HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/06/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 8, 2009
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 22, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. Highway 7 / Wooddale Project Update
3. 7:20 p.m. Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation Project
4. 8:20 p.m. Community Center / Civic Center
5. 9:05 p.m. Council Policy Question – Displays and Signage on City Property
6. 9:10 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. Energy & Efficiency Conservation Block Grants
8. Private Activity Revenue Bonds – Groves Academy
9. Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420
(Dakota Avenue So. to Louisiana Avenue So.)
10. 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report
9:15 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting Date: June 8, 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:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 22, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager meet to set the agenda for the study session on June 22, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
Attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion item for the study session on
Monday, June 22, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for June 22, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, June 22, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
1. 2010 Budget – Administrative Services/Finance (2 – 3 hours)
City Council and staff will undertake a detailed discussion about the 2010 budget. (This is a
follow-up to the work we started at the study sessions on April 13 and May 4).
Reports
May 2009 Monthly Financial Reports - Finance
Rail Consultant – Administrative Services
.
Meeting Date: June 8, 2009
Agenda Item #:10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2008 Inspections Department Activities Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The activity report is for your review only. Please advise staff of any questions you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Administrative Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
www.stlouispark.org
2008ActivitiesReport
Inspections Department
Construction Codes
Environtmental Health
Administration
Facilities Maintenance
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report Page 2
2 2008 Activities Report
Introduction
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
In 2008, the Inspections Department…
• Issued permits at $196 million in valuation
• Issued 7,000 storm related permits
• Performed over 26,000 inspections
• Expanded Rental Licensing Inspection Program
• Completed Soil Vapor Study
• And much more…
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report Page 3
2008 Activities Report 3
Highlights and projects
Valuation for building permits in 2008
totaled a significant $196 million as
compared to $127 million in 2007.
The large increase was due to the start
of the West End retail/entertainment
complex and a hail storm in May that
resulted in over 7,000 storm related
permits; siding, roofing, window or
door replacements. More storm related
permits are expected to be issued and
inspections will continue occurring
throughout 2009. To meet the inspec-
tion requests, additional temporary
inspectors were utilized. The cities of
Carver and Victoria assisted by renting
us available inspectors to assist with
the additional inspections created by
the storm related permits.
Significant daily public contact at the
second floor service counter included
an average of 150 phone calls and 60
customers visiting the counter each day
during the summer peak. The depart-
ment performed over 26,000 inspec-
tions in 2008.
Most of the programs administered
by the department are fee for service.
Permit and license fees are reviewed
annually to cover the costs of provid-
ing these services and they are not
born by the general tax base.
Expanded the Rental Licensing
Inspection Program to include
condominiums, townhomes and
cooperative housing ensuring that
all non-owner occupied residential
units are licensed and inspected.
Additionally, vacant properties will
now be required to have a license and
inspected to verify they are maintained.
To implement an efficient and effective
delivery of service to the city, a vacancy
created an opportunity to reclassify
the Department Secretary position to a
Permit Technician, and with a redesign
of the front counter, proved to increase
customer service and efficiency.
Major activities/projects were:
• Completed work with the US-EPA
and State agencies to complete
the Soil Vapor Study that affected
homes and businesses in the Elm-
wood and Sorensen neighborhoods.
This process entailed mailing
notices to property owners, hold-
ing public meetings and holding
one-on-one meeting with residents
when requested.
• Began the process for the renova-
tion and site improvements at the
Municipal Service Center.
• Began the public process for replac-
ing the two existing fire stations.
Participated in two neighborhood
meetings, one for the Elmwood
Neighborhood and one for the
Eliot/Eliot View Neighborhoods.
• City contact for filming of “A
Serious Man,” the Coen Brothers
film. Various meetings with the
representative of the production
company and representatives from
other city departments, to ensure
a smooth and safe filming with
little to no interruption for the
surrounding neighborhood.
Highlights and Projects
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
Photo: Focus Features
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report Page 4
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
4 2008 Activities Report
Construction Codes, Environmental Health
Construction Codes Division
Permits Issued Number of Permits
Building 7,523
Electrical 1,890
Mechanical 1,236
Plumbing 1,080
Sewer/Water 207
Cert. of 21
Occupancy
(change in use)
Total Permits 11,957
Significant Projects:
Melrose Institute, Methodist Cancer
Center, and The West End
Inspections Number of Insp
Building 12,356
Electrical 3,788
Mechanical 2,521
Plumbing 2,181
Sewer/Water 514
Cert. of 70
Occupancy
Total Inspections 21,430
Food Safety
The Health Inspectors performed
many other inspections in addition
to the annual licensed establishment
inspections. Plan review for 25 new and
revised food establishments occurred
in 2008 and also provided was food
safety inspections for the Parktacular
celebration, Farmers Market, Empty
Bowls and other temporary food events.
As part of the emphasis on educating
our customers, staff conducted
informational meetings with church
groups demonstrating the correct way
of serving food and beverages according
to the Minnesota Department of
Health Codes. This was a successful
venture of enlightening groups that
provide food service occasionally
to others, such as a potluck, which
according to MDH rules does not
require a temporary food license.
Enforcement Actions
There were a total of 15 formal
complaints and seven citations used by
department staff – mostly related to
property maintenance conditions.
Environmental Health Division
MDH Programs Number of Insp
Food and Beverage 220
Establishments
Swimming 67
and Whirlpools
Hotel and Motel 6
Buildings
Property Programs Number of Insp
Point of Sale 1,557
Multi-Family 132/1,720
Rental (bldg/units)
Non-Owner 349
Occupied Single
Family
Complaint Response 15
Property 816
Maintenance
Other Programs Number of Insp
Underground 35
Garages (CO Testing)
Graffiti Complaints 84
Bench Inspections 50
Total Inspections 5,036
Administrative Division
Permit Valuations
In Millions of $20042005200620072008250
200
150
100
50
0
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report Page 5
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
2008 Activities Report 5
Administrative Division
The Administrative Division staff operate the service counter for the inspections and community development
departments. Responsibilities include processing all permit applications and scheduling inspections for construction codes
and property maintenance staff. A total of 2,897 business and contractor licenses were issued in 2008.
