areas in the West End development.
Mr. Walther explained the “High priority city maintained sidewalks” and the “High priority
neighborhood maintained sidewalks” graph on page 12.Mr. Hagemann inquired on
intersection and bridge openings. He would like to include Virginia and Texas; Mr. Walther
advised it is one project. Mr. Hagemann indicated he is very pleased with this process.
Mr. Worthington inquired if there is a solution for Belt Line Boulevard. Mr. Walther
advised Three Rivers Park District is planning to renovate that intersection in 2010. Mr.
Walther briefly described the proposal at Wooddale Avenue which would grade over
Highway 7 then come back to current grade prior to the bicycle path. Ms. Walsh advised
staff could invite Scott Brink, city Engineer to attend a future Commission meeting if
members are interested in learning more about the Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue
proposal. Members agreed it would be nice. Members indicated that would be appreciated.
Mr. Walther stated 2015 is the earliest the light rail could be operable in the area. The issue
with the route is by statute; it cannot get ahead of the central corridor. He advised Belt Line
Boulevard, Wooddale Avenue and Louisiana Avenue will be three stops in the city.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 5
Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 22 2008
Mr. Foulkes inquired on the progress of the Hoigaard Village. Mr. Walther advised the
commercial area is sold to a developer, the new apartment building is approx 20% filled; and
the central piece is still in process.
Members thanked Mr. Walther; Mr. Walther thanked the Commission.
6. Communications
a. Chair
Mr. Hallfin inquired on combining the November and December meetings. Members
discussed and agreed to combine the November and December meetings. The meeting will
be held Wednesday, December 3.
Mr. Hallfin feels the employee luncheon went well.
b. Commissioners
Mr. Foulkes advised a pottery sale will be held on Dec. 5 and all money goes to the food
shelf. An invitation will be sent to Ms. Voelker and she will distribute to members and staff.
Mr. Worthington indicated he submitted a pre-proposal for a grant for Minnehaha Creek
and has been invited to submit a full grant. He feels the clean up should be expanded to
include the cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka. Mr. Birno suggested the Commission decide
on their 2009 clean up date so it can be advertised in the spring/summer Parks and
Recreation brochure. Members will discuss at the December 3 agenda.
Mr. Worthington advised the Federal Duck Stamp competition was held at the Bloomington
Art Gallery for the first time ever. He commented the facility was great and encouraged
members to visit.
Mr. Hawkinson advised more potato salad is needed at the luncheon.
c. Friends of the Arts Grant Update
Mr. Hagemann advised the Friends of the Arts have applied to the Community Foundation
for a grant and received $2,000 plus an additional $1,500 from Rotary. The purpose of the
grant is to help develop a planning process, what discipline it will represent, and a sense of
community building. The grant will be used toward Faces and Places workshops which are
educational sessions to discuss photography skills and immortalizing photographs and events.
There workshops are comprised of a diverse group of people who share and put photographs
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 6
Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 22 2008
together. FOA would like to partner with the city as they feel the outcome is a value to city.
FOA wants “Our Town” as cornerstone project and would like to produce on a regular basis.
Mr. Hawkinson inquired on the number of participants; Ms. Walsh indicated there are
approximately 20 to 25.
Ms. Walsh asked when FOA will decide on the next basis for “Our Town”; Mr. Hagemann
advised the board will review the funding received and decide if enough. Mr. Hagemann
indicated FOA may hire an event planner or consultant to assist in developing the next
method to find a discipline and assist in the planning and development of the process. The
process will be very public and the Commission will be more involved and updated monthly.
Mr. Hallfin inquired on the season; Ms. Walsh indicated most photos were from fall and
winter. Staff would like more photos from other seasons also.
Mr. Worthington reminded members to provide a list of top aspects members would like to
see in the parks to Ms. Voelker. Ms. Voelker will send an email reminder.
d. Program Report
Mr. Birno provided information on the Aquatic Park and programs. He feels revenues will be
good; summer playground program is consistently at 900 participants. Summer and fall
soccer registrants continue to grow; the participation numbers for the kid’s ball diamond
program have remained the same; a new coaching program was implemented this year and
has been extremely successful; adult leagues are full and teams are being turned away; staff
was pleased with Parktacular; youth art classes are still strong; Pre-K and tot programs are
doing well with a potential for growth; and the Holiday programs are well attended. The
Farmers Market is still struggling. Input is welcome as Ms. Buskey will provide direction for
next year.
Mr. Birno advised the bee hive was moved today as is on site. It is scheduled to be placed on
the ground Friday. In the spring, the bee hive and council ring will be restored, a landscaping
plan will be implemented, connection trail to regional trail established, and interpretive
signage from Three Rivers Park District installed. Nordic Ware is looking at potential
expansion and would like to share their onsite parking for trail and park users.
e. Directors Report
Ms. Walsh suggested members visit Fern Hill Park to view the project. A majority of the
project will be completed this fall and will finish in spring. In addition, city staff and Torah
Academy worked diligently to redesign the landscape and reroof the building. The sun
shelter at Louisiana Oaks Park will be completed prior to the completion of the Fern Hill
Park building.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4d) Page 7
Subject: Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes October 22 2008
The final applications of painting will be finished in spring on the water tower at Carlson
Field.
Members inquired if programs are being cut due to the budget. Ms. Walsh indicated more
budget information will be provided in December. Mr. Hagemann expressed his concern to
keep concerts which attract many different cultures including seniors.
7. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
It was moved by Commission member Coig to adjourn. The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Voelker
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4e
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Renee Fitzgerald,
Trinicia Hill
Commissioner Judith Moore arrived at 5:07 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Gary Morrison, Teresa Schlegel,
Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for November, 2008
The Board minutes of November 12, 2008 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. CEE Contract Approval: Pilot Green Remodeling Program
Ms. Larsen presented the contract for the Pilot Green Remodeling Program between the
HA and Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). It was noted that Brian Swanson,
Assistant Finance Director for the City, has given permission to approve execution of the
contract retroactively to August 1, 2008. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve
execution of the Loan Origination Agreement for the Green Remodeling Program with
CEE, and Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes December 10, 2008
b. Garage Structure Ordinance Presentation – Verbal Presentation
Mr. Schnitker introduced Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator. Mr.
Morrison presented the Commissioners with information on St. Louis Park garage
structure ordinance requirements and answered their questions.
c. Approval of Public Housing Admission and Continued Occupancy Plan: Definition of
Family and Household, Resolution No. 577
Ms. Schnitker explained that the proposed amendment to the Public Housing Admission
and Continued Occupancy Plan will simplify language for family categories listed in the
current policy, and include families not related by blood, marriage, adoption or other
operation of law. Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 577, Public
Housing Admission and Continued Occupancy Plan: Definition of Family and
Household. Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and the motion passed 5-0.
d. Scattered Site Presentation
Ms. Schlegel presented a virtual tour of eight single-family, scattered site public housing
properties.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List December – 2008
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for December – 2008
2. Excess Land/Right of Way Update: Written Report
3. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
4. Draft Financial Statements
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Moore seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Boards and Commissions
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to appoint citizen representative Anthony Deos to the Human Rights Commission filling a
vacancy for a term expiring December 31, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to appoint Anthony Deos to the Human Rights Commission?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council interviewed applicant Anthony Deos on January 5, 2009 to fill a vacancy on the
Human Rights Commission due to the resignation of Ahmed Maaraba who resigned effective
October 20, 2008. After the interview, Council discussed the candidate and agreed to make an
appointment to the Human Rights Commission.
Vacancies for Commissioners
The City Clerk’s office is working on recruitment for openings on the following Boards &
Commissions: Housing Authority (one opening); Human Rights Commission (one adult and two
youth openings); Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission (one adult and one youth opening);
Planning Commission (one youth opening); Police Advisory Commission (two adult and one youth
opening) and Telecommunications Advisory Commission (one youth opening). Information about
these openings has been presented to the local high schools, listed in the Sun Sailor Newspaper, on
the city’s website and in the Park Perspective.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and
Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a
connected and engaged community.
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 6a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Close public hearing.
2. Motion to Approve First Reading Ordinance authorizing creation of Special Service District #5
and schedule Second Reading of Ordinance for February 2, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to take steps to create the City’s fifth special service district?
BACKGROUND:
The city is installing infrastructure improvements along Park Place Boulevard between I-394 and
Cedar Lake Road in conjunction with the roadway improvements required for the West End
redevelopment project.
These special “streetscape” improvements include pedestrian lighting, banner poles, banners, raised
planters, decorative tree lighting, and bollards, as well as landscaping and irrigation systems.
To date, four special service districts have been established in St. Louis Park along Excelsior
Boulevard corridor. Such special service districts provide funding for the proper maintenance of
streetscape improvements. In order to maintain the proposed streetscape improvements along Park
Place Boulevard a fifth special service district must be established. As with the previous
improvement projects, the city has worked with adjacent commercial property owners along the Park
Place Boulevard to arrive at a proposed special service district that would be designed specifically to
accommodate their particular preferences. The design also complements the proposed streetscape
improvements for The Shops at West End redevelopment.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
What has been the extent of communication with the affected property owners?
City staff communicated with affected commercial property owners through group informational
meetings, individual meetings and phone conversations, letters and newsletters in 2008. At each of
the three informational meetings (February 21, June 19, and December 10) city staff communicated
how a special service district would operate and how the fees would be calculated and collected.
Property owners received specific information regarding the proposed annual budget for the district
and proposed service charge allocation for each property. City staff met individually with each
property owner or representative within the proposed area of Special Service District #5 to discuss
the potential improvements, the special service district concept, and responded to questions relevant
to their particular properties. In addition, detailed information describing the proposed district and
how costs would be allocated was distributed to all property owners in May and December.
Has the city received the sufficient level of petitions required to hold a public hearing?
There are a total of 14 separate, commercial parcels in the proposed district. Owners of ten of the
14 properties or 71% of commercial property owners submitted petitions requesting that the City
Council conduct a public hearing to discuss the establishment of a special service district. These
property owners represent approximately 72% of the affected land area and 65% of the tax capacity
of property that would be subject to the proposed service charge. According to state statute, 25% of
the land area and 25% of the net tax capacity of property subject to the service charge are required to
petition in order for the Council to convene a public hearing.
What services will the district provide?
The district will provide for the maintenance of landscape materials, decorative fencing, decorative
lighting, banners, banner poles, raised planters, the irrigation system and electric service (see attached
Proposed List of Services). The majority of property owners expressed little interest in a higher level
of snow and ice removal beyond what the city is currently providing, thus snow removal is not part
of the proposed district’s budget.
How were the costs allocated to the property owners?
The service charge is based on the amount of front footage each commercial property has along Park
Place Boulevard, plus any front footage adjacent to new improvements along 16th Street, Wayzata
Boulevard and Gamble Drive near the intersections with Park Place Boulevard. While there are
other methods, front footage was determined to be the most easily understood and obtained.
How would the service charges be collected?
With the exception of 2009, the service charges will be collected through annual property tax
payments. Due to the lag time between levy and collection, the service charge would first appear on
property tax statements in Fall 2009. The service charges would then be collected in May and
October of 2010. In order for district expenses to be incurred and paid for in Summer 2009, the
City will mail invoices to affected property owners in May and October 2009 for expenses that will
be incurred in 2009. The total amount collected in this manner in 2009 will be 50% (a pro-rated
amount) of the proposed annual budget.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
Is there a cap on the amount of the annual service charges?
Yes, the maximum service charges to be imposed in 2009 and 2010 are outlined in the attached
Proposed Annual Budget and Service Charges. Pursuant to the proposed resolution, the annual
service charges may increase or decrease from the maximum authorized budgeted amount in the
preceding year based upon changes in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St.
Paul area. Such increases or decreases may not fluctuate more than 5% per year (which is the same
for the other four districts in St. Louis Park).
Who determines and controls the annual operating budget?
As with the other four districts, an advisory board consisting of district property owners appointed
by the City Council will be formed to oversee the district’s operation. The advisory board will advise
the City Council in connection with the maintenance and operation of the improvements and the
furnishing of special services in the district. The advisory board will recommend the annual budget to
the City Council. It will also make recommendations to the City Council on requests and complaints
of owners, occupants, and users of property within the district and members of the public.
How will the activities approved by the advisory board be implemented?
The city’s Facilities Maintenance Superintendent will coordinate the advisory board and ensure that
the district’s services are properly implemented.
What is the term of the district? Are there limitations?
The proposed district has a term of 10 years (same as the other four districts) at which time property
owners must formally reapprove the district.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City does not have the resources to maintain the proposed streetscape improvements to Park
Place Boulevard over the next ten years without the contribution of neighboring property owners.
