HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/08/10 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA
AUGUST 10, 2009
6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 24, 2009
2. 6:35 p.m. Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
3. 7:05 p.m. Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn
property)
4. 7:35 p.m. Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
5. 8:35 p.m. Highway 7/Wooddale Ave. Project Funding
6. 8:50 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
7. Update on Freight Rail Study
8. Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update
9. Budget Update – Sidewalk and Trails Snow Removal Operations
10. Status of 7317 Lake St. West – Former Site of Flame Metals
11. Cable TV Production Van Replacement
12. Hoigaard Village Redevelopment Contract Extensions
13. Browndale Park Neighborhood Association Sign/Bench Request
9:00 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: August 10, 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 – August 24, 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the study session on August 24, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
Attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the study session on
Monday, August 24, 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for August 24, 2009
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Tentative Discussion Items
Study Session, Monday, August 24, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Update on Hwy 7/ Louisiana Ave. Project - Public Works (45 minutes)
Public Works staff will provide the Council an overview of where things stand from a design
perspective and discuss next steps.
3. Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy – Finance (90 minutes)
The Finance Director, City Manager and Council will continue the discussion on the
proposed 2010 budget and the proposed tax levy for 2010. This is the second of two
meetings in August to discuss the budget and preliminary levy.
4. Audit Services for 2009 – Finance (15 minutes)
Does the Council wish to solicit bids for 2009 audit services or extend the existing contract
with Abdo, Eick & Meyers, L.L.P?
5. Council/EDA Salaries – Administrative Services (20 minutes)
City staff will lead Council in a discussion about salary levels. Does the Council wish to
make adjustments to the Council/EDA salaries?
6. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
Monthly Financial Reports (July 2009) – Finance
Change Order Approvals – Update the Procedures – Administrative Services
Land Sale Proceeds Policy: Urban Reforestation – Parks & Recreation
End of Meeting: 9:35 p.m.
Meeting Date: August 10, 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:
Status of 7317 Lake St. West – Former Site of Flame Metals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested.
BACKGROUND:
A recent property transaction shifted ownership of the building and property from Milastar
Corporation (Flame Metals) to A & D Holdings, LLC. A Property Maintenance Certificate had not
been issued. Staff from Inspections, Fire and Community Development departments conducted a
property maintenance inspection on July 28, 2009 as part of the Property Maintenance Certificate
(PMC) program required before property sale.
The inspection report identified several code violations that must be corrected. The four pages of
items include many electrical, plumbing, and general maintenance repairs. Most significant will be
the need for a structural engineer to review a portion of the roof structure, removal of anhydrous
ammonia and underground propane tanks, and verifying the existing water well condition with the
Minnesota Department of Health. Additionally, the gravel driveway and parking lot is Zoning
Code non-conforming and must be paved.
As this property transferred without a PMC or temporary PMC being issued, A & D Holding, LLC
is now responsible as property owner to develop a plan and correct the deficiencies before selling.
Any proposed use, either from a leasing tenant or possible buyer, will need to be reviewed for a
Registration of Land Use and Certificate of Occupancy. Any change of use from the existing
manufacturing occupancy will require compliance to current State Building Code regulations and
additional city requirements.
Conversations with Mr. Reg Plowman of A & D Holdings indicate a plan to sell the property.
Some possible uses have ranged from storage to a day care facility. The property is now zoned IG-
General Industrial and would permit typical industrial uses involving warehousing, manufacturing,
and offices. Other uses allowed in the General Industrial district include catering, freight terminals,
autobody repair, auto repair and outside storage. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan update proposes
changing the land use designation to “Business Park”. The Business Park designation is a new land
use proposed in the 2030 plan and is in the process of being defined. It is anticipated that it would
allow minimum impact light industrial/office type uses, and that outdoor storage, autobody/repair,
and similar industrial uses would not be permitted. The definition of Business Park, and subsequent
zoning amendments, are subject to Planning Commission review and Council approval. This review
is expected to begin later this year.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Status of 7317 Lake St. West – Former Site of Flame Metals
Staff will be meeting with the owner on August 6th to further review the inspection report and
discuss future plans for the site.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 10, 2009
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Cable TV Production Van Replacement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested. Staff is providing this report in advance of bringing a
recommendation to the City Council at an upcoming meeting to authorize the replacement of the
van and equipment.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Policy questions the City Council may wish to consider relative to this matter include:
1) Is the Council comfortable with the proposed process for van and equipment replacement as
outlined in this report?
2) Is the Council comfortable with the proposed interim solution for Cable production
activities and programming while a new van and equipment are procured?
BACKGROUND:
During the course of Cable TV franchise agreement negotiations from between 2004 and 2006, the
city learned that the cable company intended to discontinue its Local Origination (LO)
programming. LO in the past covered youth and high school sports, Concerts in the Park, high
school graduation, the Parktacular Parade and other community events. The City Council decided
this programming was a valuable community asset, and as part of the negotiations the city agreed to
take over the LO operations and responsibilities. This involved adding the equivalent of 1 full time
and 3 part time positions to our staff, and the transfer of all aged LO equipment, including cameras
and its production vehicle. As part of the current franchise agreement, the city received a $1.1
million equipment grant (paid over time) from the cable company specifically for replacing the
production van and its equipment and meeting the other equipment needs of the city’s Cable TV
operations through the end of the franchise agreement in 2021. It was recognized by all parties that
the van and equipment had already exceeded its useful life and would need to be replaced at a
significant cost. Still, the city has managed to get an additional two and one half years out of the van
and equipment by making some repairs and a limited amount of equipment replacement. This use
ended in July, unfortunately, when city mechanics deemed the vehicle no longer safe to operate and
with no payback in repairing.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: Cable TV Production Van Replacement
About the van:
The van itself is approaching 30 years of age, well beyond the useful life of other vehicles in the city
fleet. It has been plagued with problems since the city took possession in late 2006 and city
mechanics believe without significant investment (with little or no return on that investment), the
vehicle would not even meet current Department of Transportation standards for safety and
emissions.
The van is used an average of three times weekly. Utilizing the van enables the city to produce high-
quality, multi-camera productions, including announcing and graphics, the ability to produce live
programming, and the flexibility of mobility.
About the equipment:
While the life cycle of television equipment and related technologies varies, we generally budget the
life of our equipment to have a seven- to 12-year life cycle. The main equipment and components in
the van, including the multi-camera system used for the cable operations mentioned above, date to
the late 1980s. This 20-year-old equipment is prone to failure, difficult to repair, has little vendor
support due to obsolescence, and will not meet the future demands of Cable TV. Except for some
scheduled replacements that will be budgeted for in future years, the bulk of the new equipment and
the new van are expected to last through the end of the franchise agreement and beyond. Equipment
replacements are already scheduled from the $1.1 million cable company equipment grant
mentioned earlier.
The type of equipment in the current van, however, will meet the existing needs of our staff.
Therefore, the truck and equipment replacement will truly be a replacement. We will not be
requesting new types of equipment that will do new things; they will simply do existing tasks much
more efficiently and have vendor support. Also, with all of the equipment in working order, staff
plans to be able to bring much more live television coverage to our viewing audiences, including live
hockey, football, basketball and other sports, Concerts in the Park and more. We will have the
ability to go live from The Rec Center and the Senior High School.