Listed below are types of licenses issued annually and the number of each:
Business Contractor
Courtesy Bench - 50 Benches Mechanical - 239
Commercial Entertainment - 2 Solid Waste - 28
Environmental Emissions -11 Tree Maintenance - 51
Massage Therapy Establishments -30 Competency Cards - 173
Multi-Family Rental – Buildings - 298, Units - 6,988
Non-Owner Occupied S.F. Homes - 588 Temporary Services
Sexually Oriented Businesses low impact -2 Food Service - 43
Tobacco - 34 Outdoor Retail Sales - 2
Vehicle Parking Facilities - 44 Carnivals - 1
Pawnbrokers -1 Petting Zoo -1
Dog Kennels - 2 Solicitor Registrations - 50
Billboards - 30
MDH Delegation
Dog Licensing Food and Beverage Establishments - 215
1-2-3 Year License - 724 Public Sanitary Facilities - 51
Off Leash –Resident - 210 Lodging – Buildings - 6; Rooms - 792
Off Leash Non-Resident - 9
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report Page 6
6 2008 Activities Report
St. Louis Park Inspections Department
Facility Maintenance Division
Facility Maintenance Division
The Facilities Maintenance Division is an internal
support group with operating responsibility for City
Hall, Police Station, Fire Stations 1 and 2, Westwood
Nature Center, the Municipal Service Center, and
specific equipment functions. Long-term capital
improvements to these sites are coordinated by this
division including management of related construction
projects. The division assists other city departments
in the area of property management, residential/
commercial demolitions, and coordination of the City’s
participation in the Hennepin County Sentence-To-
Service (S.T.S.) program. This division also provides
fee-based management and maintenance services to the
Special Service Districts, 1- 4, with a fifth district being
added in 2009.
Major Capital Improvements for 2008 were:
• Exterior renovations to City Hall
(to be completed early 2009)
• Planning and design work on Municipal Service
Center Renovation project
• City Hall east stairwell update
• Replacement of City Hall elevator system
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report Page 7
Inspections Department
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 10)
Subject: 2008 Inspections Department Activities Report Page 8
Meeting Date: June 8, 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:
TITLE:
Highway 7 / Wooddale Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. The purpose of this study session topic is to continue the City
Council’s discussion on the current status of funding for this project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
How does the City Council wish staff to proceed on this project from a funding perspective?
Doest the City Council desire further information from staff to assist in making this decision?
BACKGROUND:
The City has been aware for some time of the funding challenges associated with this project. Recent
approval of approximately $3.5 million in stimulus money has helped deal with the funding gap.
However, an approximate $3 million gap still remains as noted below. On June 1 the City Council
discussed this gap and the options in general to pay for the City’s share of this project. During the
upcoming study session staff will assist the Council in continuing its discussion on this topic.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The latest estimate of cost and funding is as follows:
Expenditures
Construction $12,300,000
Right of Way $4,350,000 - $4,500,000
Preliminary Engineering/Admin $1,250,000
Construction Engineering/Admin $900,000
Total $18,800,000 - $19,000,000
Funding Sources
Development Agreement $69,000
Federal (STIP) Funds $5,885,000
Federal (Stimulus) $3,465,000
City (committed to date) $5,600,000
State of Minnesota (Construction Engineering/Administration) $900,000
Funding Gap $2,881,000 - $3,081,000
Total $18,800,000 - $19,000,000
Figures and funding sources as listed above are estimates and subject to change or adjustment at any time over the next couple of
months.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Highway 7 / Wooddale Project Update
City Councilmembers and staff have been in communication with Hennepin County for more than
a year to discuss their contribution towards this project given its proximity to the future LRT
station. Although indications have been given that Hennepin County could contribute $2 million or
more to this project, no firm commitment has yet been made. Furthermore, based on a recent
communication from the County, a commitment to provide this funding may not be possible until
the end of the year, and even then it is not certain. Best case, if the County did provide $2 million
in funding, the remaining gap amount of $881,000 would have to be funded by some other means,
most likely the City. Worst case, if the County does not provide funding, the approximate $2.9 - $3
million gap would likely have to be funded by the City in addition to the $5.6 million already
committed. Please note that if we do not move forward with this project as scheduled for 2009, we
will lose the federal stimulus funding committed to this project.
There are a variety of potential funding sources for this project. The HRA Levy has about $4
million collected to date as well as approximately $1 million per year that the levy generates. These
funds are available for infrastructure projects in redevelopment areas. General Obligation Bonds
could be used for the project. This would entail adding an additional debt levy onto our general
property tax levy, but could support all or a part the City’s remaining share of the full project cost.
The Development Fund is available in a sufficient amount to cover all or a part of the City’s
remaining costs of the project. These funds are basically unrestricted and available for any
redevelopment purpose that the EDA desires to accomplish.
Available Tax Increment from the Elmwood TIF District is also a tool available to the City. When
this district was set up about four years ago, the intersection of Hwy 7 and Wooddale was
intentionally included in the TIF district as a means to provide, if so desired, a funding source for
improvements to the intersection. The City requested and received legislative authorization to
extend the life of the district by seven years – from 15 to 22 years. This extension, along with an
extension of the five year rule, allows us additional flexibility to consider financing the City’s
remaining share of the Hwy 7/Wooddale project as well as other infrastructure projects in the
Elmwood area.
As staff looked at the above funding options for Hwy 7 and Wooddale, we considered them in light
of funding needs for the Hwy. 7 and Louisiana project. Currently, an approximate gap of
$15,000,000 remains in the funding of the Hwy 7/ Louisiana project. Staff is pursuing other federal
funds for this project but at this time there is no certainty we will be successful. Given that tax
increment is not available as a tool to help fund this project, staff is recommending that the
remaining City funding needs for Hwy 7 and Wooddale be financed with TIF from an extended
Elmwood TIF District. In this way, proceeds will be available from the other funding sources noted
above (HRA Levy funds, Development Fund and/or GO Bonds) to help pay for the Hwy 7 and
Louisiana project.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Highway 7 / Wooddale Project Update
As some additional background, there are a number of other public infrastructure projects in the
Elmwood area anticipated or desired to be funded by the Elmwood TIF district.
Projects in Elmwood TIF District
Project Amount
Hwy 7/Wooddale (remaining) $3,521,000
36th St. Streetscape $623,000
36th St./Xenwood Signal $250,000
Total Anticipated in District $4,394,000
36th St. Reconstruction $2,000,000
Wooddale Reconstruction $1,990,000
36th St./Wooddale Signal $500,000
Possible Unfunded Projects $4,490,000
Total PossibleElmwood TIF
Projects $8,884,000
The Hwy 7/Wooddale amount shown above of $3,521,000 yet to be paid requires some
explanation. The latest total cost showed that the project was estimated at $18,800,000 with a city
share of $5,600,000. The city share is comprised of $2,960,000 which was spent on the Dworsky
property (already paid from the Development Fund) and the Soomekh property (already paid from
the Excelsior Blvd TIF District) and other engineering and right of way costs. We have paid about
$1,300,000 toward engineering and consultant work so far and expect to pay at least another $1.346
million for additional right of way. Since these two areas have not yet not been offset by any other
permanent funding source, staff considers them to be a liability against the final funding source
determined to be used for the City’s remaining project costs. It should also be noted that the $3.521
million figure assumes Hennepin County will contribute $2 million towards the approximate $3
million funding gap noted earlier.