The special service district is a valuable instrument to properly maintain the public’s capital
investment for Park Place Boulevard streetscape improvements. There is a strong level of support
from affected property owners for this proposal (71% of the parcels, 72% of the tax capacity, and
84% of the land area).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed special service district advances the Vision St. Louis Park goals of promoting and
integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation
where appropriate; as well as, being a connected and engaged community by increasing use of new
and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the community.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
NEXT STEPS:
If the City Council approves the recommended action, Council will be asked at the February 2,
2009 meeting to approve the second reading of the ordinance creating Special Service District #5
and to adopt a resolution for the imposition of a service charge within the district. A 45-day veto
period then begins. The new special service district will go into effect unless at least 35% of the
affected property owners submit a petition to veto the formation of the district. Assuming this does
not happen, the district will be in full force and effect on April 9, 2009.
Attachments:
• Ordinance Authorizing Creation of SSD #5
• Resolution Imposing a Service Charge (draft for review, not for action at this meeting)
o Proposed List Parcels In Special Service District No. 5 (Exhibit A)
o Proposed Map of Special Service District No. 5 (Exhibit B)
o Proposed Annual Budget and Service Charges(Exhibit C)
o Proposed List of Services (Exhibit D)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Tom Scott, City Attorney
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
ORDINANCE NO. _____-09
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CREATION OF
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition to establish a special service district pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 428A.02 (the "Petition") from the owners of certain property located adjacent to Park Place
Boulevard Wayzata Boulevard and 16th Street within an area approximately bounded by Interstate 394 southerly
to Cedar Lake Road. The specific properties included within this area are identified on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and generally depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council (the "City Council") has determined each of the
following:
(A) The owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property that
would be subject to the service charge have signed the Petition;
(B) The owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the net tax capacity of property
that would be subject to the service charge have signed the Petition;
(C) It is appropriate to establish a special service district; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing concerning the petition to establish a special service district
was published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on January 1, 2009 and January 8, 2009. Additionally, the City
mailed notice of the hearing to the owner of record of each parcel within the area proposed to be included
within the special service district. For the purposes of giving such mailed notice, the notice was sent to those
shown on the records of the County Auditor. The City Council has determined that said notices were
published and sent in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.02. The public
hearing was held on January 20, 2009, before the St. Louis Park City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES
ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Establishment of District. The City hereby establishes a special service district
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.01 through 428A.101 (the “Act”) consisting of the properties
identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way
adjacent thereto (the "District").
SECTION 2. Services to be Performed.
2.01 Provision of Services. The City may provide or contract for services in the District; except,
however, that the special services provided shall not include a service that is ordinarily provided throughout the
City from the general fund revenue of the City unless an increased level of service is provided in the District.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
2.02 Description of Services. The City may provide or contract for the following services:
(a) Cleaning and scrubbing of sidewalks; cleaning of curbs, gutters, alleys, and streets.
(b) Purchase, installation, maintenance, removal, and replacement of banners and other
decorative items for promotion of the District.
(c) Poster and handbill removal.
(d) Repair and maintenance of sidewalks.
(e) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of area-wide security systems.
(f) Coordination of security personnel to supplement regular City personnel.
(g) Purchase, installation, maintenance, repair, cleaning, and removal of area directories,
kiosks, benches, bus shelters, newspaper stands, trash receptacles, information booths,
bicycle racks and bicycle storage containers, sculptures, murals, and other public area
art pieces.
(h) Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of decorative lighting on area trees.
(i) Cost of electrical service for pedestrian and decorative tree lighting.
(j) Repair of low-level pedestrian lights and poles.
(k) Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements.
(l) Trash removal and recycling costs.
(m) Purchase, installation, maintenance, replacement, and removal of special signage
relating to vehicle and bicycle parking, vehicle and pedestrian movement, and special
events.
(n) Watering, fertilizing, maintenance, and replacement of trees, shrubbery, and annual
flowers and perennials on the public right-of-way.
(o) Repair, maintenance and replacement of irrigation system.
(p) Maintenance and operation of a public transit system.
(q) Promotion and administration.
(r) Maintenance of a reserve fund or capital reserve fund.
(s) Installation, maintenance, and removal of capital improvements.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
(t) Snow plowing and snow removal from sidewalks, trails, on-street parking bays and
roads
SECTION 3. Service Charge.
3.01 Petition Requirements. Before taking any action to impose a service charge based on net tax
capacity to pay the cost of services described in Section 2, owners of twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the
land area and twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the net tax capacity subject to the proposed service charge
must file a petition requesting a public hearing on the proposed action with the City Clerk. Before taking any
action to impose any other type of service charge to pay the cost of services described in Section 2, twenty-five
percent (25%) or more of the individual or business organizations subject to the proposed service charge must
file a petition requesting a public hearing on the proposed action with the City Clerk.
3.02 Relationship to Service. The City may impose service charges against properties located within
the District pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. The City may impose service charges that are reasonably related to
the special services provided. Charges for services shall be as nearly as possible proportionate to the cost of
furnishing the service, and may be fixed on the basis of the service directly rendered, or by reference to a
reasonable classification of the types of premises to which service is furnished, or on any other equitable terms.
Taxes and service charges may be levied pursuant to this ordinance to finance special services ordinarily provided
by the City only if the services are provided in the District at an increased level and, then, only in an amount
sufficient to pay for the increase.
3.03 Limitation of Service Charges. Service charges may only be imposed on property as authorized
by the Act.
SECTION 4. Imposition of Service Charge.
4.01 Public Hearing. Before imposing a service charge in the District, for each calendar year, the
City shall hold a public hearing. At the hearing, a person affected by the District or the proposed service charge
may testify on any issues relevant to the proposed service charge. The hearing may be adjourned from time to
time.
4.02 Notice of Hearing. The City shall give prior notice of the public hearing to impose service
charges required by Section 4.01. Notice of the public hearing must be mailed to any property owner subject to
the proposed service charge. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in two (2) separate publications of the
City's official newspaper two weeks apart and the public hearing shall not be held less than three (3) days after
the later publication. Not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the owner of
record of each parcel of real estate within the District. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice, owners
shall be those shown on the records of the County Auditor. For properties which are tax exempt or subject to
taxation on a gross earnings basis in lieu of property tax and are not listed on the records of the County Auditor,
the owners shall be ascertained by any practical means, and mailed notice given them.
4.03 Content of Notice. The notice shall include:
(a) a statement that all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at the
hearing regarding the proposed service charge;
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
(b) the estimated cost of improvements to be paid for in whole or in part by service
charges imposed, the estimated cost of operating and maintaining the improvements
during the first year and upon completion of the improvements, the proposed method
and source of financing the improvements, and the annual cost of operating and
maintaining the improvements;
(c) the proposed rate or amount of the proposed service charge to be imposed in the
District during the calendar year and the nature and character of the special services
rendered in the District during the calendar year in which the service charge is to be
collected;
(d) a statement that the petition requirements of Minnesota Statutes have either been met
or do not apply to the proposed service charge; and
(e) if the City is adopting a resolution imposing a service charge for more than one year,
the information required by Section 4.05 below.
4.04 Adoption of Resolution. Within six (6) months of the public hearing, the City may adopt a
resolution (the “Resolution”) imposing a service charge within the District not exceeding the amount or rate
expressed in the notice issued under this Section.
4.05 Multi-year Service Charge. The City may adopt a resolution imposing a service charge for
more than one year. The City must give notice of such a resolution by including with the notice of public
hearing required by Section 4.02, and including with the notice mailed with the adopted resolution the
following information:
(a) In the case of improvements constructed within the District, the maximum service
charge to be imposed in any year and the maximum number of years charges imposed
to pay for the improvements; and
(b) In the case of operating and maintaining services, the maximum service charges to be
imposed in any year and the maximum number of years charges imposed to pay for
the service, or a statement that the service charges will be imposed for an indefinite
number of years.
The resolution imposing a service charge for more than one year may provide that the maximum service charge
to be imposed in a year will increase or decrease fr om the maximum amount authorized in the preceding year
based on an indicator of increased cost or a percentage amount established by the resolution. Each calendar
year, a public hearing must be held regarding the imposed service charge. Notice of the hearing must be given
and must be mailed to any individual or business organization subject to the service charge. The notice must be
sent in the manner specified in Section 4.02. The notice shall include the information specified in Section
4.03(a) through (d). The purpose of the hearing shall be to allow persons or companies affected by the service
charge to testify on any issue related to the service charge.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
SECTION 5. Imposition of Service Charges. Service charges may be imposed on property within
the District at a rate or amount sufficient to produce the revenues required to provide special services in the
District. Except as otherwise provided herein, the service charges imposed shall be imposed against parcels of
real estate within the District in the manner and subject to the procedures in the Resolution. The service
charges shall be imposed annually. Service charges may be collected in advance of, contemporaneously with, or
subsequent to the rendering of services to which the service charges relate.
SECTION 6. Collection of Service Charges.
6.01 Collection. All service charges may be payable and collected at the same time and in the same
manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. The Resolution may provide for other
means of collecting service charges.
6.02 Penalty and Interest. When service charges are made payable in the same manner as provided
for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, service charges not paid on or before the applicable due date
shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts not paid by the
respective date.
6.03 Due Date. The due date for a service charge payable in the same manner as ad valorem taxes is
the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on which the service charge is
imposed. Service charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to become payable in the following year must
be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for
annual certification of special assessment installments. Other service charges imposed may be collected as
provided by the Resolution.
SECTION 7. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of service charges collected exceed the
cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of such excess amount
shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this ordinance or applied to
reduce the next year’s service charge levy.
SECTION 8. Advisory Board.
8.01 Composition and Appointment. An advisory board to be known as the Special Service District
Advisory Board consisting of a number of members determined by the City Council, at its discretion, who are
residents of the District or owners (or their representatives) of property within the District, may be created by
the City Council by Resolution. At the time of adopting a resolution, the City Council may approve a set of By-
laws which will govern the advisory board's activities. The City Council at its discretion may pass a resolution
terminating or suspending the advisory board.
8.02 Role of Board. The advisory board shall advise the City Council in connection with the
construction, maintenance, and operation of improvements and the furnishing of special services in the District.
The advisory board shall recommend an annual budget to the City Council. It shall make recommendations to
the City Council on requests and complaints of owners, occupants, and users of property within the District and
members of the public. Before the adoption of any proposal by the City Council to provide services or impose
taxes of service charges within the District, the advisory board of the District shall have an opportunity to review
and comment upon the proposal.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
8.03 Removal and Termination. The City Council reserves for itself the right, at its sole discretion,
to remove members of the advisory board, with or without cause, or to disband and terminate the advisory
board before the expiration of the District.
SECTION 9. Veto Powers.
9.01 Notice of Veto Right. Within five (5) days after adoption of the ordinance establishing the
District or a resolution imposing a service charge, the City shall mail a summary of the ordinance or resolution
to the owner of each parcel included within the District and any individual or business organization subject to
the service charge. For the purpose of giving such mailed notice, owners shall be those shown on the records of
the County Auditor. For properties which are tax exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis in lieu
of property tax and are not listed on the records of the County Auditor, the owners shall be ascertained by any
practical means, and mailed notice given them.
9.02 Content of Notice. The notice must state that the owner, business, or person subject to the
service charge has the right to veto the ordinance or resolution by filing the required number of objections with
the City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance or resolution. The notice must also state that a copy of
the ordinance or resolution is on file with the City Clerk.
9.03 Requirements for Veto.
(a) Veto of Ordinance. If the owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the land
area in the District subject to a service charge based upon net tax capacity or owners of
thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the net tax capacity in the District subject to a
service charge based on net tax capacity file an objection to this ordinance with the
City Clerk before the effective date of the ordinance, the ordinance does not become
effective.
(b) Veto of Resolution - Net Tax Capacity. If the owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or
more of the land area in the District subject to a service charge based upon net tax
capacity or owners of thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the net tax capacity in the
District subject to a service charge based on net tax capacity file an objection to the
resolution imposing a service charge based upon net tax capacity with the City Clerk
before the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective.
(c) Veto of Resolution - Other Basis. If thirty-five percent (35%) or more of the
individuals and business organizations subject to a service charge file an objection to
the resolution imposing a service charge on a basis other than net tax capacity with the
City Clerk before the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become
effective.
9.04 Effect of Veto. In the event of a veto, no district shall be established during the current
calendar year and until a petition meeting the requirements set forth in this Section for a veto has been filed.
9.05 Exclusion. The veto powers of this Section do not apply to second or subsequent years'
applications of a service charge that is authorized to be in effect for more than one year under a resolution
meting the petition requirements of Section 3.01 and which has not been vetoed under this Section 9 for the
first years' application.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 11
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
SECTION 10. Enlargement of District. Boundaries of the District may be enlarged only after
petition, hearing and notices as provided in Minnesota Statutes. Notice must be served in the original District
and in the area proposed to be added to the District. The petition to enlarge the District must include a request
for the imposition of service charges sufficient to provide services to the property. Petition requirements of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.08 and the veto power of Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.09 shall only
apply to owners in the area proposed to be added to the District.