Interim Cable TV Operations
It’s estimated the procurement, configuration and delivery of a new Cable TV production van will
take six months. With the van now out of service and not recommended nor scheduled to be placed
back into service, there are several things we no longer can cover in the same way that we have until
this point. This includes Concerts in the Park and fall sports (Football, volleyball, Boys and Girls
Soccer) at St. Louis Park High School and Benilde-St. Margaret’s High School. Not being able to
cover the fall sports in the manner we have in the past during this interim period of time is
unfortunate; however, staff believes we could still meet the community need by producing a bi-
weekly sports show. The show would be able to cover football, volleyball, soccer, cross country, girls
tennis and other amateur sports. Staff would be able to get video at many events and we would
utilize the School District studio to produce the show. In addition, staff may work on a temporary
two-camera solution that may enable some sports productions.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Subject: Cable TV Production Van Replacement
In addition to these show, during this interim period of time the city could take advantage of the
existing staff to produce a variety of videos related to city operations, programs, etc. Staff has a list of
programs that we’d like to do that are similar to our “Selling Your Home in St. Louis Park” video or
our “Dryer Vent Safety” video that are extremely popular with viewers both on our cable channels
and on our website. Staff would also be able to continue some special programming such as some
school concerts, etc. and assist the staff on the other channels. The absence of the van does not affect
our ability to produce our monthly program “Inside the Park!,” our weekly program, “Park Update,”
Council meetings, School board meeting and other meetings.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Council approved as part of the 2009 Capital Improvement Program, $304,000 for the replacement
of the Cable TV Production Van and related equipment. The funding for these purchases comes
directly from the $1.1 million Equipment Grant that is part of the Cable TV fund. It’s important to
note that the $1.1 million may only be used for the purchase of Cable TV related equipment per
FCC rulings. It cannot be used for salaries, transfers to the general fund or any other use. Staff has
completed equipment need projections through the end of the franchise agreement and finds the
grant balance to remain quite healthy through the end of the franchise and possibly beyond.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Cable TV operations are vital to the city’s commitment to keeping residents connected and engaged.
The programming offered because we’re able to do on location work is by far our most popular
programming produced. In addition, programming produced using the cable tv resources is also
made available for live web streaming and video on demand on the city’s web site, which is also
increasing in popularity.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 10, 2009
Agenda Item #: 12
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Hoigaard Village Redevelopment Contract Extensions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide staff with any feedback council members might have on Union Land II’s request for an
extension of the commencement and completion dates for Phase 1 Stage 2, and Phase II Stage 3 of
the Hoigaard Village project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This matter is scheduled to be brought to a future EDA meeting for action. The policy issue to
consider at that time is –
Does the EDA support Union Land II’s request for extensions of the commencement and
completion dates for Stages 2 and 3 of the Hoigaard Village project?
BACKGROUND:
On February 21, 2006, a Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC (Redeveloper) was
approved in which the Redeveloper committed to acquire 6 parcels (generally at the northwest
corner of 36th Street and Highway 100), consisting of a combined 9.6 acres, remove the existing
structures, remediate the contaminated soils, and prepare the area for redevelopment. In their place,
the Redeveloper agreed to construct a two-phase, four-stage, mixed use redevelopment called
“Hoigaard Village”.
Phase I includes two stages and is to be constructed along the north side of 36th Street between
Xenwood and Webster Avenues. Stage 1 consists of a five story, vertical mixed use building
(“Harmony Vista”) that faces 36th Street. The building has approximately 25,000 square feet of
commercial space on the ground floor and a total of 74 condominium units on the upper four floors.
Stage 2, to be built directly behind the mixed use building on the same block but along the south
side of 35th Street, is to consist of a 58 unit condominium building (“The Adagio”) with below
ground parking.
Phase II, also includes two stages (stages 3 and 4), and is to be constructed on the north half of the
site. Stage 3, built along the north side of 35th Street between Xenwood and Webster Avenues, is to
include 22 rowhouses (“Medley Row”) with below ground parking. Stage 4, at the far north end of
the site, includes a 220-unit, luxury apartment building called “The Camerata” which was
completed late last year.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 12) Page 2
Subject: Hoigaard Village Redevelopment Contract Extensions
Also incorporated into Phase II is a regional stormwater pond that will serve the northern portion of
the Elmwood neighborhood.
Upon completion, Hoigaard Village will have a total of 274 housing units (132 condominium units,
22 townhouse units, and 220 apartment units) and 25,000 square feet of commercial space.
To date, 78% of the housing units have been completed along with the regional pond and central
green which includes outdoor art.
To facilitate the project the EDA agreed to provide up to $5.2 million in Tax Increment Financing to
reimburse the Redeveloper for certain “Public Redevelopment Costs” incurred in connection with the
redevelopment of the site.
On July 10, 2006, a First Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract with Union Land II LLC
was approved which made five clarifications to the original Contract.
On March 5, 2007, a Second Amendment was approved which revised the commencement and
completion dates for three of the project’s four Stages. However, due to a more aggressive
construction schedule, the final completion date for the entire project was moved forward four
months from December 31, 2008 to August 30, 2008.
On April 28, 2008, a Third Amendment was approved which revised the commencement dates and
completion for three of the project’s four Stages and provided the Redeveloper with an additional
$200,000 in tax increment financing to partially offset greater than anticipated environmental
remediation costs.
Requested Extensions of Project Commencement and Completion Dates
Union Land II LLC has requested an extension of the commencement and completion dates for
Phase 1 Stage 2 (the 58 unit condominium building called “The Adagio”) and Phase II Stage 3 (the
22 rowhomes called “Medley Row”) of the Hoigaard Village project due to adverse economic
conditions within the housing market. According to the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment
Contract, Medley Row was to have commenced February 1, 2009 and be completed by Dec 31,
2010. The Adagio was to have commenced April 1, 2009 and be completed by April 1, 2010. The
Redeveloper maintains it will be unable to construct the townhome and condo buildings until
market conditions become more favorable. Therefore, Union Land II has requested its required
commencement dates for both stages be extended to October 1, 2010 and that their required
completion dates be likewise extended to Dec 31, 2011. The proposed revised construction schedule
is summarized as follows:
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 12) Page 3
Subject: Hoigaard Village Redevelopment Contract Extensions
REVISED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Phase/Stage
Commencement
(Per 3rd Amend.)
Commencement
(Proposed)
Completion
(Per 3rd
Amend.)
Completion
(Proposed)
Phase I/Stage 1
Harmony Vista
June 1, 2006
June 1, 2006
(No Change)
Feb 28, 2008
Feb 28, 2008
(No Change)
Phase I/Stage 2
The Adagio
April 1, 2009
October 1, 2010
April 1, 2010 Dec 31, 2011
Phase II/Stage 3
Medley Row
February 1, 2009
October 1, 2010
Dec 31, 2009
Dec 31, 2011
Phase II/Stage 4
The Camerata
July 1, 2007
July 1, 2007
(No Change)
Sept 1, 2008
Sept 1, 2008
(No Change)
The Redeveloper has therefore requested a Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract
reflecting the proposed commencement and completion dates.
Next Steps
Staff would appreciate receiving feedback on the Redeveloper’s requested contract amendment.
Unless staff hears otherwise, it will proceed with the preparation of a Fourth Amendment to the
Contract and schedule it for formal consideration in the coming weeks.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The proposed contract extensions reflect the current market reality relating to condominium and
townhome sales in the Twin Cities. The construction delay means that the Redeveloper’s
reimbursement of TIF-eligible expenses related to these stages will likewise be delayed.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Meeting Date: August 10, 2009
Agenda Item #: 13
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Browndale Park Neighborhood Association Sign/Bench Request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. Given the attention this property has received in the past, staff felt it
appropriate to provide this update to the City Council.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Please inform staff of any questions or concerns you might have with this proposal.
BACKGROUND:
The Browndale Neighborhood Association is proposing to design and install a new sign/bench in
Browndale Park on the corner of Browndale Avenue and Morningside Road. The proposed
sign/bench will be located on park property and out of the right of way. Staff has been working with
the association and has approved the initial concept. The sign/bench will be constructed of limestone
colored block with an engraved stone “BROWNDALE PARK” in the middle of the curved
structure. There will be pavers at the base of the structure on the front of the sign and plantings on
the backside. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and the City Development Review
Committee have reviewed the signage proposal and approved the concept. If approved, construction
would begin this fall.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The sign will be funded and maintained by the neighborhood association. The City will have a
contract with the neighborhood association. The responsibility for maintenance and future
improvements to the sign will be the responsibility of the neighborhood association. The City will
not be incurring any cost now or in the future for this project.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The Browdale neighborhood is a very active and involved neighborhood association. Staff believes
that what they are asking to do fits with our vision statement of “St. Louis Park is committed to
being a connected and engaged community”
Attachments: Sign/Bench Drawings
Prepared by: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent
Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 13)
Subject:Browndale Park Neighborhood Association Sign/Bench Request Page 2
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 13)
Subject:Browndale Park Neighborhood Association Sign/Bench Request Page 3
Meeting Date: August 10, 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:
Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested. This item has been placed on the agenda as a follow-up to the budget
discussion held by the City Council and staff on June 22.