The projected TIF from the Elmwood district, as noted in the following table, is sufficient to pay for
the pay as you go obligations in place and the anticipated Elmwood infrastructure projects noted
above. It may not be sufficient to pay for all the costs associated with the “Possible Unfunded
Projects” listed in the table above based on timing and inflation of costs. However not everything in
the table may be needed in the immediate future, nor is the Elmwood TIF district the only potential
source of funding for these projects.
As noted in the following table, based on the assumptions used, about $8.2 million in present value
TIF would be available to pay for infrastructure in the Elmwood area. The projections do not
assume any growth in value or change in the tax rate applied to St. Louis Park properties, so they are
relatively conservative.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Highway 7 / Wooddale Project Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project assists us in becoming a more connected and engaged community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Elmwood TIF District
Special Legislation Extension 7 Years Starting 2023
Existing Greco Hoigaard's
Rottlund TIF Potential TIF Potential TIF Net Available
2011 473,000 473,000
2012 473,000 473,000
2013 473,000 473,000
2014 473,000 473,000
2015 473,000 473,000
2016 473,000 473,000
2017 473,000 473,000
2018 473,000 473,000
2019 473,000 166,000 639,000
2020 473,000 166,000 639,000
2021 473,000 166,000 639,000
2022 473,000 166,000 639,000
2023 473,000 166,000 760,000 1,399,000
2024 473,000 166,000 760,000 1,399,000
2025 473,000 166,000 760,000 1,399,000
2026 473,000 166,000 760,000 1,399,000
2027 473,000 166,000 760,000 1,399,000
2028 473,000 166,000 760,000 1,399,000
2029 473,000 166,000 760,000 1,399,000
Total 8,987,000 1,826,000 5,320,000 16,133,000
Present Value (5%) 8,252,516
Meeting Date: June 8, 2009
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is requesting direction on how to proceed with the project based on current developments.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to proceed with the current MSC remodel and addition at a higher than
expected cost?
Or
Does the City Council wish to reject the current bids and ask that other options be pursued as noted
in this staff report?
BACKGROUND:
The MSC was originally constructed in 1971 with an additional bay added in 1986. There have
been no significant renovations to the building since the addition and the facility has begun to show
many operational and code deficiencies. Capital planning for city facilities was accelerated 2 ½ years
ago following the emergency re-inforcement of the apparatus floors in both fire stations. To
facilitate reconstruction of Fire Station No. 1, an addition at the MSC was felt necessary to
accommodate the Utilities Division Operations staff and serve as a temporary station during fire
station reconstruction.
A needs assessment study was undertaken to determine the condition of the existing Municipal
Service Center and improvements needed to accommodate relocated services. Based on these
findings, the City entered into a contract with Oertel Architects to design the renovations with an
initial budget of $6 million, all inclusive. Please note that this initial budget was developed based on
very preliminary estimates and no detailed study. The project design team included representatives
from each of the affected departments/divisions who met frequently to develop the proposed plans
with the architect. The result of this collaboration between city staff and the architect has resulted in
a very efficient and practical renovation plan for the building that will meet the city’s needs for the
foreseeable future and fully utilizes the limited space available on the site. This project will also
allow for temporary use by the Fire Department during their reconstruction process.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation Project
During the design process, the architect’s updated cost estimate indicated that the construction costs
would be greater than originally proposed. This increase was the result of detailed analysis which
identified corrections that needed to be made to address building and site deficiencies. The budget
increase was also the result of the philosophy that the final project should be done with the long
term facility needs of the City in mind. In response to this higher estimate, staff and the architect
eliminated non-critical components of the design including a storage mezzanine, covered exterior
storage bins and a dedicated welding bay. Even so, staff and the architect reported back to the City
Council on April 6, 2009 and requested we increase the project budget to $7 million based on the
architects latest cost estimate of $6.1 million for construction alone.
On April 20, 2009 City Council approved the plans and specifications for the project and
authorized staff to advertise for bids. Bids were received and opened on Thursday, May 29, 2009.
Nine firms submitted bids for the base project and alternates. The low bid is $8,164,000 from a
very reputable midsized contractor. The bids ranged from $8.16 million to $8.63 million with five
bids in the $8.4 million range. This indicates that the plans and specifications were well written and
designed. At the point we went out for bid, the architect’s estimate for the base bid was $6.1 million.
DISCUSSION:
The low bid for project construction received was $8.164 million from a reputable mid-size
contractor, approximately $2 million more than the architect’s final base cost estimate at $6.1
million. After reviewing their estimates, the architect admitted that they made a significant error in
estimating construction costs. It appears most of the underestimation were in three major categories
- mechanical, electrical and site work. Staff has once again evaluated the project as designed and is
confident the project meets the original design objectives of the city now and into the long term
future. The design is straight forward and meets the minimum building code, zoning code, and site
development criteria of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Discussions with the architect determined it is not feasible to reduce the project cost by $1-2 million
based on the current design. In order to reach this goal it would require a complete redesign of the
project. Additionally, it is important to note that approximately $1 million of the cost is in site
improvements consisting of paving and stormwater improvements. This cost would be fixed
regardless of the size a redesigned building.
Timing of this project is critical due to the fact that if we do not start construction soon the building
will not be available for re-occupancy prior to winter. If this building is not started in July,
construction would not be far enough along to allow city staff to provide basic city services out of
this facility during the winter. Additionally, any longer delay would result in the project having to
be delayed until the 2010 construction season. This would have a cascading effect by delaying
construction of the fire stations by one year.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation Project
All review and permits have been completed and approved for this project by both the City and
outside agencies (Watershed District and MPCA). All city departments have reviewed and
approved the plans and are permit ready. Other preparations to begin construction of this plan have
been made including entering into a lease for the space at ARCA property to use the lot as a
temporary operations center. City staff has already graded the area and are ready to bring in
temporary storage structures. If the proposed project is delayed or redesigned the approval process
with the other agencies and within the city will need to be reinitiated.
The bid remains valid for 60 days from the bid opening date of May 28, 2009. If the city is going
forward with acceptance of the low bid for this project, the City Council would need to take action
on June 15 or July 6th at the latest in order for construction to begin this year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
PROJECT BUDGET
The current base budget for the project is $7 million (not including bid alternates). This consists of
an estimated $6.1 million construction cost and $900,000 for other costs for a total of $7 million.
Based on the current low bid of $8,164 million, the total project budget will need to be revised to
approximately $9.5 million as itemized below:
Base Bid: $8,164,000
Alternate #1 (20-year roof
system upgrade) 120,000
Alternate #2 (Interior painting of the
new bays) 38,000
Proposed Contract: $8,322,000
Other Costs:
Architects Fee $ 494,000
Miscellaneous Expenses 20,000
Telecommunication 25,000
Security 5,000
Office Furniture 100,000
Conference Room Furniture 10,000
Operating Expenses 50,000
Contingency 400,000
Total Overall Cost $9,426,000
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation Project
A standard rubber roof is included in the base bid. Staff believes that accepting the alternate will
result in a roofing system with a longer service life and therefore a lower annual life cycle costs. Staff
believes painting the new bays (Alternate #2) during construction would allow future reductions in
lighting by significantly brightening the interior.