SECTION 11. Definitions and Construction. The terms used herein shall be defined as provided
in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A and this ordinance shall be construed consistently therewith.
SECTION 12. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day
following adoption, which effective date shall be , 2009.
First Reading January 20, 2009
Second Reading February 2, 2009
Date of Publication February 12, 2009
Date Ordinance takes effect April 9, 2009
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 2, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 12
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT A
PARCELS IN SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
PID ADDRESS
0411721310018 5657 WAYZATA BLVD
0411721310019 1500 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340043 5600 CEDAR LAKE RD
0411721340044 1690 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340045 1650 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340046 1620 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340047 5699 16TH ST W
0411721340049 1700 PARK PLACE BLVD
0411721340050 5601 16TH ST W
3002924320026 5353 WAYZATA BLVD
3002924320022 5370 16TH ST W
3002924330011 5401 GAMBLE DR
3002924330015 5402 PARKDALE DR
3002924330031 1600 WEST END BLVD
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 13
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 14
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
RESOLUTION IMPOSING A SERVICE CHARGE
FOR SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: Findings.
1.01 Pursuant to Ordinance No. ______, (the “Ordinance”) the City created Special
Service District No. 6 for certain property located adjacent to Park Place Boulevard 16th Street and
Wayzata Boulevard with an area approximately bounded by Interstate 394 and Cedar Lake Road. The
specific properties included within this area are identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and generally
depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the "District").
1.02 The City has received a petition requesting a public hearing to impose a service charge
from the owners of property within the District (the "Petition").
1.03 The City Council has determined each of the following:
(a) at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business organizations
subject to the proposed service charge have signed the Petition;
(b) only owners of property located within the District have signed the Petition;
(c) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13 as
commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is vacant land zoned
or designated on a land use plan for commercial, industrial, or public utility
purposes, have signed the Petition; and
(d) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been held.
Section 2. Imposition of Service Charge.
2.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge in the amounts
and against the properties specified on Exhibit "C" attached hereto (the "Service Charge").
The City imposes a service charge, payable in 2010, for special services provided during the period of
January 2010 - December 2010 in a maximum amount of $26,400. A partial service charge in the
amount of $13,205 will be collected in 2009. The maximum service charge in all subsequent years will
be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.04.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 15
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
2.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The Service Charge imposed by this resolution is for more
than one year. The Service Charge will remain in effect through and including the year 2019 for taxes
payable in said year.
2.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The Service Charge for all costs related to the District
shall be distributed based upon the front feet adjacent to Streetscape improvements to Park Place
Boulevard and the intersections of Wayzata Boulevard, 16th Street West and Gamble Drive for each
parcel within the District and subject to the Service Charge.
2.04 Inflation Adjuster. Commencing with the service charge payable in 2011, the
maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the "Current Year") will increase from the
maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year immediately preceding the Current Year (the
"Prior Year") based upon the following:
The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan
Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement of the Current
Year (the "Current Year Index"), shall be compared with the Index published for the
date nearest the commencement of the Prior Year (the "Prior Year Index"). If the
Current Year Index has increased over the Prior Year Index, the Maximum Service
Charge shall be increased by multiplying the Maximum Service Charge by a fraction,
the numerator of which is the Current Year Index and the denominator of which is the
Prior Year Index. If the Index is discontinued or revised, such other government index
or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to obtain substantially
the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been discontinued or revised.
Notwithstanding increases in the Index of greater than five percent (5%), the
Maximum Service Charge shall not increase from any Prior Year to any Current Year
by an amount greater than five percent (5%) of the Prior Year's Service Charge.
2.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total Service Charge
among properties within the District and subject to the Service Charge may vary and shall be
recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 2.03 if and to the extent that a parcel
increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale.
2.06 Use of Revenues. Revenues collected through the imposition of service charges may be
used by the City for any purposes authorized in the Ordinance. Exhibit D contains the services
proposed for funding in 2009 and 2010. The services and the revenues allocated to each service are
subject to change at the discretion of the City.
Section 3. Collection of Service Charges.
3.01 Collection. The Services Charges shall be payable and collected at the same time and
in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes; except that the City
may directly bill owners of parcels located within the District and subject to the Service Charge for the
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 16
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
Service Charge due and payable in calendar year 2009. For purposes of determining the appropriate
tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined without regard to captured or original
net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 or to the distribution or contribution
value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08. Any service charge due and payable in calendar year
2009 that remains unpaid as of October 31, 2009, shall be payable and collected at the same time and
in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes in the year 2010.
3.02 Penalty and Interest. Service Charges made payable in the same manner as provided
for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable due date, shall
be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts not paid by the
respective date.
3.03 Due Date. The due date for the Service Charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service Charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to become
payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments.
Section 4. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of Service Charges collected exceed the cost
of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of such excess
amount shall either be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this resolution
or applied to reduce the next year’s service charge levy.
Section 5. Recording. The City may record this Resolution against parcels located within the
District and subject to the Service Charge for the purpose of providing notice of the Service Charge to
prospective purchasers of such parcels.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day following
adoption, which effective date shall be , 2009.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council ___________, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 17
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT A
PARCELS IN SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
Parcel Number Address
0411721310018 5657 Wayzata Boulevard
0411721310019 1500 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340043 5600 Cedar Lake Road
0411721340044 1690 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340045 1650 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340046 1620 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340047 5699 16th Street West
0411721340049 1700 Park Place Boulevard
0411721340050 5601 16th Street West
3002924320026 5353 Wayzata Boulevard
3002924320022 5370 16th Street West
3002924330011 5401 Gamble Drive
3002924330015 5402 Parkdale Drive
3002924330031 1600 West End Boulevard
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 18
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 19
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT C
Annual Budget and Service Charges
Special Service District No. 5
City of St. Louis Park
BUDGET ITEM ESTIMATED ANNUAL BUDGET
Landscape maintenance services (including planting replacement) $11,000
Irrigation system maintenance and repair $5,000
Management $3,250
Decorative lighting (Install) $3,000
Site Maintenance (including infrastructure repair) $1,300
Other Maintenance Services (or non-fixed items) $1,300
Banner installation and removal $1,000
Public Liability Insurance $300
Legal Notices $200
Professional Services $50
General Supplies $0
Electrical service for decorative lighting $0
Total $26,400
PID # ADDRESS FRONT
FEET
2009 SERVICE
CHARGE
2010 SERVICE
CHARGE
0411721310018 5657 Wayzata Blvd 227 $509 $1,018
0411721310019 1500 Park Place Blvd 1,333 $2,990 $5,979
0411721340043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd 477 $1,071 $2,141
0411721340044 1690 Park Place Blvd 210 $471 $941
0411721340045 1650 Park Place Blvd 258 $579 $1,157
0411721340046 1620 Park Place Blvd 234 $526 $1,051
0411721340047 5699 16th St W 235 $527 $1,053
0411721340049 1700 Park Place Blvd 184 $412 $823
0411721340050 5601 16th St W 180 $403 $805
3002924320026 5353 Wayzata Blvd 465 $1,043 $2,086
3002924320022 5370 16th St W 743 $1,667 $3,333
3002924330011 5401 Gamble Dr 210 $471 $942
3002924330015 5402 Parkdale Dr 411 $922 $1,844
3002924330031 1600 West End Blvd 720 $1614 $3,227
Total 5,886 $13,205 $26,400
Notes:
1. The cost allocation formula is based upon linear street front footage.
2. The” 2009 Service Charge” is a partial service charge (half of the estimated annual Service District Budget), because
services will be provided for approximately six months in 2009. The City will mail invoices to property owners to
collect the 2009 Service Charge. Half the 2009 Service Charge will be invoiced in May and the other half in
November 2009.
3. The “2010 Service Charge” shown above is the estimated charge based on the 2009 Service District Budget. The
actual 2010 Service Charge and charges for future years are subject to change based on the annual Service District
Budget and Service Charge Resolution approval. The cost allocation formula is based upon street front footage.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 6a) Page 20
Subject: Creation of Special Service District No. 5 - Park Place Boulevard from I-394 to Cedar Lake Road
EXHIBIT D
Proposed List of Services
The City may provide or contract for the following services in the district:
• Cleaning and scrubbing of sidewalks; cleaning of curbs, gutters, alleys, and streets
• Installation, maintenance, removal, and replacement of banners and other decorative items for
promotion of the District
• Poster and handbill removal
• Repair and maintenance of sidewalks
• Maintenance, repair, cleaning, and removal of area directories, kiosks, benches, bus shelters,
newspaper stands, trash receptacles, information booths, bicycle racks
• Purchase, installation, maintenance, and removal of decorative lighting on area trees
• Cost of electrical service for pedestrian and decorative tree lighting
• Repair of low-level pedestrian lights and poles
• Comprehensive liability insurance for public space improvements
• Watering, fertilizing, maintenance, and replacement of trees, shrubbery, and annual flowers
and perennials on the public right-of-way
• Repair, maintenance and replacement of irrigation system
• Administration
• Maintenance of a reserve fund for operations
• Maintenance of capital improvements
Meeting Date: January 20, 2009
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for Athletic
Facility Improvements at 2501 Highway 100 South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for floodplain modifications at
2501 Highway 100 South.
Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for fill in excess of 400 cubic
yards at 2501 Highway 100 South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the applications made by BSM to allow various
improvements to be made to their athletic fields?
Proposed is a Major Amendment to a Special Permit. In this case, a Major Amendment is required
when there are substantial changes proposed to an approved site plan. The Conditional Use Permits
are required because changes are proposed to areas of the site within the floodplain and because more
than 400 cubic yards of fill will be removed.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Major Amendment and the
Conditional Use Permits, subject to conditions recommended by Staff and consideration of the
additional materials provided at the meeting by adjacent property owners. Staff has analyzed the
materials provided and utilized it in developing the resolutions of approval.
BACKGROUND:
Proposal:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s is proposing modifications to the athletic facility adjacent to the school;
please see the attached site plan. The primary baseball field would be moved to the south, adjacent
to the parking lot. The primary rectangular field would also be moved south to be adjacent to the
parking lot. Other remaining fields would feature minor improvements, but would be used
predominately for lower-intensity games and practice. The proposal includes a 53-space parking lot
expansion. To accommodate the parking lot expansion, two degraded wetlands would be filled. A
replacement wetland would be constructed on an existing practice field located to the south of the
existing track.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
History:
Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) has been part of the St. Louis Park community since 1956. The site
was originally owned by the Christian Brothers, who started Benilde as an all-boys school. In 1974
Benilde merged with the Minneapolis all-girls school St Margaret’s, forming the basis for the current
school. BSM has changed over time, as has the land surrounding the school. Single family housing
developed to the north and south of the school, with some multi-family housing developed adjacent
to the school’s southeast border.
Today BSM has approximately 1,100 students. Though BSM has no plans to increase enrollment,
pressure on its facilities has changed as women’s sports have been developed and parking needs have
changed. BSM actively manages parking for students, faculty and visitors, and has a partnership
with Beth-El Synagogue to accommodate extra parking needs during the school day. Use of the
facilities has increased, sometimes leading to complaints from adjacent property owners related to
noise and light.
BSM was last before the City in 2000 for a Major Amendment to its Special Permit. At that time
the approval was for an addition to the school’s gym space. BSM is in compliance with the
requirements of the 2000 approval, with the exception of a requirement that BSM dedicate a new
trail easement to the City. This requirement will be met by the provision of a new easement on the
south and west perimeter of the BSM property to be provided prior to the commencement of any
site work; and, agreement to provide an easement at the City’s direction, at the northeast corner of
the BSM site. These easement commitments are part of the current approval process.
The table below, provided by the BSM Athletic Director, summarizes the current level and intensity
of athletic competitions taking place outdoors at BSM. It is not anticipated that the number of
athletic competitions will increase following the field modifications:
Season Game
Type/Intensity
# of
Games
Description
Fall High 5 Varsity Football; crowds larger than 50 people. Both lights and
sound system in use
Fall Medium-High 12 Varsity Soccer; less than 50 people in attendance. Both sound
system and lights in use
Fall Medium 8 Junior High, 9th grade or JV soccer or football; less than 50
people. Lights are in use but no sound system.
Fall Low 124 Junior High, 9th grade and JV soccer or football; less than 50
people. No lights or sound system.
Spring High 4 Varsity Track meet with multiple schools; attendance of more
than 50 people. Sound system in use, no lights unless meet runs
late.
Spring Medium-High 14 Varsity Lacrosse; less than 50 people. Sound system and lights
used.
Spring Medium 12 Varsity Baseball, less than 50 people. Sound system used, no
lights.