During the upcoming study session Police and Public Works staff will review the current process
being used to tag, tow, and plow streets during snow events. Staff will then outline possible changes
to this process, as suggested on June 22, related to tagging and towing simultaneously versus having
a separate process for each action, and how any possible changes would affect snow plowing
operations.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish staff to further pursue changes to the City’s current policy and approach
for tagging and towing vehicles during snow events?
BACKGROUND:
The current approach for tagging and towing vehicles is based on a policy the City Council adopted
in 2004. Attached is a staff report and resolution adopted by the City Council at that time.
Currently, tagging and towing cars during a snow event is a two step process which can take 1 ½ to
2 days to complete. In addition, exempt zones are not ticketed until day two, so towing in exempt
zones might be on the third day of the snow event. As discussed at the June 22 meeting, tagging and
towing cars simultaneously during a snow event, and completing this process citywide in a timely
manner, would require a shift to a more aggressive policy on towing and would likely result in many
more cars being towed. Additionally, there are a number of logistical and budgetary challenges
associated with this shift which must be evaluated against the expectation of improved service and
efficiency.
ANALYSIS:
During the past few years police and public works staff have been meeting at the beginning and end
of each snow season to discuss the process for coordination of tagging and towing efforts with snow
plowing during snow events. It has been the conclusion of both staffs that, with minor adjustments,
the process has been working very well and the streets are being cleaned in an efficient manner.
There has been some confusion surrounding the rules for exempt zones, and it appears that in some
cases residents are complaining about police not tagging and towing in certain areas when, in fact, it
is just a day later in our process.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
In order to evaluate the creation of a one step tag/tow process for snow events, the following list of
considerations will need to be discussed:
• Re-open or amend the towing contract to address storage space/capacity issues and the
number of tow trucks required by this type of process
• Estimate overtime for the number of police officers needed to tag and tow 250-300 cars in
an 8-12 hour period (tow fee could be added to offset)
• Alternative strategy for storms where snow volume and drifting prevents squad cars from
driving on unplowed streets due to risk of getting stuck
• Continued existence of exempt zones
• Continued issuance of special parking permits
• Exceptions- car parks on street after squad has tagged and towed but before snowplow has
gone through
• Discuss coordination between squad cars/snow plows and how it might or might not work in
this process. Because time tables for snow events are varying and unpredictable,
coordination between police and public works for a one-step process would be extremely
difficult.
Public works staff will provide perspective on how this approach would impact the efficiency and
effectiveness of snow plowing during snow events.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
More analysis would need to be undertaken.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: 2008-2009 Snow Season – Tagging and Towing Statistics
Winter Parking Exemptions and Permits Map
Staff Report and Resolution from 2004
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
Winter 2008-2009
During the 2008-2009 winter snow season there were five snow events that met the City's criteria
for tagging and towing.
• Snow Event #1 240 Citations 52 Tows
• Snow Event #2 170 Citations 30 Tows
• Snow Event #3 269 Citations 25 Tows
• Snow Event #4 364 Citations 101 Tows
• Snow Event #5 360 Citations 19 Tows
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
REPORT FROM SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
8d. Snow Removal Enforcement Policy
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution which outlines the approach to be
used by City staff to enforce the City’s ordinance relative to snow
and ice removal on streets in the City of St. Louis Park.
Background:
Several operational and administrative changes were made to the Snow Removal program for the
2003-2004 winter. The winter parking ordinance, snow and ice control policy, and organizational
structure were all revised in an effort to improve the level of service to our residents. The old
ordinance prohibited residential parking from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. once snow accumulation reached two
inches. The new ordinance prohibits residential on-street parking anytime snow accumulation
reaches three inches, until plowed to the curb. On-street parking is also allowed (via exemptions) in
most commercial areas and apartments buildings with only one parking stall for each dwelling unit.
Lastly, the City allows (by permit) households with no off-street parking to park up to two vehicles
on the street.
During a study session on August 23rd, staff reviewed the snow removal operations undertaken last
season and specifically discussed the enforcement component of the City’s snow removal program.
As a part of this discussion, staff presented Council with five different snow removal enforcement
options. Attached is a copy of the staff report that was sent to the Council.
As a result of the discussion, the City Council asked staff to utilize the second option listed in the
staff report. This option indicated that the Police Department was authorized to begin issuing
citations to vehicles parked illegally on-street after three inches of snow had accumulated, regardless
whether the vehicle had been plowed in or not. Council also asked the Police Department to use
discretion as part of tagging and towing due to any extenuating circumstances that might exist.
Staff feels that it would be helpful to our residents as well as the Public Works and Police
Department if the Council adopted a resolution which specifically outlined the snow removal
enforcement policy.
Attached is a resolution which is intended to carry out staff’s understanding of the Council’s
direction. The policy states the following:
• The Police Department is authorized to begin issuing citations for vehicles illegally
parked on-street when three or more inches of snow have fallen. A citation may be
issued whether or not the vehicle has been “plowed in”.
• To coordinate the towing of vehicles with the City’s private contractor for vehicles that
have been issued a citation and have not been moved. Towing should begin within
twenty-four hours from when a citation has been issued.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
• To use discretion in the issuance of citations due to unusual or extenuating
circumstances related to a snow event (this includes, but is not limited to, other calls for
service to the Police Department such as accidents or medical calls).
• Overtime costs associated with enforcement should be held within reasonable limits and
in alignment with annual budgetary considerations.
Next Steps:
If the Council should approve the resolution, staff will take steps to remind and inform the
community of our snow removal program and enforcement measures in the City’s Park Perspective,
website, and other avenues.
Attachment: Resolution
Staff Report from August 23
Prepared By: Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
REPORT FROM AUGUST 23, 2004 STUDY SESSION
2. Snow Removal Operations Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To recap snow removal operations undertaken in 2003/04 and
specifically discuss the enforcement component of the City’s snow removal program. The results of
this discussion will then allow staff to make necessary adjustments to the snow removal program for
the coming season and provide time to inform residents.
BACKGROUND: Several operational and administrative changes were made to the Snow
Removal Program for the 03/04 winter. The winter parking ordinance, Snow and Ice Control
Policy, and organizational structure were all revised in an effort to improve our level of service to our
residents. The old ordinance prohibited residential parking from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. once snow
accumulation reached two inches. The new ordinance prohibits residential on-street parking
anytime snow accumulation reaches three inches, until plowed to the curb. On-street parking is also
allowed (via exemptions) in most commercial areas and apartment complexes built with only one
parking stall for each dwelling unit. Lastly, we allow (by permit) households with no off-street
parking to park up to two vehicles on the street.
Overall, staff feels the 03/04 snow removal effort went very well: The new organizational structure
provided supervisors with more control of their people; the more restrictive parking ordinance
created a safer operating environment with more responsive start times; and the revised Snow and
Ice Control Policy enabled a more accurate accounting of the snow removal services provided. More
specifically:
• Operators noted considerably fewer cars parked on the streets (especially the first half of the
winter)
• Completion times went from 12:30 p.m. to 9:30 a.m. (even with 2 fewer routes),
• Significant manpower efficiencies were achieved by allowing every division to retain control of
two staff members (as opposed to zero in previous years) to carry out daily operations.
Although many areas of the snow removal operation went very well, Public Works has a continued
concern about on street parking.
Early on, compliance with the winter parking ordinance was fairly high: operators estimated about
75% of vehicles that used to park on the street were complying with the new ordinance and utilizing
off-street parking. Unfortunately, Public Works believes compliance with the parking restrictions
dropped significantly during the second half of the winter: operators estimated compliance had
dropped to about 25-50%, depending on the route. On average, Public Works, Police and the City
Manager’s office received 6-8 enforcement-related complaints each storm. Most complaints involve
a lack of compliance and can be paraphrased as follows:
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 8
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
• “I moved my car but my neighbor didn’t and he wasn’t tagged,”
• “My neighbor parked in front of my house so the front of his house is cleared, mine isn’t,
and he wasn’t even tagged,” and
• “My neighbor’s car hasn’t moved in several days and it’s still not tagged.”