If Council wishes to accept additional environmentally friendly bid options of solar based domestic
hot water at $29,000 and sky lights in the operating bays for $150,000, the overall budget will
increase approximately $179,000. Staff is discussing with the architect a lower cost natural lighting
alternative which will be discussed before the awarding of bid.
PROJECT FUNDING
Based on the original $6 million budget, the funding proposed was $4 million in Utility Revenue
bonds (already sold) and $2 million from the Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIRF).
The additional $1 million project cost in March 2009 was also proposed to be covered by the PIRF.
If the city were to proceed with the current bid amount, the budget would need to be increased to
$9.5 million less any bid alternates not used as noted above. If the City Council wished to proceed
with this project, the financing approach proposed by the staff and supported by Finance Director
Bruce DeJong would include:
Bonds $ 4.0 million
Solid Waste Fund 1.0 million
PIRF 4.5 million
Total $ 9.5 million
Utilizing $1million from the Solid Waste Fund is justified by the fact that staff and equipment that
administer our solid waste and recycling program are to be relocated to the MSC and the Solid
Waste Fund has sufficient reserves with approximately $1.5 million remaining to fund operations.
The PIR Fund has a current balance of $8.6 million. The use of $4.5 million will significantly
reduce the flexibility associated with the fund, but with $4.1 million of remaining fund balance, the
city will retain the ability to finance smaller but important special assessment projects in the future as
well as use the fund for other purposes as has been done in the past.
Staff will provide a more detailed explanation of the financing approach and related implications
during the study session.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation Project
SUMMARY:
Based on the information provided to you, staff believes there are four options to be considered:
Option #1 – Proceed with the project as designed with a revised budget of $9.5 million using the
funding scenario outline above (less any bid alternates chosen not to be used).
Pros
• Meets long term design objectives
• Corrects all the existing building and site deficiencies
• It allows for Fire Station No. 1 construction in 2010
• Long term solution – provides capacity for now and the future
• The bid range was very tight indicating plans and specifications were excellent
• Based on the current bid we are getting excellent value for the current building design.
Cons
• The total actual cost and impact on City funds
• Public perception
Option #2 – Reject the current bids and redesign the MSC addition and remodeling project.
Pros
• Costs could possibly be reduced
• Allows time to reconsider approach to meet facility needs
Cons
• Defers project to 2010
• Reapplication to all agencies where permits are required
• Delays fire station construction
• Could compromise long term viability
• Overall costs would probably increase
Option #3 – Reject bids and stop current track of facility planning for MSC and Fire Station
projects and reassess the course of action being taken.
Pros
• Allows opportunity to completely rethink approach being used to upgrade facilities
Cons
• Uncertain if result will be improved over current track e.g. costs may be increased
• Assumed this option will take quite some time e.g. 1 or more years. Not certain what
implications this might mean for structural stability of fire station apparatus floors.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation Project
Option #4 – Reject bids, relocate Utilities Division staff and equipment and Fire staff and
equipment to temporary facilities, undertake fire station project, and rethink/redesign MSC project.
Pros
• Allows fire station project to proceed
• Allows time to reconsider approach to MSC project
Cons
• Uncertain if results will be improved over current track being used.
• Need to find temporary location for fire station staff and apparatus during fire station
construction.
• Need to find temporary location for Utilities Division staff until decision on MSC is made.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is admittedly very frustrated and disappointed over what has transpired with the architects
project cost estimate as compared to the actual bid results. Obviously, we all would have preferred
to have been aware of the likely cost of this project last March/April.
However, after stepping back and looking at this project in its totality, staff would still recommend
that the Council consider Option 1 for the reasons noted above. The proposed project has been well
thought out, has involved all affected staff in its design, and meets the long term needs of the City
while at the same time being practical and functional and not lavish in its design. The project meets
all zoning codes for building materials (which has added considerable cost) and considerably
improves our environmental stewardship of the site and its impact on the creek. From a financing
perspective, the City has been blessed with reserves that allow us to help fund this project. While the
recommended drawdown of the PIR and Solid Waste fund is no small matter, these funds will still
have the capacity to serve the City as they have traditionally done in the past.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project is consistent with the City Council’s Strategic Direction related to environmental
stewardship.
Attachments: Bid Tabulation
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation ProjectPage 7
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation ProjectPage 8
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 3) Subject: Municipal Service Center Expansion/Renovation ProjectPage 9
Meeting Date: June 8, 2009
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Community Center / Civic Center.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback on the information provided in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council want Staff to undertake a more detailed needs analysis and assessment of
additional desired community/recreational facilities and amenities in the City of St. Louis Park?
Is this the right time to obtain information regarding additional facilities/amenities?
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2007, the Council adopted the “Vision Strategic Directions – 18 Month Guide”.
After the adoption of the guide, a Vision team was assembled to work on the Strategic Direction “St.
Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and the specific focus area
of exploring the creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use.
At the September 2, 2008 City Council Study Session, Staff discussed this strategic direction data as
it relates to exploring the creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. Attached
is the copy of that detailed Study Session report.
Common Threads
During the vision process, there were a variety of suggestions received for additional community
facilities. As the Vision Team reviewed input from the Vision SLP process, a number of common
and important themes became very apparent. These themes, which seem to be critical issues for
participants in the Vision process, were: affordability, indoor unstructured recreation space,
transportation & accessibility, and the arts. In many areas of the input received through the Vision
process, a strong message was sent concerning the affordability of any new facilities, whether added
or improved. Many respondents were very clear that if we build it, it is critical to keep it affordable
for families and individuals in our community. Based on this information, it appears extremely
important to prevent as many financial barriers as possible.
There were a significant number of comments from Vision participants who specified the need for
new and/or improved indoor unstructured recreation spaces. These spaces would include open gyms
which are not scheduled with activities, walking areas, indoor play spaces, and drop-in gathering
spots. Clearly, the residents are requesting indoor facilities which promote healthy and active
lifestyle recreation – especially during the long Minnesota winter season.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
Artistic programming, display space, performance space, and art education facilities were also a high
priority in the data collected from the community. The information received in this area was varied.
Many realize that there are larger art centers in our surrounding suburbs and suggested that there
isn’t a need to duplicate. It was also noted that several performance areas currently exist within our
city.
Information Received In The Last Decision Resources Survey
Although the Vision survey identified a lot of interest for expanding our current Rec Center or
adding additional amenities in another location, our recent Decision Resources Survey, indicates that
our existing recreational facilities are adequate.