Spring Low 60 Baseball, Softball and lacrosse games; less than 50 people. No
lights or sound system used.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Process:
In 2007 BSM formed a building committee to discuss potential upgrades to the site’s athletic
facilities. The stated intent was to solve multiple problems with the changes. Most applicably, BSM
hopes to improve field quality and site drainage. Fields currently become saturated during major
rain events, causing scheduling and other field use problems. In addition to improving field quality,
BSM seeks to improve field location to decrease off-site impacts related to noise and light. The
primary athletic field is currently directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
Public Meetings
BSM held two public meetings to discuss the proposal with neighbors over the summer of 2008.
These meetings were held at BSM and featured a question and answer format. To build on these
meetings, City Staff also held two facilitated meetings in November 2008 to further address issues
between BSM and neighbors. The City hired Barry Warner from SRF Consulting to serve as a
facilitator.
Facilitated Process
The first meeting was an “information gathering” session. At this meeting neighbors identified 16
issues to be explored in greater depth by BSM before the next meeting. Notes from that meeting that
include the list of 16 issues are attached to this report.
The second meeting was provided to review how BSM planned to address the concerns of neighbors.
Comments regarding the solutions proposed by BSM are provided in the issues analysis below.
Throughout the two facilitated meetings the neighbors and BSM participated in a frank and open
dialogue. Following these meetings, several modifications were made to the plans to address issues
raised by neighbors.
Planning Commission
Immediately prior to the December 17th Planning Commission meeting, Staff received additional
communications from property owners adjacent to BSM. Because the communications were
received just before the meeting, it was not possible to fully respond directly to each of the concerns
within the Planning Commission Staff report. However, Planning and Engineering Staff were
present at the Planning Commission meeting and attempted to answer each of the questions in
detail. Minutes from the December 17th meeting are attached for review.
As noted above, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Major
Amendment and the Conditional Use Permits, subject to conditions recommended by Staff and
consideration of the additional materials provided at the meeting by adjacent property owners. Staff
has analyzed the materials provided and utilized them in developing the resolutions of approval.
Below, further details are provided analyzing how BSM has tried to address the new concerns raised
at the December 17th meeting.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Zoning Review:
The BSM site is zoned R-1. Though the R-1 district is predominately utilized for single family
housing, institutional uses such as a school or religious institution are also typical within the R-1
district. Educational and recreational facilities are both currently “Permitted with Conditions” in the
R-1 district. The three conditions are:
1. Buildings shall be located at least 50 feet from a lot in an R district.
2. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and
pedestrian safety.
3. Outdoor recreational and play areas shall be located at least 25 feet from any lot in the R
district.
BSM does not fully meet certain conditions of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, BSM does not
meet the field setback requirement for its south practice field. In addition, current landscaping,
screening, stormwater requirements are different from the rules that were in place when the school
was originally built. The existing facilities are not fully in compliance with those requirements. BSM
originally was approved on this site under slightly different zoning rules that required them to obtain
a Special Permit. To make changes to BSM’s facilities they must seek approval of an amendment to
the existing Special Permit. To gain approval of the amendment, BSM must demonstrate that the
site will come into greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Under the new proposal, BSM
would come into greater compliance with the zoning requirements related to landscaping, screening
and stormwater. Field location related to setbacks is also improved through the use of additional
screening and landscaping; further, programming changes will decrease the non-conformity at the
existing stadium.
Setbacks
There is one existing setback non-conformity on the site. At the south property line, the existing
practice field (#5) is located within the required 25’ setback from a residential property line. Field
five comes within 11’ of the residential property line. The proposed softball practice field in this
location will come no closer than the current conditions on the site. Substantial screening will be
provided within the 11’ setback. The screening in this area will exceed the requirements found in
the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff has worked closely with BSM and the Princeton Court Association (PCA) on issues related to
the south property line. BSM has agreed to add a new fence in this location. The fence will provide
a physical barrier between the PCA property and the BSM practice field. In addition, BSM will
install 29 new trees along this property line. The additional trees, specifically requested by the PCA,
will be of evergreen varieties to provide year-round screening between the townhomes and the
practice field.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
The rest of the athletic fields, including the track and field long jump and pole vault pits along the
north property line, meet the required 25’ setback requirement from a residential property. The
track and field athletic facilities are already separated from the residential area by a six-foot fence.
Despite exceeding screening requirements, BSM has agreed to add additional landscaping in this
area. Nine new trees will be added to increase the level of vegetation between the residential
properties and the bleachers.
Landscaping and Screening
A total of 36 significant trees are being removed as part of the reconfiguration of the athletic fields,
leaving 254 existing trees on the site. The proposal includes a substantial addition to the
landscaping already present on the site. BSM is proposing to add 100 new trees to the site to
improve the level of screening and mitigate the impacts of athletic facilities to surrounding
properties. The level of landscaping has increased from the Planning Commission review; at that
time, BSM had proposed the installation of 87 trees. Thirteen more trees have been added to the
landscape plan since the Planning Commission review of the plan.
The tree requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is for 98 trees; following the installation of the
proposed landscaping, BSM will have a total of 354 new and existing trees on its site.
To go further than required under the ordinance, BSM is planning the installation of a large
quantity of trees that are not counted under the landscaping requirements. These trees, known as
“bare-root seedlings,” will grow at a rapid rate and will be planted in the areas around the wetlands
and east of the primary field. By installing such trees, the level of screening in and around the site
will be substantially improved over a short and long-term time frame. These trees are small in size
and cannot be noted individually in the plans; Staff will work with BSM to ensure they are planted
in the appropriate manner and in those locations where they will provide the maximum benefit as
screening and buffering for adjacent property owners.
Because of the unique nature of the site as a 32-acre recreation facility, a count of existing shrubs on
the site was not completed. The basic requirement for shrubs on the BSM site in the Zoning
Ordinance is for 592 shrubs. It is estimated that there are currently over 100 shrubs on the BSM
site. Staff recommends approval of the landscape plan under Section 36-364 (g), “Alternative
Landscape Options.” Because of the character of the site, installing the required number of shrubs
would be inappropriate. Instead, the following alternative special design features of the site are taken
into account when reviewing the landscape plan:
• The number of trees provided substantially exceeds the requirement. This reflects the site’s
size and use characteristics, as trees provide a superior screening buffer on so large a site.
• Alternative landscaping is proposed around the new wetlands. Included in these areas are
seed types recommended by the State Board of Water and Soil Resources. Native plantings,
as proposed, comply specifically with the directives of Section 36-364 (g).
• Bareroot seedlings (both trees and shrubs) will be provided in and around the wetland areas
in locations indicated on the official exhibits.
• Additional trees to improve the vegetative buffer have been required as part of the conditions
of approval.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Parking
Parking at BSM has been a concern over the years. In this plan, BSM has proposed the addition of
53 new parking spaces to its primary parking lot, and a reduction of seven spaces at the north
building. The net increase is 46 spaces on site, representing an increase in off-street parking of
approximately 10%.
Site Current Parking Proposed Parking
North lot 27 spaces 27 spaces
North building 43 spaces 36 spaces
Haben west 32 spaces 32 spaces
Haben east 284 spaces 337 spaces
On-site sub-total 386 spaces 432 spaces
Beth-El shared parking 158 spaces 158 spaces
Total 544 spaces 590 spaces
As part of the submittal, BSM prepared an analysis of parking conditions on the site. This analysis is
attached for review. Staff agrees with the primary conclusion of the analysis: during major events
there will continue to be a slight parking shortage, but that in general the parking situation on the
site is improved.
Of particular concern in the past has been on-street parking on a regular basis. This on-street
parking is partly a result of the existing site plan; the current primary fields are located to the far
north of the site and the primary parking lot is on the south end of the site. The distance from the
primary parking lot and the primary athletic field made parking on-street in the neighborhood north
of BSM a more convenient location than the primary parking lot. The new site plan moves the
primary fields to the center of the site, directly adjacent to the primary parking lot. It also places the
entrance to the field adjacent to the parking lot. It is expected that the proximity of these fields will
reduce use of on-street parking.
BSM is within the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. For a high school facility, the
parking requirement is one space per four students, plus two per classroom. At approximately 1,100
students, the student-based portion of the parking requirement is 275 spaces. The classroom-based
portion, based on a count of 44 classrooms, is 88 spaces. This brings the total parking requirement
of the Zoning Ordinance to 363 spaces; BSM is providing 590 spaces, substantially in excess of the
required number of spaces.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Bicycle parking at BSM is in lower demand than at other area schools. Because BSM students come
primarily from the wider metropolitan area, most students are dropped off at school or drive a
private vehicle to school. Despite this, BSM must include bicycle parking on the plan. According to
the Zoning Ordinance, BSM must provide one bicycle space per ten students. There are
approximately 1,100 students at BSM, resulting in a bicycle parking requirement of 110 spaces.
Because that number of spaces would likely not be used, Staff has accepted a plan by BSM to
provide a proof of bicycle parking area on the site. Additional bicycle parking could be added to the
site if demand for bicycle parking increases in the future.
Stormwater
The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans for stormwater rate control and stormwater
quality improvement and has determined that they meet the requirements and standards of the City.
The City Engineer’s review has shown that storm water conditions following the proposed site
redevelopment would result in a lower runoff rate than currently takes place. The site is directly
adjacent to several wetlands as well as Twin Lake. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction over the
wetland and storm water aspects of this site and the proposed site changes. For this reason the
proposal has been subject to detailed scrutiny and approval by many entities outside the City itself,
including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the state Board of Water and Soil Resources,
and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, Engineering Staff has worked closely with BSM, the
Watershed District, and an independent engineer engaged by the Princeton Court Association to
ensure that all water issues are resolved. BSM’s project engineers have reviewed the proposed
stormwater calculations and have made modifications to address the neighbor concerns. Efforts have
been made to address concerns raised by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior the Council
meeting. Any City Council approvals will be conditioned on approvals also being provided by the
watershed district and other outside agencies.
As noted, the BSM proposal meets all City regulations and policies for stormwater rate control and
management. The proposal will not have achieved final approval from the Watershed District prior
to Council review – nor should it. The City Engineer has indicated that it would be unusual to have
a project with final Watershed District approval that had not yet obtained final City Council
approval. In nearly all instances, including all development projects over the past several years, the
Council approval happens first. Any remaining details related to stormwater are technical in nature
and will not impact the site plan in such a way as to make major modifications necessary.
Lighting
Section 36-363 of the Zoning Ordinance regulates exterior lighting, including outdoor recreational
lighting. New recreational lighting must meet the standards in the zoning ordinance. Lighting on
fields in existence prior to the creation of the lighting standards in the zoning ordinance is exempted
from the light standards.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
At the present time there is lighting only at BSM’s primary athletic field in the NE corner of the site
which is used for football. The lighting in this location predates the current lighting rules and is
exempt from them. Even with the exemption the hours of operation of the lights are limited to the
period from 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM. BSM is subject to these regulations for the existing lighting
regardless of the status of its Special Permit, as they are based on performance standards that must be
met. Exempted recreational lighting has no numeric foot-candle limit.
The lighting at the existing field was raised as an important concern by adjacent property owners at
the December 17th Planning Commission meeting. To address this concern, BSM agreed to limit
use of the existing field lighting to track and field events only, until the lighting can be brought into
full compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. This limitation on BSM would not begin until the
new fields are fully operational; at that time, all non-track events under the lights will take place at
the new field until all lighting systems meet the City’s requirements.
New lighting is subject to the full regulations of Section 36-363, which limit spill-over light to a
maximum of five-tenths of a foot-candle at a residential property line. BSM is proposing the
installation of new lighting at two of the new fields:
• The primary football/soccer/lacrosse field, located in the center of the site.
• The primary baseball field, located in the center of the site to the west of the other primary
field.
The photometric plans provided by the applicant indicate that they are able to meet the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Most applicably, it is noted that lighting at multiple fields
at one time does not increase the level of spill-over lighting. The maximum lighting spill over from
the new fields is as follows:
Field Location Maximum spill-over
New baseball field North residential properties 0.2 foot-candles
New baseball field South residential properties 0.1 foot-candles
New primary field North residential properties 0.1 foot-candles
New primary field South residential properties 0.2 foot-candles
The photometric plans are attached for review.
Sound and Acoustics
Sound requirements are not found in the Zoning Ordinance. However, due to the concerns of
adjacent property owners, sound issues have been taken into account as part of the BSM proposal.
In the proposal, BSM plans to retain the existing sound system at the current field. It will be used
for track events and for occasional announcing at junior varsity or varsity make-up games. The new
primary field will also have a sound system installed. The location of this field will minimize noise
issues for neighboring properties; sound will be directed from this system toward Highway 100.
Finally, a new sound system will be installed for announcing at the new baseball field. It will be used
for announcing baseball games, which occur predominately in the spring months of the school year.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Sound regulations are as follows:
District Maximum level
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM
Maximum level
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
Residential – measured at the
receiving property, NOT at
the property line
65 decibels 55 decibels
Sound regulations are enforced by the Inspections Department within the City, except in emergency
situations when the Police Department responds to extreme noise events.