DISCUSSION: Staff is requesting Council feedback on how well it felt the snow removal
operation went last year. Staff is also requesting specific direction on what level of enforcement staff
should use in enforcing our winter parking ordinance.
Prohibiting parking during more significant snow falls (3 inches or greater) offers several advantages
for the snow removal effort:
• Creates a safer, obstruction-free environment (curb-to-curb)
• Enables faster completion times because trucks don’t have to slow down to go around cars
• Increases overall responsiveness of snow removal effort by significantly decreasing clean up
effort on Day 2—subsequent activities (private sidewalk tagging, snow hauling, etc.) would
also be completed sooner
Currently, patrol officers begin tagging after cars are plowed-in. Officers tag into the night/next
morning until the entire city has been covered. If needed, Officers getting off shift are held over
and/or others called in to assist in the tagging effort. Cars are only towed if they have not moved
after being tagged for 24 hours (this timeframe may be longer than 24 hours based on availability of
PD staff). Exempt/permitted areas have a 24-hour grace period to the above scenario. A parking
ticket is $33. Recovering a towed vehicle can cost over $100. A list of ticketed and towed vehicles
from last winter is included as Appendix A.
The City Manager, Public Works and Police have held several meetings in an attempt to identify
and discuss enforcement options. The following enforcement options were identified as alternatives
for Council discussion and selection:
1) Current practice: Tag plowed-in cars within 24 hours; begin to tow if unmoved after 24
hours (tagging and towing effort is based on availability of PD staff as time permits)
Advantages:
• Precedence: This is the enforcement policy used last winter
• Cost Effective: Minimal (if any) overtime needed; PD can cover the city within 24 hours
Disadvantages:
• Although PD starts tagging when plows move into neighborhoods (around 5:00 a.m.), officers
are frequently tied up until after 9:00 a.m. resolving traffic issues
• It’s easier for the public not to comply with the current parking ban (restrictions)
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 9
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
2) Begin tagging cars after 3” snow accumulation – complete the first day; begin to tow if
unmoved after 24 hours (tagging and towing effort is based on availability of PD staff
as time permits)
Advantages:
• Timely: Tagging effort can start as soon as 3” of snow accumulates
• Cost Effective: Minimal (if any) overtime needed
• Fair: Everyone susceptible to being tagged
Disadvantages:
• May be viewed as overly-aggressive
3) Tag all cars, after 3” of snow accumulation, even if not plowed-in, by 8:00 a.m.; begin
to tow if unmoved after 24 hours (towing is based on availability of PD staff as time
permits)
Advantages:
• Timely: Tagging effort can start as soon as 3” of snow accumulates
• Fair: Increases the likelihood that most parking offenders will be tagged
Disadvantages:
• May be viewed as overly-aggressive
• Very costly, PD estimates it would take an additional 6 officers (on overtime, solely dedicated
to the tagging effort) to cover the city within 6 hours
4) No enforcement the first day of storm; begin to tow all plowed-in cars 12 hours after
snow removal effort is complete
Advantages:
• Simple: Eliminates all permits and exempt areas; residents have at least 12 hours to find a
cleared parking spot
• Most Fair: Everyone treated equally, homeowners, business owners, and renters.
Disadvantages:
• Could fail if enough parking space can’t be cleared within first 12 hours to allow for legal
parking (apartment complexes are very susceptible to failure; right now, only one side of
adjacent streets are exempted)
5) Do not enforce, or enforce on complaint only
Advantages:
• Cost Effective: No overtime needed because very limited tagging will occur
• Consistent: Some other ordinances are enforced on complaint only
Disadvantages:
• Compliance with the parking ban (restrictions) is expected to drop to low levels
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 10
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
SUMMARY: Recent changes in St. Louis Park’s winter parking ordinance have focused
considerable attention on our enforcement policy. Public Works staff is very concerned that resident
failure to obey parking restrictions will cause snow removal operations to revert to pre-1998 status—
resulting in service levels which did not appear to be acceptable to residents or City Council. We are
asking for Council comments on the enforcement component of the City’s snow removal program.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
1 – What issues, if any, does Council have with snow removal operations (streets, sidewalks, trails,
rinks, or parking lots) or enforcement?
2 – Are facilities being cleared soon enough? Well enough?
3 – Would delaying the completion of street snow removal operations from mid morning to mid
afternoon (normal storm) be a concern?
4 – Does Council have a desire to change enforcement from our current practice, option #1 above?
(If so – which option is preferred?)
5 – Are there other strategies (besides enforcement) that can be used to maintain a high degree of
compliance with the parking ban during removal operations?
6 – Should the parking ban (restrictions) be removed or discontinued?
7 – Can the parking ban exempt areas and parking permit requirements be removed or deleted (i.e.,
implement a complete parking ban)?
8 – Should operations or enforcement be different on weekends than on weekdays?
9 – CORE SERVICE QUESTIONS:
• What is the latest time desired (normal storm) for completion of street snow
removal operations (day 1)?
• How aggressive should enforcement activities be? (i.e., none, tag before removal
begins, tag during removal, tag after removal, tow before removal)
Attachment: Appendix A
Prepared by: Mark P. Hanson, Public Works Operations Superintendent
Kirk DiLorenzo, Police Captain
Reviewed by: Mike P. Rardin, Public Works Director
John Luse, Police Chief
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 11
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
Appendix A: Tickets and Tows by Date
Date Tickets Tows
Nov 25, 2003: 80 29
Dec 9-10, 2003: 139 39
Jan 26-27, 2004: 185 24
Feb 1-2, 2004: 140 12
Mar 5, 2004: 59 0
03/04 Winter Total: 603 104
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 2) Page 12
Subject: Snow Operations-Tagging/Towing Vehicles
RESOLUTION NO. 04-115
SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO PUBLIC
STREETS IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, The City Council has adopted Ordinance #2251-03 establishing snow removal
parking restrictions in the city; and
WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to ensure safe, efficient and cost effective snow
removal operations on public streets in St. Louis Park.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Louis Park Police Department, in
cooperation/coordination with the Public Works Department, is directed as follows:
• To begin issuing citations for vehicles parked illegally on-street when three or more inches of
snow have fallen. A citation may be issued whether or not the vehicle has been “plowed in”.
• To coordinate the towing of vehicles with the City’s private contractor for vehicles that have
been issued a citation and have not been moved. Towing should begin within 24 hours from
when a citation has been issued.
• To use discretion in the issuance of citations due to unusual or extenuating circumstances
related to a snow event (this includes, but is not limited to, other calls for service to the
Police Dept. such as accidents or medical calls).
• Overtime costs associated with enforcement should be held within reasonable limits and in
alignment with annual budgetary considerations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this policy becomes effective immediately upon passage of
this resolution adopted on September 20, 2004.
Meeting Date: August 10, 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:
Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City staff requests feedback on the EDA’s potential purchase of former American Inn property.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to consider purchasing the former American Inn property?
BACKGROUND:
The former American Inn (3924 Excelsior Blvd.), Al’s Liquors (3912 Excelsior Blvd.), and Anderson
Cleaners (3099 Excelsior Blvd.) properties have been eyed for redevelopment for many years. In the
France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines a preference was expressed for a
coordinated site plan involving all three properties. On February 2, 2009 redevelopment plans were
approved for the Al’s Liquors, Anderson Cleaners properties only. The developer of these properties,
Bader Development, originally pursued the acquisition of the former American Inn property as well
but was unable to negotiate a purchase price that worked financially. Since that time the American
Inn was forced to close due to failure to pay property taxes and is now shuttered. The property also
changed hands and is currently owned by Gary Mulcahy Sr. of Mahtomedi, MN. Staff has met with
Mr. Mulcahy regarding his plans for the subject property. Given current economic conditions there
is little interest at this time in a major redevelopment of the .7 acre-property. He expressed interest
in either selling the property or possibly renovating the existing building into apartment units. The
latter choice would mean that the property would continue to be underutilized for the foreseeable
future.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property)
Given Bader Development’s $18 million mixed use project currently under construction next door
(as well as the EDA’s commitment of $1.45 million in TIF assistance to that project) the EDA may
wish to consider the highest and best use for the former American Inn property. As a result, staff has
been discussing the EDA’s possible acquisition of the subject property with its owner. Potential
terms for such an acquisition include the following:
• Purchase price is approximately $950,000.