The following questions were asked relative to recreational facilities:
“In general, do you feel that existing recreational facilities offered by the City meet the needs of you
and members of your household?” Ninety-three percent viewed existing recreational facilities
adequate for meeting their household member’s needs:
Yes ..................................93%
No ....................................3%
Don’t know/refused..........4%
Respondents that noted shortcomings in our facilities were asked: “What additional facilities would
you like to see the City offer its residents?” Indoor facilities like a playground and pool were
mentioned by this small group of people.
Other Ideas In Addition To the Community/Civic Facility Idea
Staff and certain Council members have also been asked by various user groups to consider
partnering on two other community projects. The first is the addition of turf on the St. Louis Park
High School field. This would create a multi-use area that could be used by many youth athletic
groups, high school sports, as well as youth and adult recreation programs. The second desired
facility is an outdoor refrigerated ice rink(s) for use by the youth hockey league and other
community members. This facility would provide outdoor ice for approximately 3 ½ to 4 months
rather than the 2 months we maintain outdoor ice at the local park areas.
Next Steps
Based on the information received from Vision and the latest Decision Resources Survey, staff needs
direction on whether or not we should pursue this area further. We are unclear about what the
community desires, what the priorities might be, and what the community would be willing to pay
for additional facilities. Although the residents of St. Louis Park and Vision committee members
have provided a tremendous amount of information concerning ideas for the future of being a
connected and engaged community, the interests are varied and diverse.
If the City Council desires staff to move forward on this, staff will prepare and bring back a specific
needs assessment/analysis process for Council review.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Any projects of significant magnitude would need to be paid from funding source other than the
Park Improvement Fund (GO Bonds?). The Park Improvement Fund is used for replacement of
existing facilities and would not be able to handle a potentially large project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked directly to the Vision Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community.
Attachments: September 2, 2008 Study Session Vision Report
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
Meeting Date: September 2, 2008
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:
Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Direction/Focus Area Update.
Focus Area:
• Exploring Creation of a Multi-Use Civic Center, including indoor/winter use.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council to provide feedback on the information provided in this report.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the direction outlined in this report in alignment with the expectations of the City Council?
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2007, the Council adopted the Vision Strategic Directions – 18 Month Guide. Since
adoption of the 18 month guide, Vision team members have been working on each of the Strategic
Directions and related Focus Areas. As discussed at the Council work session in February, staff will
present information for Council consideration on each Vision focus area now through September
2008.
The following Strategic Direction and related focus area will be discussed at the meeting:
Strategic Direction - St Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
Focus area:
• Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use.
The Vision Team Members involved with working on this focus area include: Adam Fulton, Ali
Fosse, George Foulkes, Mike Harcey, Nate Rosa, Jim Lombardi, Darla Monson, Jim Olson, Rick
Birno, Ann Boettcher, Cary Smith, and Craig Panning.
The following process was implemented by this Vision Team:
• Reviewed goal of Vision Team.
• Reviewed and prioritized citizen input.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
• Identified and evaluated current facilities.
• Developed list of survey trends.
• Toured various public, private, and non-profit community centers.
• Created lists of facility priorities based on citizen input.
• Developed a list of benefits for expansion of the current Rec Center.
• Developed a list of negative aspects for the expansion of the current Rec
Center.
• Created and reviewed a list of alternative locations for a new multi-use
civic center.
• Discussed and developed a list for potential collaboration and
partnership opportunities.
• Completed final report for senior staff and City Council.
Initial Thoughts
The Multi-Use Civic Center Vision Team was organized through the direction of the City Council
to explore the need for a community based multi-use civic center. The outcome of this report is
based on current demands and needs, evolving trends and changing lifestyles. As Vision Team
members processed through community input data it was with the understanding that the number
of households with children has declined, more individuals are living alone and the community has
become more diverse with an increasing number of non-English speaking residents. Adults are
staying active longer, individuals raised on youth athletics are seeking to maintain active lifestyles
and interest continues to grow in non-traditional healthy lifestyle recreation opportunities. The
Vision Team believes its ultimate goal is to provide direction for new amenities to the city council
and senior staff that inspires personal growth, healthy lifestyles and a sense of community for all
residents. This can be achieved by creating amenities which are flexible, support the community, are
not duplicative, and are economically sustainable. Potential partnerships and collaborations were
explored at length in this process and are believed to be key resources to accomplish future goals.
Simply stated, the overriding objective for an expanded or new multi-use civic center would be to
design and implement facilities and amenities that are accessible for all residents, thereby eliminating
physical and financial barriers. In addition, it is critical that we create gathering places which offer a
vast selection of programs, events, and interpretive opportunities that support healthy and active
lifestyles. All new and expanded facilities must be designed to meet the needs of a culturally rich and
diverse demographic population.
Common Threads
As the Vision Team reviewed input from the Vision SLP process, a number of common and
important themes became very apparent. These themes, which seem to be critical issues for
participants in the Vision process, were: affordability; indoor unstructured recreation space;
transportation & accessibility, and the arts. In many areas of the input received thru the Vision
process, a strong message was sent concerning the affordability of any new facilities, whether added
or improved. Many respondents were very clear that if we build it, it is critical to keep it affordable
for families and individuals in our community. Based on this information, it appears extremely
important to prevent as many financial barriers as possible.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
There were a significant number of comments from Vision participants who specified the need for
new and/or improved indoor unstructured recreation spaces. These spaces would include open gyms
which are not scheduled with activities, walking areas, indoor play spaces, and drop-in gathering
spots. Clearly, the residents are requesting indoor facilities which promote healthy and active
lifestyle recreation – especially during the long Minnesota winter season.
Many Vision participants were concerned about the lack of transportation options to access
programs and facilities. A primary goal for any new or expanded facility should be to eliminate as
many transportation and physical barriers as possible.
Artistic programming, display space, performance space, and art education facilities were also a high
priority in the data collected from the community. A number of respondents suggested an all-
inclusive art center be considered as an important amenity for St. Louis Park.
Vision SLP Input – What’s Working/Dreams & Wishes
The following list contains responses from participants in the Vision process specific to our endeavor
and came from the categories “Dreams & Wishes” and “What’s Working.” Responses are listed in
order based on the frequency of the response i.e. the top response in each category was the one most
frequently mentioned.