To address concerns about noise at BSM, one of the conditions of approval for the proposed Special
Permit amendment requires a device be installed on BSM’s sound systems that will limit the level of
sound generated by the speaker system to a level of noise which would not violate the City’s noise
ordinance (City Code Section 12-122). Sound levels decrease with distance from the sound source.
This means that BSM can assure residents that it will not violate the city’s noise ordinance, by
controlling the maximum decibel level produced at the speaker (the sound source). Even though the
decibel level at the speakers may be high, the sound at the perimeter of the site and at nearby
residences will be much less and in conformance with city noise rules. Because sound levels can be
influenced by innumerous environmental conditions such as ambient noise from State Highway
100, barking dogs, wind direction, humidity and the like, BSM will be required to take these factors
into consideration in setting the maximum decibel level to be produced by the sound system.
BSM and the City have discussed the issue at length and will take the following steps to ensure the
compliance with of noise rules:
• City Staff will randomly monitor a minimum of two BSM football events during the evening
hours each fall. The results of these inspections will be clearly and directly communicated to
neighborhood leaders and other interested parties.
• As required, BSM will install devices to limit the sound level of each speaker. These devices
are technologically superior to the existing system, and will prohibit tampering by students
seeking to increase the volume.
• BSM will limit pre-game warm-up music to a maximum of 45 minutes prior to varsity
games.
• BSM will prohibit pre-game music except for varsity games and occasional school events,
such as pep rallies. In all circumstances the playlist will be reviewed by BSM Administration
beforehand.
• BSM will ensure that music is not played during athletic practices or other non-varsity
athletic events.
The consultant working on the BSM project, AST&R Consulting will be at the City Council
meeting and will provide further technical explanation of the sound issue .
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Tree Replacement
The site redevelopment plan calls for the removal of 168 caliper inches of significant trees from the
site. However, due to the site’s high number of significant trees, the tree replacement formula does
not require the replacement of any trees on the site. Nevertheless BSM has agreed to replace any
significant trees removed, bringing the replacement requirement to a minimum of the 168 caliper
inches. By transplanting existing trees on the site and through the installation of new trees, the
applicant is exceeding the requirement:
Tree type Replacement value (caliper inches)
New trees 194 caliper inches
Transplanted trees 95.5 caliper inches
Total 289.5 caliper inches
Requirement 168 caliper inches
Summary + 121.5 caliper inches
The level of tree replacement substantially exceeds the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. BSM
also increased the level of trees being replaced on the site between the Planning Commission and
Council meetings; at the Planning Commission review, BSM was only exceeding the tree
replacement requirement by approximately 87 caliper inches.
BSM is also planning the installation of a large quantity of trees that do not meet tree replacement
standards. These trees, known as “bare-root seedlings,” will grow at a rapid rate and will be planted
in the areas around the wetlands and east of the primary field. By installing such trees, the level of
screening in and around the site will be substantially improved over a short and long-term time
frame.
Between the Planning Commission and Council meetings, a very specific request was made of BSM
by the neighbors at the Princeton Court Association to add additional evergreen plantings between
the BSM south practice field and the townhomes. BSM added a substantial number of trees to the
area in an attempt to meet that request. Most applicably, BSM added two rows of evergreens to the
south boundary as specifically requested; in other instances, trees were added where the greatest
screening and buffer impact could be achieved.
To insure the installation of landscaping and replacement trees, a condition of approval has been
included that the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee in the amount of 125%
the cost of all landscaping prior to beginning any site work. The financial guarantee must be
provided to the City prior to the issuance of any administrative permits, such as a building permit or
erosion control permit. Upon installation of the landscaping, a portion of the financial guarantee
can be returned to the applicant; the full financial guarantee cannot be returned to the applicant
until a full growing season has passed. This ensures that all landscaping materials survive, are
properly installed and will survive the winter.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Site Access
There is no change anticipated for automobile access to the site. However, there are aspects of the
site plan that will improve access to and around the site for pedestrians and bicycles.
BSM plans to dedicate a new easement along the south and west borders of their property. By doing
so, it will be possible at some future time for the City to construct a trail in those locations. Doing
so would improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the site and to the Cedar Lake Trail, which can be
reached by following the frontage road approximately a quarter mile to the north of the BSM site.
The site plan also preserves the existing informal access to Twin Lakes Park, cited by some neighbors
as an important recreational connection. The Special Permit requires that BSM to provide an
easement to the City for access between Twin Lake Park and Westridge Lane if requested by the
City. The access point would provide improved recreational access to Twin Lake Park and the Lake
Forest neighborhood. At this time, there is no intent to construct such an access; however, its
construction is not precluded by the BSM plans.
Transportation
As required, the bus drop-off is separated from the parking lot. The parking lot addition does not
result in any negative impacts to buses entering the site.
Summary of Special Permit Amendment
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Because the
property is regulated under a Special Permit, there are certain aspects of the site that are not required
to come into full compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, such as particular setbacks and other
existing conditions. New conditions, such as the addition of new field lighting, must meet the
current regulations, and have been shown to do so.
Conditional Use Permit: Floodplain
A portion of the BSM site lies within the City’s Floodplain Overlay District. In this area, a
conditional use permit is required when an applicant proposes any modifications to the floodplain.
Per City Code Section 36-294 (e), the uses proposed by BSM in the floodplain areas are permitted
uses in that location; however, modifications to the floodplain must obtain a CUP to guarantee that
compensatory storage is created to ensure no areas of the floodplain are filled without mitigation.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
The floodplain regulations mandate that no stage increase is permitted; that is, an applicant cannot
fill in the floodplain without removing compensatory material from the floodplain. The following
table summarizes BSM’s proposed modifications to the floodplain:
Summary
Filled Floodplain Volume - 259,400 cubic feet
Existing Floodplain Volume Credit + 45,738 cubic feet
Total Floodplain Volume Loss - 213,662 cubic feet
Created Floodplain Volume + 218,808 cubic feet
New Floodplain Volume Credit + 5,146 cubic feet
The volume calculations for floodplain fill and removal have been reviewed by the City Engineer
and have been determined to meet the requirements of the City. Although compensatory storage is
typically provided outside the floodplain, the proposed plan best utilizes the complexity of BSM’s
site to achieve the goal of no stage increase for the area.
Staff has determined that BSM meets the requirements of the Floodplain Overlay District.
Conditions are included below relating to the CUP for fill in the floodplain.
Conditional Use Permit: Excavation
Because of the proposed modifications to the site, a substantial amount of grading is required. For
the new parking lot, two existing wetlands must be filled. These wetlands were subject to a
MNRAM assessment prepared by the project architects and reviewed by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District and the state Board of Soil and Water Resources. It was determined that the
wetlands were currently “degraded” and that no negative environmental effects would result from
them being filled. However, the wetlands must be replaced on-site. To replace these wetlands,
excavation will take place on the area just south of the existing track. The existing practice field
south of the track will be converted to new wetlands.
Haul Route
Trucks hauling materials being removed or brought to the site have direct access both north and
south on Highway 100 from the frontage road. The truck route will be the frontage road north and
south to Highway 100. Trucks will be restricted by the conditions of the CUP from using other
streets in the neighborhood.
Timeline
Excavation on the site will take several months. During this time, there will be increased truck
traffic into and out of the site onto 25 ½ Street West and the adjacent frontage road. Once the
excavation and other site modifications are complete, truck traffic at the site will subside and be
more typical of a regular construction project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The modifications to the athletic facilities at Benilde-St. Margaret’s fulfill aspects of several vision
goals. The dedication of a new easement along 26th Street and the Highway 100 frontage road
improve the connected network of sidewalks and trails through the community. Improved water
quality measures proposed for the site will decrease the level of pollutants entering the Twin Lakes
watershed, improving the area’s ecological quality and meeting the vision goal for environmental
improvement.
Attachments: Resolution – Major Amendment to the Special Permit
Resolution - Conditional Use Permit for floodplain modifications
Resolution – Conditional Use Permits for fill
Draft Minutes – December 17, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
Meeting notes – November 13th, 2008 Athletic Facilities Discussion
Location Map
Parking Analysis
Site Plans and related documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke. Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
RESOLUTION NO. 09-_____
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 00-057
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 00-
057 ADOPTED ON MAY 1, 2000, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT TO
EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST.
LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO
ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO ATHLETIC FACILITIES AT 2501 STATE
HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Benilde-St. Margaret’s School, has made application to the City Council for
an amendment to an existing special permit under Section 36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code to allow modifications to athletic facilities at 2501 State Highway 100 within a R-1 Single
Family Residential Zoning District having the following legal description:
That part of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24
lying east of State Highway No. 100, north of the south 330.00 feet thereof, and
west of the east 450.00 feet thereof; also the west 233.58 feet of the east 450.00 of
the north 500 feet of said South ½ of the Northwest ¼.
Subject to roads.
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos.
00-20-SP and 08-45-SP and the effect of the proposed modifications to athletic facilities on the
health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a continued special use permit was amended regarding the subject property
pursuant to Resolution No. 00-057 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated May 1, 2000 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that special permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 00-057, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
WHEREAS, the contents of Case No. 08-45-SP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 00-057 filed as Document
No. 7306903 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a
special permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting modifications to athletic
facilities within the R-1 Single Family Residential District at the location described above based on
the following conditions:
1. That the grading and drainage be constructed and maintained thereafter in accordance with
Exhibit A – Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit B – Sodding, Seeding and Landscape Plan
and all conditions set forth in the City’s Flood Plain Zoning District regulations be satisfied
as specified in Section 14:123.100(2)(a) through (k).
2. That all grading, sodding and seeding be completed by October 15, 1985.
3. The special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 92-42-SP to permit
construction of a pylon sign 19.5 feet in height and to permit a total sign area of 200 square
feet.
4. The special permit shall be amended on May 1, 2000 (Case No. 00-20-SP) to incorporate all
of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Official Exhibits C
thru K. Exhibits B and D, landscape plan may be modified as to the exact location of
the arborvitae plantings along the north lot line to most effectively provide screening and
to preserve existing trees. Exhibit B landscape plan may also be modified to move up to
50% of the new bufferyard plantings north of the Princeton Court townhomes to
directly east of the east parking lot, provided this is agreed to by the applicant and
Princeton Court townhomes.
b. Prior to any site work, applicant shall meet the following conditions:
1. Obtain a Watershed District permit and submit copy to City.
2. Applicant shall sign assent form and official exhibits.
c. A building permit is required, which may impose additional conditions.
d. If parking should become a problem in the future, the Zoning Administrator may
required that proof of parking be converted to parking.
e. A five foot building height variance for an auditorium is approved, subject to all
conditions of final approval.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 16
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
f. The property owner shall grant a trail easement to the City at no cost in a location to be
agreed upon by both parties, if it is determined by the City that a trail is to be
constructed in this area.
5. The special permit shall be amended on January 20, 2009_to incorporate all of the preceding
conditions and add the following conditions:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
b. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
1. The property owner shall dedicate at no cost to the City a 10’ easement required
as part of prior approvals along the west frontage road and along 25 ½ Street
West.
2. The applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee in the form of a
Letter of Credit or Cash Escrow to ensure the installation and survival of all
landscaping materials. The financial guarantee shall be in the amount of 125%
of the cost of installation.
c. The applicant shall install a device governing all outdoor amplified sound systems on the
site to be in compliance with the City’s noise regulations.
d. Music played over any outdoor amplified sound system shall be permitted only for a
duration of not more than forty-five (45) minutes before any varsity athletic event or for
occasional outdoor events typical of a high school.
e. Upon the City’s request due to planned construction of a trail, the property owner shall
grant at no cost to the City a 10’ trail easement along the north property line running
from the cul-de-sac at Westridge Lane to the east and terminating at the northeast corner
of the property. Should the City construct such a trail, the City shall be responsible for
any costs associated with fence or landscaping relocation.
f. The current application does not include the construction of a bubble or dome on the
property. A major amendment to the Special Permit would be required if a bubble or
dome is proposed in the future.
g. The applicant shall establish a committee consisting of neighboring property owners and
representatives from the Benilde-St. Margaret’s School. The committee shall meet a
minimum of two (2) times per school year to discuss the upcoming athletic schedule and
any outstanding raised by either Benilde-St. Margaret’s or adjacent property owners.
The Community Development Director or designee shall be invited to attend committee
meetings.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 17
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
h. Use of field five (5) for athletic activities, as designated on the official exhibits, shall
between the months of September and December of each year be prohibited during the
following times:
1. 9:00 PM Friday to 9:00 AM Saturday.
2. 9:00 PM Saturday to 9:00 AM Sunday.
i. Use of field five (5) for athletic activities, as designated on the official exhibits, shall
between the months of April and August of each year be prohibited during the following
times:
1. 9:00 PM Friday to 8:00 AM Saturday.