• Seller agrees to allow Buyer access to the Property so as to allow Buyer to conduct an
environmental investigation (“Phase I and Phase II Study” including asbestos survey) on the
Property. Buyer agrees to for pay the cost of the investigation.
• Buyer’s purchase of the Property would be conditioned upon:
1. Results of the environmental investigation
2. Seller’s ability to provide marketable title to the Property
3. Seller’s payment of any outstanding property taxes, assessments and penalties at
Closing
• Preparation of a Purchase Agreement acceptable to both parties.
• Formal approval of the Purchase Agreement by the EDA.
• Closing would occur no later than 90 days from agreement on terms.
The cost to demolish and remove the former building would be roughly $100,000. This estimate
includes utility disconnects and parking lot removal. It excludes any hazardous waste removal. Some
fill material may be present on the property given that fill material was found next door on the
former Al’s property. The environmental investigation would address this potentiality.
Current Land Use
The subject property is currently zoned and guided high density residential (RC). The France
Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines recommended mixed use for the entire
American Inn/Al’s Liquors/Anderson Cleaners site. Such uses could include residential with
neighborhood retail, professional or medical office. As a result, the land use likely to be proposed for
the subject site within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is Mixed Use.
Property Value
The current assessed value of the subject property is $950,000. It is assessed as a redevelopment site
with the building having negligible value.
Why Purchase the Subject Property?
Owning the subject property provides the EDA with the ultimate ability to control the site and
insure that its future redevelopment is consistent with the France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard
Development Guidelines. If the EDA were to purchase the subject property it would remove the
former motel building (along with any restrictive wastes and fill material) and have the site graded
and seeded. It would likely hold the property until market conditions turn more favorable. In the
mean time staff could consult with the adjacent neighborhoods and prepare a more specific vision
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property)
for the property. At the appropriate time the EDA would disseminate an RFP to the local real estate
community for the resale and redevelopment of the site.
Purchasing the subject property now would be a strategic move that affords the EDA the
opportunity to have it redeveloped to its highest and best use sooner rather than later. Leaving
matters entirely to the private sector (in this particular case) may not result in the property’s optimal
usage.
Residents from the surrounding Minikahda Oaks and Minikahda Vista neighborhoods have
expressed considerable interest in seeing the former motel building removed and redeveloped in a
manner consistent with the France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard Development Guidelines.
Purchasing and clearing the former motel prevents the building from falling into further disrepair
and becoming a potentially blighting influence on the adjacent neighborhoods.
Based upon comparable land sales information, the acquisition price of the subject property is
reasonable and within market.
Staff explored the possibility of having Bader Development take another run at the subject property.
Bader is currently concentrating on the construction of The Ellipse on Excelsior and is not in a
financial position to purchase and hold the subject property. Bader indicated it would only purchase
the property if it had a potential user and, given the economy, prospects are currently slim.
How much would the environmental investigation cost?
A Phase I and II environmental study (including an asbestos survey and groundwater sampling)
would cost up to $32,000 and would require approximately six weeks to complete.
How would the property acquisition and ancillary costs be funded?
Purchase of the subject property would be paid for through the Development Fund. The
Development Fund would be reimbursed upon resale to a future redeveloper. Costs related to the
environmental investigation, building demolition, restrictive waste removal, as well as site
stabilization would also be paid for through the Development Fund. Since these expenses are all TIF
eligible, the Development Fund could be reimbursed from the recently created Ellipse on Excelsior
TIF District (of which the subject property is a part) as tax increment becomes available. This would
require approval of an Interfund Loan resolution.
Next Steps
If the EDA is interested in acquiring the subject property staff will arrange for an environmental
investigation and negotiate a formal purchase agreement with the property owner. The agreement
would be presented to the EDA for review and approval.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Potential EDA Acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Boulevard (former American Inn property)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is requested to consider the acquisition of 3924 Excelsior Blvd. for up to $950,000. The
EDA could incur addition costs related to environmental investigation, building demolition as well
as site stabilization and maintenance.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained [neighborhoods], being
a connected and engaged community, as well as promoting community aesthetics.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
Meeting Date: August 10, 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:
Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff would like to discuss the preliminary 2010 budget information with Council. We are
interested in getting direction on what additional information is needed for the August 24th meeting
and to help us prepare to set the property tax levy in September.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the City Council desire additional information regarding the budget for the meeting of
August 24th?
• Is the Council interested in reviewing more detailed information regarding the possibility of
implementing a street light utility to finance some or all of the cost of operating and
maintaining its street lighting system?
BACKGROUND:
The City Council discussed the budget implications of the State’s financial crisis starting at the
workshop held in January of this year. We discussed the budget problem as it relates to our 2010
and 2011 budget, and presented recommendations on how to proceed in preparing information to
resolve the budget issues.
At a budget work session held June 22, the framework that staff presented was endorsed by the City
Council as a prudent guide to preparing the 2010 budget and CIP for 2010-2014. As discussed
with Council earlier this year, staff developed the preliminary 2010 budget using the following
understandings and assumptions:
Budget Assumptions and Understandings
• Based on the Guiding Principles of sustainability and responsibility, we need to develop a
solution that balances the General and Park and Recreation Fund Budgets and also addresses
longer term debt service and capital funding needs.
• Estimated 2010 operating budget gap – approximately $1.8 million (this number is subject
to change based on changing circumstances and assumptions).
• Approximately 78% of the General Fund budget is comprised of personnel to allow for
service delivery.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
• Total maximum allowable increase in 2010 property tax levy under the law – approximately
$1.2 million (this number subject to change and is based on increasing levy by .86% under
the levy cap and also levying, as allowed by law, for unalloted MVHC in 2008 and 2009
and other miscellaneous adjustments. The state will provide a final number later this year).
• Total amount of equivalent new property taxes estimated to come on line in 2010 due to
expiration of Excelsior Blvd and Oak Park Village TIF Districts – approximately $800,000.
(Due to timing of the decertification, the amount may be reduced for 2011.)
Summary of Strategy/Framework for Balancing the 2010 Budget
The proposed strategy is to address the budget gap by a combination of reducing expenses and
increasing revenues. Listed below are the 5 areas of focus being used to help balance the budget:
• Wage and benefit cost increase hold
• Position reductions
• Fees for service increase of 3 – 5% and review of new fee possibilities
• Line item reduction incorporation
• Modest tax levy increase recommendation
At our meeting on Monday we will discuss each of these areas to check in with Council on
next steps. This report gives an outline of our progress for the 2010 budget.
A. Salary Hold and 2010 Wage Freeze: $311,000 to $610,000
We have been holding discussions with staff regarding the budget problem and have been
asking all employee groups to join together and help by holding the line on wages for 2010.
The city has 5 bargaining unions and a large non-union group. Three of the contracts are
closed through 2010 (3rd year of the three year contracts) and two groups are open January 1,
2010. The City Manager has been in contact with all bargaining units and started these
discussions.
Holding the cost of salaries for 2010 helps with “budget problem” by a range of savings of
$311,000 to $610,000. The $311,000 is the savings realized by holding wages for contracts
open in 2010 (through negotiations) and no increase for non-organized employees. The
remaining $299,000 is the cost of the 3.25% wage increase in the settled contracts and other
required payroll taxes and step increases. The $610,000 savings is where we would like to
end up by all of our employees working together to hold wages in 2010.