What’s Working
Wolfe Park
Excelsior and Grand Link to Rec Center
Green spaces/ parks
Bike & walking trails
Older adult classes
Amphitheater
Rec Center
Concerts in the Park
Farmer’s Market
Dog Park
Aquatic Park
Free parking
Good playgrounds
Facilities for small children
Tennis courts
Perspectives Afterschool Program
Appropriate City Hall
Kids art opportunities
Youth programs
Sense of family/community
Central Location of Opportunities
Parktacular event & location
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
Youth athletic associations
Community involvement
Fishing
Exercise classes
Children valued in community
Convenience of city (best kept secret)
Sledding
Roller Garden
Dreams & Wishes
Connectivity:
Place for kids/teens to hang out
Center for the Arts
Expanded community-wide events
Indoor park
Indoor swimming pool
Ethnic celebrations
Indoor place for families
Additional skateboard parks
Community bus transportation for kids
More affordable after school activities
New Rec Center
Rec Center for teens
More concerts
More employment opportunities for SLP kids
City should purchase Texa-Tonka
Rec Center with adult focus
Batting cages
Open gym for tots
Promote arts
Health:
Expand Rec Center
Affordable family friendly exercise facilities
Healthy lifestyles programs
Community health care facility (indoor gyms/fitness center)
Low impact/healthy eating lifestyle program
Indoor water park
Community craft/art fair
More health clubs
Gender specific activities at the pool
Cross-country ski trails
Expand Farmers Market
Increase recreational activities for older adults
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
Dreams & Wishes
Health (continued):
Public gyms for drop-in use open 24/7
Expand Aquatic Park
Indoor ice rinks
Exercise show on city cable channel
Transportation:
More bike and walking trails
Expand bus transportation
Mini-shuttles to various locations
Circulator buses
Better transportation for kids
Transportation to the Rec Center (summer and non-school days)
Inter-park transportation
Skateboarding trails
Free transportation to community events
Special Urban Places:
Beautification of city
More open spaces
More gardens/trees
More parks
Performing Arts Center
More arts and culture
Expand vendors at farmers market
Keep parks updated
Rec Center more affordable
Keep indoor ice rinks open and maintained
More dog parks
Small town feel
Rec Center accessible for all ages
Day camps for kids
Talent Theatre
More programs for teens and adults
Rec Center wonderful place for families
Gym at Rec Center
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
Dreams & Wishes
Special Urban Places (continued):
Expand hours of farmers market
Light tennis courts
Low cost amusement park
Something like "The Depot" in Hopkins for kids
Trails/Signage on trails
Community Center for handicapped
Embrace Children First
City should purchase Meadowbrook Golf Course
Trends:
Affordability
Arts
-Center
-Performing
-Display
-Education
Open/drop-in gym space
Healthy/low impact programs and facilities
Teen facilities
Adult facilities
Family Facilities
Indoor recreation spaces
Transportation
Accessibility
Others???
New/Expanded Facility Priority
Based on the community input and the trends throughout the Vision information supplied to the
Vision Team, the following contains the committee’s suggestions for new/expanded amenities
listed in order of priority – high, medium, low.
High
Unstructured indoor recreation space
Indoor walking track
Multi-use/flexible indoor space
Artistic performance, education, and display facilities
Low-impact/healthy lifestyle program space
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
High (continued)
Indoor play structure for youth
Additional gymnasiums
Teen specific gathering places
Expansion of outdoor aquatic park
Improved transportation opportunities
Expanded community rooms and banquet facilities
Medium
Affordable fitness facility
Daycare drop-off facility
Healthy lifestyle education space i.e. cooking lab
Farmers’/Flea Market dedicated outdoor space
Multi-sport training area
Artificial turf fieldhouse
Low
Indoor skate park
Cross country ski trails
The Rec Center
The Vision Team spent a considerable amount of time discussing the possibilities of expanding The
Rec Center. As an outcome of this discussion a list of positive and negative aspects was developed.
Positive Aspects for Expanding the Rec Center
Infrastructure
Addition of parking ramp with expansion facility above the ramp
Good location
Good access options
Support staff in place
Ability to improve technology
Possibility to implement “green” initiatives
Property owned by the City
Civic use property available at Bass Lake Park
Excelsior and Grand partnerships
Located close to new city center
Known environmental issues – no surprises
Negative Aspects
Poor entrance ambience for certain events i.e. weddings
Limited on-site parking
Building system mechanicals
Limited land for expansion
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 11
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
Negative Aspects (continued):
Loss of green space with building expansion
Increased traffic
Engineering costs are higher for expansion than for new construction
Contaminated soil issues
Expansion possibilities limited by ice arenas/water park
Expansion may limit future plans for the water park
Unusual access to certain areas due to previous remodeling
Alternative Locations
The listings below are locations identified by the Vision Team as areas for the potential development
of a new multi-use civic center or for specific amenity additions through partnerships.
Eliot School Central Community Center
All elementary schools Junior High School
Senior High School The West End
Wayside House Texa-Tonka mall property
Roller Garden property Burlington Coat Factory property
Civic pad at Bass Lake Park Rainbow Park and adjacent building
Former Volkswagon dealership property Knollwood Mall
STEP building property adjacent to trail Al’s/dry cleaners/hotel property
Rec Center
This list is simply the result of brainstorming large potential sites with extensive parking and
locations that may offer partnerships. No research has been done to determine if any of these
suggestions are available or feasible for a multi-use civic center or partnerships. An example of the
Vision Team’s thought process is Central Community Center. Recognizing the school district may
need to downsize the number of elementary schools, the thought process was that it might be
possible that Park Spanish Immersion would leave Central Community Center and relocate to an
open elementary building. This would allow a possible partnership with the school district to
implement community amenities which have been identified in this report. Thus creating a benefit
for residents, a partner for the school district and a fiscally responsible plan for the addition of new
facilities at Central Community Center.
Another example for the partnership of new facilities with one of the above options would be the
addition of gyms, a walking track, and an indoor children & family play area constructed at a local
elementary school. The school district would be able to make use of the expanded gyms during the
day; residents could make use of the walking track and the indoor play area throughout the day and
into the evening. Gym use would convert to public use after school. This scenario would allow for
several cost reduction benefits including shared staffing, existing infrastructure, and no property
acquisition cost. No conversation has taken place with the school district regarding any of these
potential amenities. These are just examples of the brainstorming we pursued to generate potential
sites.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 12
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
Collaborations & Partnerships
The Multi-Use Civic Center Vision Team believes that the future and fiscal stability of new or
expanded amenities will be more efficient and successful if they are based on partnerships and
collaborations. Listed below are some potential partners and collaborators who may provide
opportunities for the amenity improvements identified in the community survey.