2. 9:00 PM Saturday to 8:00 AM Sunday.
j. Upon completion of the new primary turf field (field 1), and until such a time as it can
be brought into full compliance with the lighting requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, lighting at the existing track and field (field 4) shall not be used except for
track and field meets between March 15 and June 15 of each year.
k. The applicant shall follow guidelines for all fields and associated facilities on the site, as
follows:
1. To the greatest extent possible, all major non-track events shall take place at the
new field 1 (one) per the official exhibits. Major events shall be defined as any
non-track event with over 100 fans in attendance where both the lighting and
sound system is used.
2. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall utilize only one lighting or
sound system at any given time. In no case shall be applicant utilize more than
two lighting or sound systems at any given time.
3. Athletic training using the on-site bleachers shall not be permitted.
4. Except for current users, temporary, or emergency situations, the applicant shall
not permit regular use of its fields by other schools or organizations. A minor
amendment to the Special Permit shall be required to allow regular use of the
applicant’s athletic fields by other schools or outside organizations.
5. To the greatest extent possible, the applicant shall attempt to minimize use of the
outdoor amplified sound system and field lighting system during months that
school is not in session, with the exception of current summer sports programs.
6. The addition of new summer sports programs using the outdoor amplified sound
system and field lighting system shall require a minor amendment to the Special
Permit.
7. Except for the National Anthem, summer sports programs shall, to the greatest
extent possible, avoid playing music over the outdoor amplified sound system.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 18
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure
for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is
different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 19
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-292 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT MODIFICATION TO THE
FLOODPLAIN FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2501 HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Benilde-St. Margaret’s has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit
under Section 36-292 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of modification to the
floodplain within a R-1 Single Family Residential District located at 2501 Highway 100 South for
the legal description as follows, to-wit:
That part of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24
lying east of State Highway No. 100, north of the south 330.00 feet thereof, and
west of the east 450.00 feet thereof; also the west 233.58 feet of the east 450.00 of
the north 500 feet of said South ½ of the Northwest ¼.
Subject to roads.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 08-43-CUP) and the effect of the proposed modification to the floodplain
on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect
of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the modification to the floodplain will not be detrimental to
the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion
nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
modification to the floodplain is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 08-43-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit modification to the floodplain at the location described is
granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 20
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
2. Any fill in the floodplain shall be in compliance with the requirements of City Code,
Section 36-294, and any additional requirements imposed by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to beginning site work, the applicant shall:
a. Obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District prior to beginning site work.
b. Hold a pre-development meeting with the City Engineer and any contractors
conducting work in the floodplain.
c. Provide a staging plan to the City Engineer demonstrating the progression of
work on the site to guarantee that during construction there is not any net
increase in the flood stage.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of
$750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 21
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
RESOLUTION NO. 09-____
RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-79 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT EXCAVATION OF FILL FOR
PROPERTY ZONED R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT
2501 HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Benilde-St. Margaret’s School has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 36-79 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of excavation of
fill within a R-1 Single Family Residential District located at 2501 Highway 100 South for the
legal description as follows, to-wit:
That part of the South ½ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24
lying east of State Highway No. 100, north of the south 330.00 feet thereof, and
west of the east 450.00 feet thereof; also the west 233.58 feet of the east 450.00 of
the north 500 feet of said South ½ of the Northwest ¼.
Subject to roads.
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 08-44-CUP) and the effect of the proposed excavation of fill on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the excavation of fill will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards,
nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed excavation of fill is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 08-44-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 22
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit excavation of fill at the location described is granted based
on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits incorporated
by reference herein.
2. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A pre-excavation conference shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and city representatives.
b. All necessary erosion control measures shall be installed.
c. All necessary permits must be obtained.
3. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions during excavation:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and
10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary
in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding properties.
4. The applicant shall follow the following haul route:
a. Traveling south, all vehicles shall travel along the Highway 100 frontage road and
onto southbound Highway 100. Traveling north, all vehicles shall travel along the
Highway 100 frontage road and directly enter onto Highway 100.
b. Vehicles hauling excavation materials are prohibited from traveling on residential
streets.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or
structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is
different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Page 23
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 20, 2009
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
December 17, 2008--6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Adam Fulton, Greg Hunt, Gary Morrison, Bruce DeJong, Scott Brink,
Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
* * * * * * * * *
3.
C. (continued from December 3, 2008)
Major Amendment to a Special Permit for the reconstruction of the athletic facilities
Conditional Use Permit for grading of over 400 cubic yards of material
Conditional Use Permit for modifications to the floodplain
Location: 2501 Highway 100 South
Applicant: Benilde-St. Margaret’s School
Case Nos.: 08-45-SP, 08-43-CUP, 08-44-CUP
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report including the site, public process, sound/noise issues, neighborhood involvement,
storm water management, and trail easement. He corrected the setback information noted in the staff report that
Benilde was 19 feet to the property line on the north field. Benilde-St. Margaret’s is able to meet the 25-foot setback
requirement. He said Benilde will plant trees to the east and south of the proposed main field, along the frontage road
and would add trees on the north and south side adjacent to Princeton Court.
Scott Brink, City Engineer, discussed the storm water management and Princeton Court townhomes. The Benilde
property has a minor impact on the high water elevation, however they want to make sure whatever they do on the
property doesn’t increase the flood elevation or provide negative impacts. Staff looked at the storm water calculations
to make sure they met the City requirements and did not increase the rate or volume into the wetland flood storage.
The Watershed District still has several detailed comments that need to be worked out with the plan.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted the report from BKBM that was attached to the letter from Robert DeMay and
asked if Mr. Brink had an opportunity to review it.
Mr. Brink replied he received it that day and hadn’t had a chance to go through it thoroughly.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she detected unresolved issues and concerns in the materials and asked at
what point the City would be looking at those issues.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 24
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 2
Mr. Brink responded the main thing is to make sure that the wetland and the lake flood elevation is not increasing.
They know that was not going to happen even based on some of the points made in the BKBM report. A lot of the
comments are technical, and things to be worked out with the details of the site plan.
Commissioner Kramer stated he read through the materials and Mr. Brink made it sound like the townhomes should
have a small concern regarding the entire program Benilde was proposing, but why was it the townhomes residents
had the perception that this was a major issue?
Mr. Brink replied he couldn’t speak for the residents, but they had some flooding problems from the storm sewer in
the street. He met with the neighbors and their concerns were valid.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked what kind of flooding they had experienced.
Mr. Brink replied he was not aware of any structural flooding during his time with the City. Flooding can mean
many things including structural or heavy ponding that isn’t damaging property.
Commissioner Person indicated Mr. Brink mentioned some things like underground detention, permeable pavers or
pavements, additional landscaping, perhaps rain gardens and asked if he could go into more detail in how that would
help with the storm water mitigation.
Mr. Brink indicated it involved storage of water on the Benilde site and releasing the water to the wetland at a rate
that is acceptable to the City and the Watershed that doesn’t negatively impact the property down stream. They
would build a combination storage system and pipe system that goes out of the storage system in a manner where they
can limit it. He said permeable pavement is fairly new and the theory is that instead of the water discharging directly
into the storm sewer and into the wetland, it will seep through porous pavement and go straight into the ground and
eventually into the ground water.
Doug Kulee, Co-chair of the Building Committee, Benilde-St. Margaret’s, introduced members of the Building
Committee and those involved with the project. He presented Benilde-St. Margaret’s history and the issues and
reasons for the proposal.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if the main field which would be the track field, was grandfathered with the
lighting.
Mr. Fulton replied that was correct, it was grandfathered in regarding the lighting. Benilde could volunteer to modify
the lights so they did not cause as much spillover.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked if Benilde had considered what it would cost to modify the lights on that
field.
Mr. Kulee replied the code had been met, but they were willing to look at the cost of modification.
Commissioner Carper asked if neighbors were allowed to go onto the fields when they were not in use.
Mr. Kulee responded unofficially it happened. People are often walking around with dogs, etc.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 25
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 3
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Robert DeMay, 2505 Quentin Ct, commenting on his behalf and the Condominium Association, stated that they
respected Benilde St. Margaret and believed Benilde also respected the Association. They wanted to maintain their
property value and the reasonable residential use of their property. He referred to his letter, which the Planning
Commission had received. The major point of concern is that Benilde says it will do many things. He believed Benilde
was a good neighbor and wanted to be a good neighbor, but they didn’t believe the Planning Commission could
approve a concept. One example was that there had been discussion about floodplain maintenance and the drainage
system. There is talk about the concept, but there were things to be worked out. That didn’t give much comfort to
members of the association. There has been real flooding twice and the water came into the lower levels and had to be
taken out and damage was done to several units. He received a memorandum from the Watershed District consultant,
Todd Schumacher, going through questions that the Watershed District still hadn’t answered. Mr. DeMay said it isn’t
clear if this plan can meet the drainage requirements. The plan involves squeezing fields into every inch of the property.
Until the issues were resolved, the Association believed a recommendation was premature.
Mr. DeMay spoke about the lot as a non-conforming lot. He stated that any expansion of the use of the lot is
prohibited, any expansion of the character and the intensification of the use should be prohibited. Under the special
permit, it should either be brought into conformance or made closer to compliance with the current requirements.
Currently field five is ringed around two sides with trees and a full buffer and there is a buffer next to the parking lot as
well. Some of the units see the buffer of trees and barely see the original field. Other units see a diamond and buffering
to the rear, not the old field. In the new proposal they can see the new field, a gatehouse and a plaza. Is this bringing it
more into conformity or are they intensifying the non-conforming use? The Association believes they are intensifying
the non-conforming use. They are willing to work something out with Benilde, but they believe the presumptions
should be, bring it into conformity if you are going to increase the intensification of the use and if you can’t bring it into
conformity by being the full 25-foot setback, work out something that makes sense. He asked to also make sure they
stay consistent with the current CUP. The proposal is to take trees along the East side of the parking lot that were part
of a condition of a previous CUP to be a substitute for other conditions in the CUP and now they were going to remove
those trees and put them along the property line. He thought the intent was right, but the plan wasn’t there yet and
there were many ways in which their Association was under a threat of being deprived of the reasonable, enjoyable
residential use of their property. Until all of those issues could be resolved, he suggested the Planning Commission
should not recommend that plan.
Duane Krohnke, 2505 Princeton Ct, agreed with Mr. DeMay’s comments. He distributed a hand out to
Commissioners. He said the conditions proposed by the Planning Department were inadequate to protect the
homeowners. They proposed additional conditions, some of which had been accepted in concept by the school. They
need to be in the special permit as conditions. He rejected the argument made by the City Planner based on
assumptions stemming out of the alleged setbacks in the mid 1980’s by some of the town homes from the property
line between them and Benilde. When the town homes were developed, the Benilde field immediately to the north
was vastly different than it is today and from what they propose. Until 1985, there was a mini forest, a grove of trees
and a casual recreational field. There was no intent when the town homes were built that this would impose upon or
welcome an amenity like what they have now or what is proposed. In 1995, the conditions of this field were
significantly and abruptly changed without notice to the neighborhood, to the public and without any permit by the
school. They destroyed the forest and destroyed the tree grove. Immediately after the Association protested to the
City. His home was barely above the 875 feet and he was concerned that whatever calculations or assumptions were
made, if there was any mistake, he would be adversely affected. He objected to the recent removal of cottonwoods
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 26
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 4
from the City’s definition of significant trees. They had been buffered by large Cottonwood trees which provided
significant protection. He requested the application be denied or at the minimum tabled.
Linda Goldberg, Executive Director Beth-El Synagogue, 5224 W 26th St., stated that Benilde-St. Margaret’s has been
a responsible and responsive neighbor over the years. Benilde and Beth-El share many things together, most notably
parking. Their schedules are busy at opposite times and lots are shared for overflow parking which relieves the
neighborhood of parking issues.
Joan Sullivan, 2317 Westridge Lane, has had many discussions with Bob Tift, Pres. of Benilde, because her property is
right up against the football field. They had been trying to work on things for her. They sincerely want to change
this, but she didn’t trust that they would. The CUP needs to have in place enforcement issues, so they can make it
very clear what has to happen if Benilde disregards the law, as it often does.
Joy Peterson, 2301 Westridge Lane, stated her property is close to the existing field. She supported moving the field or
moving most of the games to the new field in concept. She had concerns Benilde would continue to use that field at the
same time. They referred to it as a track field, but that was not what they were calling it at their meetings. They were
talking about having two varsity games at the same time. Some of her concerns were that Benilde hadn’t succeeded in
being a good neighbor in last 15 years. Things had become progressively worse. She often heard disrespectful music in
the spring. She wanted to believe that things were going to get better, but was concerned about why they hadn’t gotten
better in the last several years.