B. Staff Reductions – Goal: $630,113, Preliminary Identified Reductions: $412,513
Over the past year a number of positions became vacant through resignations and/or
retirements. After discussions, we recommend that the following positions listed below
remain vacant and are planned to be removed from the 2010 budget.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Subject: Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
• Community Development Secretary (vacant) $ 47,555
• Police Clerical .5 FTE (vacant) $ 30,950
• Accountant (vacant) $ 62,000
• Dispatcher (City’s portion of savings) (vacant) $ 45,000
• Public Service Worker (vacant) $ 61,901
• Temporary Inspector (vacant) $ 34,707
• P&R Seasonal Pool Manager $ 5,500
• P&R Westwood Temporary $ 8,000
• IR Communications Intern $ 12,900
• IR Temporary (vacant) $ 47,000
• IR Support Staff (1 FTE) (vacant) $ 57,000
• Other – to be determined $217,600
$630,113
Since a target reduction of $630,113 was identified, an additional $217,600 remains to be
identified and is listed as “other” which could be done through attrition, retirement or
position elimination type programs.
Please note: Budgeted amounts shown on positions above reflect only the amount in the
general fund. Some of these positions are also funded, in part, from other sources. The
Public Service Worker (PSW) position is listed as vacant in the Park Maintenance budget,
but may actually end up in another tax-supported department, based on business needs.
C. Increased Fees and New Fees – Goal: $110,000, Preliminary Estimate: $28,575
We are in the process of reviewing fees to incorporate a modest increase of 3 – 5% and
researching new possibilities for some user type fees. Departments are also reviewing fees to
make sure fees charged fully recover our cost of providing service.
Staff has also carefully reviewed fees based on market. We expect to see some reductions in
fees to recognize a change in market conditions, such as reduced liquor license fees because
several of our establishments have closed or downgraded their license. These changes are in
addition to the assumed loss of $215,000 in permit fees, $150,000 reduction in interest
earnings, and $50,000 decrease in Police and Fire Pension transfers from the Financial
Management Plan.
After review of all the information, our preliminary estimated increase in revenues is
$28,575. (This includes $107,000 from the Police Stimulus Package.)
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Subject: Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
New Fee Possibility: Street Light Utility – Estimated Savings $400,000 Fees = $400,000
Revenue
The largest potential increase in revenues is through establishment of a street light utility. Is
the Council interested in reviewing this in more detail?
What is a Street Light Utility?
In concept street light utilities are similar to the familiar sanitary sewer and water utilities.
The fee structure for a Street Light Utility is based on the estimated benefits received by each
property from the street light system. For example, commercial, industrial and multi-family
properties generally have more street frontage, area and access than do single-family
residential properties and therefore pay a higher rate. Similarly, properties that are served by
ornamental or other enhanced street lighting systems receive greater benefit and would pay a
higher rate. In this way property owners pay for the operation and maintenance of the street
lighting system in proportion to the amount of service or benefits that they receive, not
according to the value of their property.
What is the cost of providing Street Light Utility services?
Approximately $400,000 per year.
What are the potential Street Light Utility Charges?
Single-Family Residential Properties:
The survey shows the average annual fee of: $23.67 ($2 per month).
Estimated revenue: $280,000 per year.
Multi-Family Properties:
Typically, charges for multifamily properties would be based on percentage of the SF rate for
each unit, area or front footage calculations, and other potential methods.
Estimated revenue: $50, 000 per year.
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties and Undeveloped Multi-
FamilyProperties:
Commercial, industrial, hospital, schools, religious institutions, and other institutional
properties and undeveloped (vacant) multi-family properties be charged according to the
Unit Area of each parcel similar to the storm water charges.
Estimated revenue: $70,000 per year.
Potential result of implementing a Street Light Utility.
Fees for Street Lights are in the General Fund. Approving a fee could result in the fees
paying for the direct charges of the street lighting and taking this $400,000 expense out of
the General Fund. Due to the process and communication that would be needed to get this
type of program in place, we would need the time in 2010 to do the necessary background
work in order to start charging fees in 2011.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Subject: Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
D. Line Item Reductions – Goal: $200,000, Preliminary Estimate: $299,088
Staff has identified various line item changes in the budget process. As with revenue
changes, some line items have increased to reflect trends from actual results over the past
several years. Preliminary review of the budget reflect a reduction to the general fund is
estimated at $299,088 for 2010.
E. Modest Levy Increase – Estimate $500,000
The estimated levy increase we have been looking at is $500,000 (which includes $11,700 to
debt service). If that is the level that is set, we need an additional levy amount to cover the
gap from the loss of Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) which is approximately
$178,549, in addition to the $500,000 as stated above.
The additional funding of $178,549 would need to come from an increase in the levy over
$500,000 or additional savings through adjustments in revenues or additional reductions in
other areas listed above.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The maximum we are allowed to levy for 2010 is approximately 1.2 million.
• Our levy limit base is estimated at: $297,000
• Levy for unalloted funds from 2008: $316,000
• Levy for unalloted funds from 2009: $632,000
The Council has directed us to provide a budget showing a modest levy increase of $500,000.
Based on all information on the 2010 preliminary budget estimates with a $500,000 levy, the budget
gap we need to close is estimated at: $178,549. This budget gap could be closed through additional
budget reductions, increase in revenues and/or increase to the levy.
Staff will continue to work with Council to close this gap and prepare information and materials for
the September 8th meeting to certify the preliminary tax levy to the county.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Budget Problem Estimated vs. Preliminary
Tax Levy Calculation for $678,549– to be distributed at the meeting
Tax Levy Calculation for $1,246,000 – to be distributed at the meeting
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Reviewed and Approved by: Nancy Gohman, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Subject: Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
City of St. Louis Park
"The Budget Problem"
Updated August 10, 2009
Operating Departments
2009 2010 2010
General Revenues:Modified Pro jected Preliminary
Property Taxes 14,970,275 14,970,275 15,537,811
MVHC Loss (632,000) (632,000) (655,095)
Reduced Park Improvement Levy 315,000
Use of Fund Balance 165,980
Licenses and Permits 2,515,000 2,300,000 2,297,980
Intergovernmental 1,647,214 1,647,214 1,700,554
Charges for Services 1,201,900 1,201,900 1,141,018
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 312,000 312,000 311,750
Investment Earnings 350,000 200,000 200,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 102,000 102,000 101,500
Transfers In 2,678,910 2,678,910 2,583,625
Total General Revenues 23,626,279$ 22,780,299$ 23,219,143$
Expenditures:
General Government:
Personal Services 4,330,680$ 4,555,548$ 4,277,050$
Supplies 162,075$ 177,075$ 147,625$
Services & Other Charges 2,329,352$ 2,364,352$ 2,209,315$
Other Expense 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$
Total General Government 6,823,107$ 7,097,975$ 6,634,990$
Public Safety :
Personal Services 11,277,974$ 11,611,515$ 11,260,174$
Supplies 285,786$ 285,787$ 273,135$
Services & Other Charges 842,863$ 842,863$ 804,593$
Other Expense 2,800$ 19,000$ 18,500$
Total Public Safety 12,409,423$ 12,759,165$ 12,356,402$
Public Works:
Personal Services 2,887,500$ 2,970,488$ 2,828,600$
Supplies 339,050$ 389,050$ 493,550$
Services & Other Charges 988,000$ 988,000$ 904,150$
Total Public Works 4,214,550$ 4,347,538$ 4,226,300$
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency 180,000$ 180,000$ 180,000$
Misc Increased Expenditures 96,000$
Total Non-Dep artmental 180,000$ 276,000$ 180,000$
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,627,080$ 24,480,678$ 23,397,692$
General Fund Gap (1,700,379)$ (178,549)$
Park & Rec Revenues:
Property Taxes 4,073,118$ 4,073,118$ 3,993,882$
Licenses and Permits 6,275$
Intergovernmental 55,702$ 55,702$ 71,219$
Charges for Services 1,141,598$ 1,141,598$ 1,048,900$
Rent Revenue 871,000$ 871,000$ 906,900$
Investment Earnings -$ -$ -$
Miscellaneous Revenue 24,000$ 24,000$ 13,000$
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,165,418$ 6,165,418$ 6,040,176$
Park & Rec Exp enditures:
Personal Services 3,503,813$ 3,592,310$ 3,491,426$
Supplies 876,251$ 921,176$ 889,001$
Services & Other Charges 1,703,002$ 1,710,666$ 1,637,749$
Capital Outlay 15,352$ 15,352$ 7,000$
Other Expense -$ -$ 15,000$
Misc Increased Expenditures 26,000$
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,098,418$ 6,265,504$ 6,040,176$
Park & Recreation Gap (100,086)$ -$
Subtotal Ga p General and P&R (1,800,465)$ (178,549)$
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Subject: Budget and Preliminary 2010 Levy
Assumes no redistribution of Park Improvement Levy in 2010 or 2011
Assumes no use of fund balance in 2010 or 2011.