Partner/Collaborator Area/Facility
SLP Fire Department New fire stations
SLP Police Department New training facility
Jewish Community Center Fitness areas/theater
Park Nicollet Cardiac fitness facility
City of Golden Valley Joint venture
City of Edina Joint venture
City of Minnetonka Joint venture
Private fitness facilities Discounted resident rates
Friends of the Arts Theater and Art Facilities
Family service providers/Non-Profits Potential tenants
Hennepin County Library Artistic display space
SLP school district Eliot School
SLP school district Amenity additions – all potential sites
Private developers Artistic display
Wayside House Shared programming space
Park Nicollet Eating Disorders Clinic Healthy lifestyle programming space
St. Louis Park Historical Society History programming space
St. Louis Park Community Theater Group Community Theater
Benilde Athletic facilities/theater
Concerns
Through this process two concerns repeatedly surfaced as the committee worked through options
and opportunities. The first issue questioned whether there truly is a need for a fitness center owned
and operated by the City of St. Louis Park. Community residents enjoy a multitude of indoor
fitness center options from both the private sector and the non-profit sector. Lifetime Fitness and
Bally’s both currently operate in the city. It also appears that L.A. Fitness will be locating a facility
on the former Planet Ford site. The Park Nicollet Cardiac Fitness Facility offers low-cost fitness
memberships to the general public, as does the Jewish Community Center. In addition to these
facilities, a number of budget-conscious micro facilities have opened in St. Louis Park including
Snap Fitness, Contours, It Figures, Blast Boxing Fitness Center and Curves. Some of these are
gender specific facilities. Both the non-profit and most of the private sector facilities offer
professionally trained staff to assist with physical fitness plans. Residents of St. Louis Park also have
the opportunity to utilize Williston Fitness Center, located in Minnetonka, at resident rates through
a reciprocal agreement with the City of Minnetonka. After examining all of the options available to
residents and considering the overall theme of affordability, the Vision Team would not recommend
pursuing a fitness center owned and operated by the city. It seems evident the city would not be able
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 13
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
to sustain fiscal stability in this competitive environment. It was also pointed out by committee
members that this summary of fitness centers considered only those in St. Louis Park while many
residents may take advantage of facilities in bordering communities as well. All committee members
felt it may be advantageous to consider creative options and partnerships with existing facilities. It
was the committee’s belief this might be a solution to creating family-friendly, affordable, fitness
options for residents.
The other concern repeatedly raised was whether the city needs one large multi-use center or specific
facilities in varying locations throughout the city. After much discussion, it is fair to say the group
believes multiple locations on currently owned public property, whether city owned or school
district owned, would be preferential to the large multi-use facility. One model discussed was to add
an indoor multi-use play space for families and children at The Rec Center; new gyms and an indoor
walking track at one of the community elementary schools; construct an art center for artistic display
and art education on the civic pad at Bass Lake Park; and partner with Wayside House to rebuild a
facility that would accommodate their needs and allow healthy lifestyle programming space for
municipal programs. This is just one possible model discussed as an option to implement many of
the dreams and wishes highlighted thru the Vision process. Most of these improvements would be
constructed on currently owned public property, offer many potential partnerships for operational
use, and are likely to be economically sustainable. Most sites are in close proximity to The Rec
Center and parking is sufficient at these locations. The implementation process to add these
facilities could be done systematically over a long-range capital plan. Finally, each new addition
would provide the community with amenities not currently available and would also create new
community gathering places.
Overheard at the Water Cooler
Over the past five to ten years, the Parks and Recreation Department has been contacted with
requests for facility and amenity improvements. Listed below are the requests from the community,
which this department consistently receives, but were not reflected in the input received thru Vision.
• Additional gymnasiums
• Improve and expand outdoor Aquatic Park
• Add synthetic turf on outdoor facilities for soccer, lacrosse and football
• Add multi-use athletic field lighting for evening and fall athletics
• Work with school district to improve indoor aquatic facilities
• Additional full size baseball fields
• Outdoor refrigerated ice rink
• Outdoor racquetball courts
• Additional splash pad
• Micro dry-land training center for hockey
• Add additional lighting on tennis courts
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time, but there is a possibility for significant future budget impact if facilities are added.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 14
Subject: Community Center / Civic Center
NEXT STEPS:
The residents of St. Louis Park and committee members have provided a tremendous amount of
information concerning ideas for the future of being a connected and engaged community. Staff
recommends using a survey tool or other community input process to help refine the priorities of the
community for any future amenity improvements or expansions. At this time, the interests are
varied and diverse. Staff would propose working with the Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRAC) to develop a survey tool. This survey process could be linked to the upcoming community
survey planned to be conducted this fall by Decision Resources.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This item is linked directly to the Vision Strategic Direction: St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community.
And the focus area:
• Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use.
Attachments: None.
Prepared by: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 8, 2009
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Council Policy Question – Displays and Signage on City Property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Councilmember Paul Omodt has asked that this topic be placed on a Council agenda for
consideration as a future policy discussion. The policy discussion would be centered around what
types of signage, displays, flags etc should be allowed on City property, vehicles, equipment,
buildings, etc.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire staff to research this matter further and develop a policy for City
Council consideration?
BACKGROUND:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 8, 2009
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 8, 2009
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Energy & Efficiency Conservation Block Grants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. St. Louis Park is eligible for $198,300 in Energy and
Efficiency Conversation Block Grant (EECBG) funds. To receive funding, the city must submit an
application to the Department of Energy (DOE). Staff is recommending that the monies be used to
conduct lighting retrofits in city buildings and traffic/pedestrian signals.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This item will be on the 6/15/09 Council meeting for formal approval. Does the Council support
staff’s request to apply EECBG grant funding for lighting retrofits in city buildings and
traffic/pedestrian signals?
BACKGROUND:
The EECBG program was created in December 2007 and funded in February 2009 through the
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). The program is designed to help U.S. cities and
territories, counties, Indian tribes, and states achieve energy efficiency by developing and
implementing energy conservation projects and programs that improve energy efficiencies and
reduce consumption.
EECBG funding can be used for a variety of purposes, including material conservation,
transportation programs, rebates and revolving loans, installation of street lights and energy efficient
traffic signals, government building retrofits, and renewable energy technologies. To receive
funding, the city must describe how the grant will be expended.
As you are aware, McKinstry and Company is helping the city identify potential energy savings in
our city buildings and facilities. McKinsty’s draft analysis indicates that installation of LED lights in
traffic/pedestrian signals and lighting retrofits in city buildings will result in a good payback and
annual utility savings. From a staff perspective, the lighting retrofits for the Police Station, MSC
and Rec Center and the traffic/pedestrian LED installations are attractive because they will meet the
intent of the EECBG program, they are relatively easy to administer, and they should provide for
immediate energy savings for the city. Once the McKinstry report is complete, staff will set aside
time to discuss the overall findings at a future study session.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Energy & Efficiency Conservation Block Grants
The EECBG grant deadline is June 25, 2009 and the DOE expects the review process to last
between 90 – 120 days. Once approved, the funds would be released to the city approximately 30
days from award notification. Assuming the DOE process stays on schedule, the city could start
work on the project by late fall/early winter.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
EECBG funding allotment is based on a formula funding developed by the DOE. St. Louis Park’s
portion is $198,300. In addition, the LED lights and the lighting retrofit will be eligible for rebates
from Xcel so that staff can further leverage the grant funding. Staff has evaluated the preliminary
cost estimates for the work and believes that the lighting retrofit and LED installation can be
accomplished with the grant and rebate funding.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship by increasing
environmental consciousness and responsibilities in all areas of city business.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 8, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Private Activity Revenue Bonds – Groves Academy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. This report is intended to update the City Council on a request which has been
made to the City for the issuance of private activity revenue bonds.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to undertake the action as proposed? This action is consistent with our
approved policy for issuing private activity revenue bonds.