Nicholas Slade, 2316 Westridge Lane, indicated there had been an increase in usage in the last six years he had been
living there. He agreed that Benilde was attempting to try to address the issues, but didn’t think the plan was there
yet and requested the item be tabled to try to resolve some of the issues. He didn’t want to see the problems he had
with sound and lights be moved on to Princeton Court. He had issues about the number of trees. His biggest
concern was the enforcement issue. They regularly have noise problems with the current field. When the lights are on,
his entire back yard is lit up. The lights and sound system currently are not complying, even though they have made
some attempts. He noted recent experiences with noise, stating Benilde needs to comply with the law and they
currently don’t, although neighbors complain on a regular basis. In the six years he has lived there, the amount of
usage and number of games had increased. What is to say in the future that usage wouldn’t change? He felt there
needed to be limits in the CUP for future usage to keep it restricted. He suggested they deny or table the item until
all issues are truly addressed.
Another concern was the access point to the west, on Park Woods Rd. He applauded the efforts to move the field and
add parking, but that road has parking on both sides and it is very hard for the neighborhood to go in and out of that
area.
Stan Jurgenson, 2309 Westridge Ln., expressed concerns about noise issues. If there is a new field he hoped all of the
issues and concerns would be addressed. He would like to see it put in writing that the existing field would only be
used for track and junior varsity and that there would never be loud speakers after 5:00 p.m., except for track meets.
He would like to see in the writing that the fields are not going to be used for anybody else other than Benilde teams
and maybe on occasion a loaned field. Maybe they should consider a penalty, such as forfeiture of the next game or
something monetary.
Ward Johnson, 2200 S. Hill Lane, agreed with previous speakers about the noise and that there needs to be something
in writing. One of the main issues he saw with the uniqueness of Benilde and their location was that it abutted to
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 27
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 5
residential on three sides. In Benilde’s literature they state their outdoor facilities are for joyful celebration. This is in
conflict because the residents want a quiet, stable, and well-maintained living environment. One of the issues is that
in Benilde’s hope and desire to celebrate, they celebrate to the max, with maximum noise levels. There was never any
presentation of setting the sound at lower than the maximum. That is very important to try to achieve as Benilde goes
forward with their proposal. At the parking lot for number four field, overflow parking goes on the street. In the new
design, he asked the design team to have the staff parking remain staff parking and shut off access and flow everything
out of the south parking lot into the fields. He would like to see a design to show how the flow could go out of the
south parking lot. Benilde and their consultants had spent about a year working on this. He asked to continue the
public hearing to January 21st. He distributed some handouts. He said the neighborhood has been working on
sound issues for eight years. He asked if more testing could be done by City staff with Benilde’s consultants to come
up with a solution.
Tom Cesar, BKBM, stated he was available for questions from the Commission.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Ms. McMonigal clarified that the use was not non-conforming, it was a conforming use. She said there was not a
recent elimination of cottonwoods designated as a significant tree. The City Forester has been asked to look into
whether larger cottonwoods and some other types of trees should be considered as significant trees.
Ms. McMonigal asked Mr. Brink to describe the general water flow in the area. from the Benilde site and where the
water flows to. There is some confusion about whether it flows toward the Princeton Court townhomes or not. She
addressed parking on Parkwoods Rd., noting staff spoke with the Fire and Emergency staff who indicated they could
get vehicles through when there is parking on both sides. It is a public street, and neighbors could petition the City to
have parking restrictions on that road.
Chair Robertson asked about parking permits.
Ms. McMonigal replied there are a few locations that have parking permits in St. Louis Park.
Mr. Brink described how they were proposing to route stormwater. On the south side of field two, where additional
parking spaces would be created is where the underground storage would be built. Through the rest of the project,
there are storm lines that drain to that point. From there it would flow directly east alongside the south side of field
one and into the existing wetland and new wetland created that ultimately flows just south of the existing football field
and into the wetland and into Twin Lake.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted in regard to parking on Parkwoods Rd., the neighbors should be proactive
and work with the City and consider parking by permit. With this amount of proposed change, if this moves forward,
she felt Benilde should be required to look at updating the lights on the current field. She was not comfortable about
the flooding as described in the letter from Mr. DeMay. She felt more research needed to be done regarding the cause
of that and if that would be alleviated if the condos were built right at the flood level, why did that occur?
Mr. Fulton responded he was surprised to learn they were built at 875.1 feet. When he looked through their original
approvals, one of their conditions of approval for the town homes was that the lowest floor elevation be 876 feet. He
didn’t understand why they were built at 875.1 feet at the lowest.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 28
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 6
Commissioner Johnston-Madison and Ms. McMonigal discussed general water flow. Ms. McMonigal indicated it
was her understanding that the water flowed away from townhomes, not toward them.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated in the new proposal that was fine, except that the water was flooding now
and it had flooded twice in the recent past.
Mr. DeMay clarified that all of the water they were talking about flows into the DNR wetland and then there is a dug
out pond that is on the side of the Princeton Court units that are next to that wetland. The pond that is between
them is connected by a culvert, so all of the water flows into the wetland and adjoining areas and the town homes are
right along that wetland. The 875.1’ building abuts right up against the wetland. He didn’t know how it got there,
but they were dealing with it, and it was essentially everybody’s problem. They were not saying Benilde had to take
care of it, they were saying to make sure that all of the calculations are done so that they can be sure that Benilde’s
changes don’t do anything that will exacerbate it and those questions are unanswered.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated Benilde should think about if the proposed practice field was necessary. She
was hearing from a lot of people that Benilde needed to limit the number of fields in use at any given time.
Mr. Fulton indicated sound regulation was something that fell outside the scope of the zoning ordinance. Some of the
other questions could be addressed through the mechanism of a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she would leave that on the table as something to talk about. In terms of
enforcing the ordinances, she asked if the Inspections Dept. enforced the light or the sound?
Mr. Fulton replied they enforce the noise ordinance. The light falls within zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated one of the challenges of living in a neighborhood like this, once the
disturbance happens, it is over with. She was not comfortable moving forward at this time.
Commissioner Kramer agreed that he was not comfortable making a recommendation.
Commissioner Person asked for an estimate about the number of events with light and sound, by day of the week and
season, that would occur with the new complex.
Commissioner Carper felt some of his questions had been addressed adequately and he had gotten enough
information in terms of the water flow and the flood levels. Watershed District requirements and approval would
happen on its own course. He said he was disappointed to hear they were still having sound problems from the
football field as it exists. There is some grandfathering effect in terms of the lights and sound. He suggested perhaps
it would be appropriate for Benilde to spend a little more money to mitigate those issues that seem to be happening
rather than just fielding complaints and develop a method to meet with neighbors regularly and report to City
Council in a more structured response to the community.
Commissioner Shapiro stated the current sound issues need to be dealt with. Looking at the plan, it would appear
that moving the football field to the middle of the site and moving the main baseball field to the middle of the site
would mitigate some of the sound complaints. This should reduce the noise to the neighborhood. They all would
want to know that the water issue was not going to make things worse.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 29
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 7
Chair Robertson stated overall he liked the plan. He agreed with the comments made that a lot of thought was put
into it (20 iterations). He said he thought the design was well thought through and worked well. A lot of the issues
brought up were real issues, but they were somewhat outside of what the Planning Commission review. The sound
and light engineers need to work out details. They trust that when something moves forward and it is approved per
DNR approval, that the hydrologist at the DNR would be looking at this and making sure that what was happening
was not making the situation worse.
The Planning Commission does look at the big concept and comment on it and make sure the small details are to be
addressed, but they were not the right body to make decisions on those details. Everything explained to him as far as
changes being made in the hydrology and in the design was going to lessen the impact. He said the water was not
Benilde’s problem, they don’t want them to make it worse, but it was not their problem to solve. He thought the
design would decrease Benilde’s runoff into the water system and they were helping the system with this design.
He spoke about comments made about setbacks and what was on the other side of the property. It might have been
wooded, but they couldn’t control what the neighbor did on their property. If they want to cut down the tree, it was
their tree to cut down. They help them replace it. Chair Robertson said he was worried after hearing comments
about the lighting. Mr. Fulton noted that the existing light has a broad exception for any outdoor recreation lighting
that was installed previously, there are no regulations for foot-candles in existing recreational lighting.
Chair Robertson said the sound issues were one of the toughest problems and was not something the Commission could
address. It was frustrating it had been going on for so long. He liked the idea of game forfeitures. For the most part he
liked the plan and felt he had enough information to make a recommendation. The concept was good. There were
some issues to work through, but not enough to slow down the process.
Commissioner Kramer said he respected Chair Robertson’s comments, although if he was saying the decibel level was
not within the Commission’s purview, he didn’t agree. It isn’t clear that this plan is going to be in compliance any
more than it was clear that the runoff would be in compliance, any more than it was clear that the setbacks were right.
He had questions for the sound engineer, it sounded like there could be more than one sound system operating at a
time, was that correct? If so, are decibels from two sound systems additive or how does that work? He asked for
discussion about competing sound systems and what it does to the brain and to the neighbors.
Dan Cincoski responded when two sound systems are working at the same time, if they are both at exactly the same
level and similar sound type, you will increase the sound level by about 3db. If they were saying at the boundary one
sound system is providing 60 db of sound, those two sound systems working exactly the same together would be 63
db. That was only if they were exactly the same. If one is different, then there is a drop down to 60 db. The
intention is to make the sound 60 db at the boundaries. The sound level at the fields would be adjusted based on
that.
Commissioner Kramer asked if the analysis took into consideration the reflective sounds off the hard surfaces of other
buildings and the absorption of trees, etc.?
Mr. Cincoski replied it doesn’t deal with any absorption of the trees, they would help improve it. As far as the building,
the same application applies to the two sound sources together. If the sound bounces off the building, it could
contribute about 3 db. The building has no focal points and spreads the sound out.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 30
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 8
Commissioner Kramer stated even if the speakers were directed toward the highway, would it hit the building and
bounce back toward the residences?
Mr. Cincoski stated at the baseball field they were not directing the sound, they were using directional speakers and
were minimizing the amount of sound that hit the building and directing it away from the building. The sound
coming from the stadium field is directed toward the building, but the speakers are being put up high enough that
they are directed down and the sound going out is attenuated quicker. The sound that hits the ground would go up
in the air.
Commissioner Kramer asked if the sounds could be heard inside of a house?
Mr. Cincoski replied if the house is close to the property line and it is 60 db at the property line and the windows are
open, they would probably hear it. If the windows are closed, it is possible at some times they would hear a little bit of
sound, but it would be very low in level.
Commissioner Kramer asked what level it would have to be for a neighbor to hear it 2 ½ blocks away?
Mr. Cincoski responded by providing an example from his home in Wayzata two miles from the high school, where
he can hear it at a 30-db level. It carries on for a long way, but gets to a level that is acceptable (60 db is legal during
the day and 50 db at night).
Commissioner Kramer asked about the bass range of the speakers.
Mr. Cincoski stated the systems that have been designed and the new sound systems can be tuned so there isn’t a lot
of bass energy. Voice energy would be the strongest. This sound system is not designed to put out high levels of bass.
Commissioner Kramer asked if Beth El had been able to hear any of the sounds inside the building during services.
Ms. Goldberg replied no.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison understood why Benilde would want to improve their fields. At the same time, she
didn’t agree that this was the best plan and was questioning whether the practice field was necessarily. She agreed that
they had to take a look at the sound, lighting, and water flow.
Commissioner Person said he was inclined to table this. Many speakers submitted 20+ pages of possible conditions
and they needed an analysis from staff as to whether the staff recommendations covered the other recommendations
for conditions that had been submitted.
Commissioner Shapiro said he agreed with Chair Robertson’s comments and liked the plan. The plan wasn’t going to
go forward if the Watershed District doesn’t give approval. The Planning Commission was not there to decide
whether the water worked or not.
Commissioner Carper said he was prepared to vote on the item, however he thought they would find themselves in a tie.
Under those circumstances, he supported tabling the item.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 31
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 9
Ms. McMonigal asked what information could be brought forward that would help the Commission on its decision.
She was concerned about bringing back a lot more detailed information that would be resolved by the Watershed
District.
Chair Robertson stated he would be comfortable moving it forward, asking staff to review the materials with the
applicant and either including them or not including them as it moves forward to City Council. There was still work
to be done, but what was there was worthy of moving forward.
Commissioner Kramer stated on paper it looked like a good plan, what he was hearing from much of the neighborhood
was a lack of confidence in Benilde’s ability to police itself.
Mr. Fulton noted that Planning staff met with Inspection and Police staff. Inspections staff has regularly monitored
the situation and had determined Benilde has been in compliance. The perception by the neighborhood was that it
had not been in compliance. The monitoring that has taken place has shown them to be in compliance, which is
being disputed by neighbors.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated that Benilde hadn’t policed itself as well as it could.