Assumes $215,000 reduction in permit fees in 2010 and 2011.
Assumes $150,000 drop in interest earnings for 2010 and 2011.
Assumes a salary increase for all employees by 3.25% for 2010 and 3% for 2011
Assumes no increase in benefits for 2010 - $750/month and $25 to $775 for 2011.
Assumes a very modest increase in supplies and contractual expenses for 2010 and 2011
Assumes no property tax levy increase for 2010 and 2011
Assumes no MVHC aid to city in 2010 and 2011
Meeting Date: August 10, 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:
Highway 7/Wooddale Ave. Project Funding.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested. Staff desires to discuss with the City Council project funding matters
relating to the Highway 7/Wooddale Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Given a variety of factors which will be discussed at the study session, should the City continue to
pursue funding from Hennepin County for the Highway 7/Wooddale project?
BACKGROUND:
For about 1½ years the City has been pursuing funding from the County to assist with the
construction of the project in question. The most recent conversation with county officials occurred
on August 3 with Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Sanger participating. The amount of funds
being pursued from the County for this project has ranged in the area of $2 - $3 million.
During the Study Session staff would like to discuss with the Council how aggressively the City
should continue to pursue this funding in light of other issues or requests involving the County and
City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Impacts and considerations dependent on the course of action to be taken.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: None
Prepared and approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: August 10, 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:
Update on Freight Rail Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action proposed at this time.
This report is intended to serve as an update to the City Councils discussion on the Hennepin
County Freight Rail Study at the July 13th Study Session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time
BACKGROUND:
Since the July 13th City Council Study Session several actions have been taken. Among the actions
are the following.
1. After interviewing several firms, the city has entered into a contract with the consulting firm
SEH to provide the city with technical assistance regarding railroad issues. David McKenzie
at SEH is the key consultant that will assist the city. He has over 30 years of railroad
engineering experience and is familiar with all the key organizations and agencies involved
with the Twin City & Western (TC&W) rail routing issue. He will work both with City
staff and the City Attorney as needed to review and address rail issues. Among his initial
assignments is reviewing the current proposed rail rerouting options.
2. The City Attorney has begun researching the legal issues regarding the potential rerouting of
freight rail and specifically what the city’s role and ability might be to influence these actions.
3. City staff has met with Marthand Nookala, the Hennepin County staff member responsible
for the Hennepin County Freight Rail Study (HCFRS) to present him with a series of
questions regarding further analysis needed regarding freight rail routing in St. Louis Park.
The questions address the process and timing of the county’s study, more detailed evaluation
of the potential impacts of the routing options, potential mitigation measures, costs, funding
sources, identification of the key stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities. The
questions were provided Mr. Nookala in a follow-up letter that was copied to Commissioner
Dorfman as well. A copy of the letter is attached.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Study
4. The Mayor and Councilmember Sue Sanger met with Commissioner Dorfman in person
August 3rd to explain the importance of the rail rerouting issue and the questions presented
in the letter to Mr. Nookala. The City Manager and Community Development director;
and, Mr. Nookala and Kerri Pearce Ruch with Hennepin County were in attendance as well.
Mr. Nookala explained that the expectation from the HCFRS is that it will provide a
recommendation to Mn/DOT’s state wide freight rail plan. The expectation at this point is
that the recommendation will be for further study of the TC&W rerouting options. The
recommendation will acknowledge that TC&W is currently operating under a temporary
arrangement within the Kenilworth corridor. It was also stated that operating TC&W in the
Kenilworth corridor permanently is one of the options for further study.
5. Mr. Nookala has indicated that he will provide us with answers to those questions which can
be answered now; and, when and how the remainder of the questions would be answered.
The expectation is that the more detailed questions will be addressed in follow-up studies
following the HCFRS. These may be joint studies by Hennepin County and the City.
6. Both Mr. Nookala and Commissioner Dorfman stated that the county was preparing an
analysis that would show what would be necessary to fit both freight rail and LRT in the
Kenilworth Corridor. The expectation is that this work would be done and available very
soon.
In related news, the ridership projections and capital costs for the LRT alternatives are still not
available. It is expected that they will be shared with the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) at its
meeting August 10th. The date when the PAC will be asked to make recommend a Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) route for the LRT to the Hennepin County Rail Road Authority (HCRRA) has
been delayed until October 14th. The previous schedule was for the PAC to make a
recommendation September 30th.
The SWLRT project open houses scheduled for August are proceeding on schedule. The meeting in
St. Louis Park will be Tuesday August 18th, 6:30pm to 8:00pm at City Hall. The station area plans
will also be discussed.
Next Steps:
City staff, with the help of the city attorney and our rail consultant, will continue to push for
resolution of the city’s rail questions and concerns. We will continue to participate in the HCFRS.
It is anticipated that the HCFRS will be completed in early fall of this year.
Staff will report back to the City Council as more information becomes available and/or conditions
change. A draft resolution stating the City’s position will be prepared for City Council
consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Consultant services from SEH to be paid from the Development Fund. Initial costs are estimated to
be approximately $15,000.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Study
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: July 21, 2009 letter to Marthand Nookala
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Reviewed by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
OPEN HOUSE SCHEDULE:
• Open House: Light Rail Routing & Station Area Plans
August 11, 2009 (6:30 pm - 8:00 pm)
Hopkins City Hall
1010 1st Street S. Hopkins, MN 55343
• Open House: Light Rail Routing
August 13, 2009 (11:30 am - 1:00 pm)
Minneapolis Central Library
300 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55401
• Open House: Light Rail Routing & Station Area Plans
August 13, 2009 (6:30 pm - 8:00 pm)
Marriott Southwest Hotel
5801 Opus Parkway Minnetonka, MN 55343
• Open House: Light Rail Routing & Station Area Plans
August 18, 2009 (6:30 pm - 8:00 pm)
St. Louis Park City Hall
5005 Minnetonka Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416
• Open House: Light Rail Routing & Station Area Plans
August 19, 2009 (6:30 pm - 8:00 pm)
Eden Prairie City Hall
8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Study Page 4
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Study Page 5
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Update on Freight Rail Study Page 6
Meeting Date: August 10, 2009
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:
Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action requested at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the Council satisfied with the “Plan by Neighborhood” process to date? Does the Council wish to
move forward with the planned completion of the chapter for the Comprehensive Plan?
BACKGROUND:
As a first phase of updating the “Plan by Neighborhood” section of the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
a series of neighborhood input meetings were held in March, April and May of this year. The city
planning staff worked closely with a consultant, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) to conduct
seven meetings with groups of neighborhoods and one meeting of the St. Louis Park Business
Council. Approximately 130 people attended and participated in the process. A description of the
process and a summary of the results are attached; the full draft report is available at
http://www.stlouispark.org/comprehensive_plan.htm.
Next Monday, August 17th, the consultants from HKGi will be at the regular City Council meeting
to briefly present the report and input received from neighbors.
Summary of process
Neighbors attending the meetings were highly engaged and enjoyed the process and opportunity to
talk about their neighborhoods. Similar to the community survey, participants gave very positive
comments about their neighborhoods and the city; a common comment was that St. Louis Park is
very progressive and doing great things in redeveloping the community.