BACKGROUND:
Groves Academy is requesting that the City of St. Louis Park issue private activity revenue refunding
bonds for the purposes of financing an expansion of their facilities. The principal amount of the
Series 2009 bonds will be approximately $4,000,000.
Groves Academy has completed the necessary planning and zoning processes to allow them to
expand their campus. They will also be financing internal improvements to their facilities to
enhance their educational operations.
The process for issuing these bonds will include a public hearing which is proposed for the meeting
of July 6, 2009. After the public hearing has been closed, the City Council will be asked to consider
a resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds through Stifel Nicolaus, who is operating as the
placement agent for this transaction.
We previously issued bonds for Groves Academy in 2001, which were refinanced in 2004. Those
bonds have been successfully repaid.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Groves Academy will provide a new application along with a fee of $2,500 in accordance with our
policy. These bonds are not obligations of the city in any respect. They are payable solely from
revenues of the Groves Academy. They will also pay a fee of 1/8th of one percent (in two semi-
annual payments) to the city on based on the amount of bonds outstanding each year. These monies
will be deposited in the city’s Housing Rehabilitation fund.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject Private Activity Revenue Bonds – Groves Academy
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Attachments: Description of the project from Kennedy & Graven
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Private Activity Revenue Bonds – Groves Academy Page 3
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Private Activity Revenue Bonds – Groves Academy Page 4
Meeting Date: June 8, 2009
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420 (Dakota
Avenue So. to Louisiana Avenue So.).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the planning and project development
activities associated with this project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
History
In 2002, the Hennepin County Transportation Department began the process of developing plans
for the reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard from Xenwood Avenue (Highway 100) west to
Louisiana Avenue. The purpose of the project is to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, improve
capacity for vehicles, restore the pavement to an adequate condition, and add
streetscaping/landscaping to create a more attractive pedestrian environment.
As part of the plan development process, several meetings were held with residents, businesses,
Council, and staff. This process eventually led to approval of the preliminary layout by the City
Council in May of 2005. The layout approved reflected much of the input and suggestions received
from stakeholders throughout that process.
The Hennepin County Transportation Department is nearly complete with the final plans for the
next phase of the Excelsior Boulevard improvements (Phase 5 - Dakota Avenue to Louisiana
Avenue). Similar to the last phase completed in 2008, the final phase from Dakota Avenue to
Louisiana Avenue will continue with a similar reconstruction, including streetscaping enhancements,
water main replacement and storm sewer improvements, including a portion along Dakota Avenue
north of Excelsior Boulevard. Phase 5 will also include replacement of the bridge over Minnehaha
Creek.
During the project development of the previous phase (Xenwood to Dakota Avenue), a special
service district was established to provide for the maintenance activities required for the upkeep of
the streetscape elements. The district includes the area from Xenwood to Louisiana Avenue.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420
The project was originally scheduled to commence construction in the spring of 2009 but was
delayed to the spring of 2010 by Hennepin County to better accommodate their construction
program schedule.
Recent Activities
Hennepin County is nearing completion of the final plans. The city is assisting in the preparation of
the plans for the streetscaping work and water main work through use of our consultants.
Representatives from the City, Hennepin County and Mn/DOT recently met to discuss project
timing and coordination between the two major construction projects that will occur in the city in
2010; the TH7/Wooddale Interchange Project and the Excelsior Blvd Street Improvement Project.
Since TH7 and Excelsior Boulevard are two important east-west thoroughfares for city and area
motorists, it will be important to coordinate the staging of the two projects with special
consideration given to the timing of road closures and the establishment of detour routes.
Hennepin County has determined that Excelsior Boulevard will need to be closed for possibly three
(3) months to remove and replace the Minnehaha Creek Bridge. During the Excelsior Boulevard
closure, the likely detour route would direct traffic to TH7 using Blake Road west of the project area
and TH100 east of the project area. The road closure is tentatively scheduled to begin in the spring
of 2010.
Mn/DOT and the City’s consultant, SRF Consulting Group, are developing staging plans for the
construction of the TH7/Wooddale Interchange Project that will take into account the additional
traffic from the Excelsior Boulevard detour. It is not desired to have the additional Excelsior
Boulevard detour traffic use TH7 while there are lane closures on TH7 during the interchange
construction. If is not possible to properly stage both projects to accommodate the east-west traffic
through the city, delaying the Excelsior Boulevard Project may need to be considered. As a result,
the City, Hennepin County and Mn/DOT are maintaining close contact and coordination while the
plans for both projects move forward toward completion.
Next Steps
A public informational meeting has been scheduled for June 24, 2009. The meeting will be held in
the City’s Council Chambers. A mailing area has been established which includes residents and
business owners in the Brookside, Creekside, Meadowbrook, Brooklawns and Elmwood
Neighborhoods. The purpose of the meeting is to present final plans of the project, discuss impacts
during construction, and gather input and comments from the public.
During the month of July, staff will seek Council approval of the final plans and approval of a
cooperative construction agreement with Hennepin County for Phase 5 of the Excelsior Boulevard
Street Improvements.
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420
Project Schedule
The following project schedule has been proposed by Hennepin County. This schedule assumes
coordination of the Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange project with this project and so could be
subject to change.
Study Session Update to Council June 8, 2009
Public Informational Meeting June 24, 2009
Council Approval of Final Plans and Construction Agreement July 20, 2009
Hennepin County Board Approvals and Mn/DOT Approvals August to November 2009
Advertise for Bids November/December 2009
Bid Opening December 15, 2009
Award Construction Contract February 16, 2010
Commence Construction April 12, 2010
Project Completion November, 2010
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The total estimated cost of the project is $6,161,806 with the city’s share estimated at $1,922,070.
Funding sources include EDA Funds, Utility Funds, and other funding sources being worked out
with the County.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The improvement considers the Vision Elements under Transportation that supports a
transportation system that is safe for its users and neighbors, supports pedestrian and bicycle travel,
and strives to be simple, convenient, safe, and inexpensive for everyone.
Attachments: Project Layout
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Scott Brink, City Engineer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 8, 2009 (Item No. 9) Subject: Project Update: Excelsior Boulevard Street Improvement Project - Project No. 2004-0420Page 4