Mr. Kulee explained he was a volunteer. Benilde taught him to give back to the community. He was there to present
and continue the legacy of good quality education. He wanted to address a couple of the comments and thought it
was a part of the Planning Commission and City Council to adhere to and respect the staff, the City Engineer and the
Watershed District who do analysis on a regular basis. Benilde does not take this lightly. Benilde was empathetic
with Princeton Court residents. The developer installed their buildings at an improper location. That was not the
fault of Benilde-St. Margaret’s. Benilde would adhere to the requirements of the City and would not increase the rate
of flow and would improve the water quality in this area. He stated Benilde was not adding fields, they were
improving the quality of their fields. Benilde would adhere to anything the City came up with regarding restrictive
parking on the north side. They understood the existing lighting system was a grandfathered system. They would
work with the City and neighbors to improve that in any way they could. They could disconnect the system until
they came up with a plausible solution for the neighbors. They had talked about the sound-limiting device. They
were willing to do it prior to the new fields being installed.
Bob Tift, President of Benilde St. Margaret, indicated in the Elmwood neighborhood where he lives, he was able to
hear announcements from the St. Louis Park High School. He knew that residents put up with a lot of noise, which
was part of living next to a high school and he apologized for the noise issues in the past. One of the challenges of
working with adolescents was that it was a learning experience every day including someone wanting to bend or break
the rules. Benilde has consequences for that. He said Benilde recently got a bid for the decibel limiter, so no matter
what the input source was, it would limit it. They will continue to do their best to monitor content and the issues
noted.
Graham Sones, ATS&R, reiterated that the plan had come from twenty renditions. They are in step with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in obtaining all of the requirements. This is a particularly difficult site. It has
some grandfathered storm water conditions on it. The existing wetlands in place need to be mitigated, but they also
serve the function of water quality and storm water rate control. That calculation was integral to the beginning of this
process and they continue to use that quantity to measure the requirement for water quality and phosphorus removal.
The Watershed District has provided an analysis of their calculations and there are more questions to be answered on
their part. They are in step with that process. They are being heard at its first meeting in January. One of the other
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 32
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 10
aspects of the storm water that they require is working with best management practices, which they are doing by
installing vegetative swales. They also are limiting the rate rainwater leaves the site with the stormwater not to exceed
the current rate. They are also handling a fair amount of storm water from the City street. There is an easement that
runs into the Benilde property, a 15” pipe that deposits water into the wetland. In order to fill that wetland, they
need to store that water for rate and treat the water for water quality to the degree he mentioned. He was confident
they could take care of the 15 items the Watershed District had put in front of them. The process is well underway,
the design is solid and they were confident they could proceed.
Dean Beeninga, ATS &R, Project Architect, stated this had been a very important process for all of them for a long
time. The committee had been working 2-3 years on this project. In 2000 they improved the facility with an
auditorium, a chapel and some additional classrooms. This is a follow up to a 20-year master plan. What they did as
the next step was to improve the facilities or the grounds for the increased use of athletics with the advent of girl’s
athletics, Lacrosse, and the high participation rate. They have items in place to follow all of the regulations. The
sound system can be regulated. They have baffles on the lights so the light doesn’t leak. The new lights will be taller
and will shoot down. They had been working hand in hand with the Watershed District. There is no way they can
go forward without their approval. They felt sound, light and water were the main items in this project that had very
aggressively been addressed and worked on with City staff. Each field is precious to the school. The plan takes the
concentration of the events to the middle of the field, furthest from the north and south. It brings the biggest field
closest to the parking, in the middle of the field. They didn’t think the periphery or the north would be used as much
and mostly be used in the afternoon. The baseball field was the next most intense and it had been pulled close to the
building in the middle of the field and close to the parking. Field five was mostly for physical education and softball
practice and not a competition field. It would be used mostly during the day.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison indicated that the Commission hadn’t missed the point and understood that the
issues were sound, light and water. When she talked about overwhelming information, it was not that she didn’t
understand, she just wanted to make sure that they considered all of the information presented. She asked Ms.
McMonigal when it could go forward to City Council.
Ms. McMonigal replied it could go January 5th or January 20th.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggested it be the later date, the reason being if she moved it along it would be
with the understanding that the documents presented at this meeting were reviewed by staff and that those issues are
addressed.
Commissioner Kramer asked if they could include some of the terms in the CUP addressing the noise level, lighting, etc.
He said what would give him comfort would be to know that there is a way to manage those issues. Sound and light were
harder to get their arms around. He wanted it somewhat codified that these issues were there today and there was
someone on staff who would watch them.
Chair Robertson replied under the conditions, they could reiterate that 65 db is the limit at the wall. They could talk
about reducing bass to the minimum level necessary to function and things along those lines.
Commissioner Kramer asked if they could do that and knowing that the City Council was going to review this he
wanted to make sure they were looking at this carefully. He would be willing to move it to the City Council if the
new recommendations are given and it is put into the CUP that they have some very clear recommendations.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 33
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
December 17, 2008
Page 11
Chair Robertson stated everything given to them would be put into the record.
Commissioner Kramer stated he would only do that if the Council pays attention to this and that the Planning
Commission was sharing information with them.
Ms. McMonigal stated the Commission may add any conditions or suggestions with the motion.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison noted the point she was trying to make was if it moved forward, that staff take a
serious look at all of the information and make recommendations to Council. It was one thing to hand the
information to Council and another to have it evaluated by staff to see what was proper and what wasn’t.
Ms. McMonigal suggested the Commission add as part of the condition that staff review the new documents and
provide recommendations to the City Council.
Commissioner Person indicated that was what he was saying as well. They talked about tabling this, but he agreed
with the other Commissioners that as long as staff was thoroughly considering the information and making them as
part of their report to the City Council, along with the Planning Commission recommendation he would be satisfied
with it.
Commissioner Shapiro stated the Commission could control certain things and say that the sound system had to be
within a certain range at the property line because that was what the sound requirements were. There was a difference
between sound coming out of a loudspeaker and noise. They would not be able to tell the students how loud they could
cheer, there would be noise in the neighborhood. That is part of having an athletic field there. They could regulate the
lights, they could control the sound that came out of the speaker, but beyond that, he didn’t believe they could get
involved.
Commissioner Kramer thought that the ordinance was about amplified sound and not about voices and he respected
what Commissioner Shapiro was saying.
Commissioner Shapiro made a motion to recommend approval of the Major Amendment and Conditional Use
Permits, subject to conditions recommended by staff and consideration of the additional materials the Planning
Commission had been provided at the meeting from the neighbors.
Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
5. Communications - None
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 34
Benilde-St. Margaret’s Athletic Fields Issues Forum
General Meeting Notes
November 13, 2008, 6:30 PM
- Meg McMonigal, City: Welcome / Purpose
o Two meeting format
o Today: info exchange
o Next meeting: response to issues
- Introductions
o Sign in sheet is also passed around
- Barry Warner, SRF Consulting – Process, Rules, Outcomes
- Adam Fulton, City – City requirements
o Three applications – Special Permit (Major Amendment), CUP – Floodplain, CUP – Grading
o Staff review is currently underway
o Tentative Planning Commission public hearing – Dec 3rd, 2008
- Questions related to process and required approvals
o Can a conditional use permit be turned down by the City?
Meg McMonigal responds
o What is the watershed district’s role?
o Do projects go to Council if Planning Commission denies?
Planning Commission provides technical review and a recommendation to the Council; does
not approve or deny a project.
o How do City requirements for tree replacement work?
o What is the difference between the application to modify the floodplain and the watershed approval?
- BSM provides a formal review of project and intent
o Mary Jutland, BSM Building Committee & BSM Parent:
Review of current site, plan development process – info gathering done by BSM before even
beginning to start developing plans.
Cites changes that BSM hopes will provide benefits to neighboring properties, including
improvements to water management, creation of improved wetlands.
Changing the orientation of the south field to improve situation for neighbors to the south.
• To decrease noise and foul balls
Addressing the need for BSM to stay competitive in the marketplace for private schools.
• Current site is 29 acres, while many new High Schools are on sites of 80 acres.
- Technical questions for BSM
o Is junior high reconstruction part of this process?
No, it would have to be a future application.
o Is the project all or nothing?
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 35
Mary Jutland stated she is unsure; ultimately, the level of finish in the project will be based
on the donors. Mary stated that if fundraising goes extremely poorly, the project may not be
possible, and other, cheaper alternative solutions will be sought.
o Design of speakers for sound - will sound bleed off site? Will we be able to discuss specifics at this
meeting?
o Is the overall number of speakers increasing?
On the currently play, but the actual speakers have not yet been chosen.
o How will lighting increase?
At the new main field, there will be 4 poles that are 80-110’ in height that would hold the
lighting standards. The new lights would be designed to dramatically reduce the amount of
light leaving the site. The current poles are lower, but allow more light to fall off-site.
o Where will the wetland be moved?
Current practice field will become a replacement wetland.
o Could we select the type of luminary used for lighting?
Yes, that work had been planned to wait until after the approval process, but could be
accelerated.
o What type of trees are proposed, and will they provide screening and act as a sound barrier?
Tree replacement will resolve some of this issue, but trees do take time to grow. Proposed
are 3” trees, exceeding the typical 2.5” requirement of the City.
o Will the plan take into account deer resistance?
BSM will work with the City on this issue.
- Issues – Format asks the question of each attendee, going around the table several times until all known
issues have been raised.
1) Pedestrian Traffic
1. Around Princeton Court area, but also around the northern neighborhood
2) Water Levels
a) Impact on Twin Lake/Park/other wetlands
3) Traffic Patterns - Auto
a) Evening traffic
b) Day traffic
4) Noise
a) Will there be an echo off of the school that may bounce back into the neighborhood
with the new configuration?
b) Pre-game noise
c) Non-sport noise
d) Concurrent use of multiple fields – will this be more likely now? Would noise be
magnified if multiple fields are in use at once?
5) Light
1. Spill-over light into the neighborhood
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 36
2. Lighting of multiple fields at the same time
3. Would BSM keep all lights on, including new lights, for security?
6) Parking
a) Is there a need for one-side parking/city restrictions on Parkwoods Road?
7) Trees
a) Visual barriers
b) Placement
c) Aesthetics
8) Existing Field
a) Future usage
b) Why retain lights/speakers
c) Use of bleachers
(1) during games
(2) mornings
9) Frequency
a) Does BSM intend to rent the facility to other schools? If so, would this be a recurring
issue?
b) Field use-all combinations
a. Address how fields have been historically used, and how they might be used in the
future, including projections of use by season and sport.
c) Capacity/use by others – what is the maximum capacity?
10) Enforcement
a) Willingness to enforce by BSM
b) When does enforcement happen? How does the City handle this?
11) Acoustics
1. How well has the issue been studied? Will noise in neighborhood really be reduced?
12) Adjacent property values
1. How will changes at BSM impact property values? Is this even something that can be
determined?
13) Need for perimeter fencing
1. Could this be installed to prevent parking on Parkwoods Road?
14) Environmental impact/natural environment
1. How does this proposal relate to the natural environment and the ecology of the area?
15) Bubble or Dome?
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 37
1. BSM indicates that there is absolutely no intent to complete a bubble/dome, so this
matter is considered closed.
16) Noise
a) Content and vulgarity – is this reviewed by anyone at BSM?
− Missing information
(a) Data the 16 listed concerns and issues above
(b) Color site plan, showing trees to be removed and to be replaced
(i) Including the extent of the tree canopy today and after construction is finished.
(c) Sections
(d) Information on tree growth rate/canopy
(e) Non-sport noise plan
(f) Field usage plan-example for operations/programming
1. Projections based on 07/08 school year
(g) Overall sound consultant
1. including off-site impacts
2. day/night, fall/spring, wider sound analysis
(h) Put information online
(i) Sound
1. bands, boom-boxes
2. enforcement
(j) Visual for light and sound
(k) Construction traffic/routing
(l) Tree removal impact on lighting
- Positive aspects of the proposal
o Good site plan
o Negative impacts are minimized, BSM is trying
o Good use of small space
- Upcoming Meetings
o Proposed: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 38
o Will go forward with the 25th, only two participants cannot attend
o BSM will attempt to respond / show how plan has been improved to react to each neighborhood
concern at this time.
- Meeting ends at 8:35 p.m.
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 39
26TH ST WHIGHWAY 100 S25 1/2 ST W PARKWOODS RDCEDARWOOD RD
23RD ST W
STEPHENS DR
SALEM AVE SUTICA AVE SNATCHEZ AVE STOLEDO AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE SWESTRIDGE LNPRINCETON AVE SQUENTIN
CTHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 S26TH ST W
3555 Highway 100 - Benilde-St. Margaret'sMajor Amendment and Conditional Use Permits
$
December 17, 2008
3
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
400 FeetX
R-C POS
R-1C-2
R-1
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 40
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 41
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 42
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 43
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 44
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 45
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 46
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility Improvements Page 47
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility ImprovementsPage 48
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility ImprovementsPage 49
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility ImprovementsPage 50
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility ImprovementsPage 51
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility ImprovementsPage 52
Meeting of January 20, 2009 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Benilde-St. Margaret’s (BSM) Athletic Facility ImprovementsPage 53