Much of the specific input surrounded local transportation subjects such as trails and access to them,
including increasing walkability and addressing more livable neighborhood streets with traffic
calming measures. Other items included reducing noise, light and rail nuisances, enhancing public
natural areas, improving neighborhood commercial nodes, and improving the compatibility between
industrial and residential uses. More information on the specific results is in the report and will be
presented on August 17th.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update
Next steps
This report will conclude Phase I of the project. Phase II of the project will be to develop the Plan
by Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan; HKGi is expected to complete the Plan this
fall with additional public input on it next winter/spring.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Phase I of this project was completed for a cost of $25,000; this was budgeted as a part of the
Comprehensive Plan for 2009.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Attachments: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Input Summary Excerpt
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, HR Director/Deputy City Manager
Neighborhood Input Report
St. Louis Park Plan by Neighborhood
July 2009
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 3
2 - Neighborhood Input Report Introduction
Eliot
Aquila
Lenox
Fern Hill
Wolfe Park
Oak Hill
BlackstoneWestwood Hills
Birchwood
Elmwood
Sorensen
Triangle
Creekside
Bronx Park
Cedar Manor
Cobblecrest
Lake Forest
Texa Tonka
Willow Park
Minikahda Vista
Browndale
South Oak HillKilmer PondBrooklawnsMeadowbrook
Eliot View
Cedarhurst
Shelard Park
Brookside
Minne-
haha
Pennsylvania
Park
Crest-
view
AmhurstWest-
dale
Minikahda
Oaks
City of St. Louis Park Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Map Created: November 3, 2008
Prepared By: St. Louis Park Information Resources
Neighborhoods
Shelard Parkway
I-394 I-394
Flag AveHighway 169Edgemore DrTexas AveLouisiana AveHwy 7
Texas AveExcelsior WayHwy 100Hwy 100Soo Line RRHwy 7
Minnetonka Blvd
28th St W
Burlington
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
R
R
France AveExcelsi
or
Bl
v
d
Natchez Ave44th St
Northw
e
st
er
n
R
R
Douglas Ave
22nd St W
Hwy 7
0 0.5 1
Miles
Ü
Figure 1 - St. Louis Park Neighborhoods
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 4
July 2009 Plan by Neighborhood - 3
The City of St. Louis Park has defined 35 neighborhoods
that encompass the entire land area of the City. These
neighborhoods are diverse in land area and population,
ranging from 30 to 2,000 acres in area and from
100 to 3,000 residents. Figure 1 shows a map of the 35
neighborhoods. The City’s current 2020 Comprehensive
Plan contains a separate Plan by Neighborhood chapter that
provides basic data, guidelines, and physical improvement
recommendations for each of the 35 neighborhoods.
In 2008, the City of St. Louis Park began the process of
updating its 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as required by MN
state statute. A draft updated version of the entire 2030
Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of the Plan by
Neighborhood chapter, was completed in May 2009 and
made available for distribution to adjacent and affected
communities and jurisdictions for their review and
comment. As a means to update the Plan by Neighborhood
chapter and gain neighborhood input on the draft version
of the updated Comprehensive Plan, the City undertook
a neighborhood input process in Spring 2009. This
neighborhood input process was organized around seven
(7) neighborhood planning areas (NPAs) that grouped
the 35 neighborhoods into geographic areas separated by
significant neighborhood “edges”, including major roadways
and railways. Figure 2 shows a map of the seven (7) NPAs.
The Neighborhood Input Project consists of three phases:
Phase I - Conduct Neighborhood Engagement
Phase II – Update Plan by Neighborhood Chapter
Phase III – Neighborhood Review and
Finalize Plan by Neighborhood Chapter
The City contracted with Hoisington Koegler Group
Inc. (HKGi) to assist City Planning Staff with designing
and facilitating the neighborhood input meetings as
well as update the Plan by Neighborhood chapter.
This report describes and summarizes Phase I of
the Neighborhood Input Project, including the
neighborhood meetings’ process, summaries of
input at three levels – individual neighborhoods,
each NPA, and city-wide, and key findings.
Blackstone Cedarhurst, Eliot and Eliot View Neighborhoods
Thursday, March 12th, 2009
7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
St. Louis Park City Hall – Council Chambers (3rd Floor)
Introduction
Figure 2 - Neighborhood Planning Areas
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 5
4 - Neighborhood Input Report Input Process
The Neighborhood Input Meeting process consisted
of seven (7) neighborhood meetings – one for each of
the NPAs - as well as a meeting with the St. Louis Park
Business Council. The meetings occurred during March
- May 2009. The schedule of meetings is shown in
Figure 3. Meeting participants were asked to sign in and
indicate on an aerial map the general location of where
they live. The sign-in sheets show 130 people signed in
for the neighborhood meetings with total attendance
for all eight (8) meetings estimated at approximately
150 people, including people who did not sign in.
Attendance for each meeting is summarized in Figure 4.
Based on the responses to the questionnaire, the
length of neighborhood residency for meeting
participants ranged dramatically from six months
to 53 years with the qverage being 17 years.
The purpose of each NPA meeting was two-fold: to share
information regarding the updated Comprehensive
Plan’s directions with neighborhood residents and to
gain their input regarding neighborhood as well as city-
wide issues. The agenda for each meeting started off with
a presentation (Power Point slides) outlining the major
directions and updates to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
describing changes and developments that have occurred
in the community since 2000 (when the Comprehensive
Plan was last updated), and summarizing the content of
the Plan by Neighborhood. Participants were invited
to ask any questions during and after the presentation.
The second portion of each meeting was devoted to an
interactive small group exercise designed to gain participants’
input about their neighborhood’s assets, issues, and
desired improvements. Participants were seated in small
groups, typically with no more than 6-8 people at a small
table, with residents from their particular neighborhood.
The actual number of people per table varied based on how
many people were attending from each neighborhood.
The interactive small group exercise used a Neighborhood
Input Process
Figure 3 - Meetings Schedule
N e ig h b o r h ood Me e t i ng s f o r the C om pre h e n s i v e Pl a n - 2 0 0 9
7-9 p.m. City Council Chambers
Meeting Dates (2009) Ne ighbor hoods S taff Planning Comm.
Thursd ay, March 12th Blackstone, Cedarhurst, Eliot,
Eliot View
Sean
Meg
Thursd ay, March 19th Pennsylvania Park, Willow
Park, Westwood Hills, Cedar
Manor, Westdale, Crestview,
Shelard Park, Kilmer
Gary
Meg
Carl
Tu esday, M ar ch 24th Cobblecrest, Texa Tonka,
Minnehaha, Amhurst, Aquila,
Oak Hill
Adam
Meg
Robert
Carl
Thurs d ay, Apri l 16th Bronx Park, Birchwood, Lenox,
Sorensen
Gary
Thurs d ay, Apri l 23rd Lake Forest, Fern Hill, Triangle Adam
Lynn
Thurs d ay, Apri l 30th Wolfe Park, Minikahda Oaks,
Minikahda Vista, Browndale
Kevin Claudia
Tu esday, M ay 5th South Oak Hill, Meadowbrook,
Brooklawns, Elmwood,
Creekside, Brookside
Sean Claudia
Thursday, May 7th St. Louis Park Business Council
Neighborhood
Planning Area
Number of
Attendees
#1 – Northeast 11
#2 – Northwest 9
#3 – West Central 11
#4 – Central 25
#5 – East Central 21
#6 – Southeast 22
#7 - Southwest 15
#8 – St. Louis Park
Business Council
16
Total 130
Figure 4 - Meetings Attendance
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 6
July 2009 Plan by Neighborhood - 5Are there types of stores, services or amenities missing from your neighborhood commercial centers?Are there improvements that would make your neighborhood commercial centers more convenient?What improvements are desired to make your neighborhood more attractive for biking? (Describe and draw the desired connections on the map.)Where are the centers for retail, services, and social activities for your neighborhood? (Mark the locations with a blue dot.)What improvements to transit services are desired in your neighborhood?What park & recreation or open space improvements are desired for your neighborhood?How could the sustainability and environmental quality of your neighborhood be enhanced?Homes
CommercialCentersConnectionsWalkingBusiness MixConvenienceBikingTransitParks & RecEnvironmentWhere do you live? (Mark
the location with a yellow
dot.)Are there any traffi c safety or congestion problems in your neighborhood? (Mark the issue with a red dot on the map.)Gathering PlacesWhere are your favorite neighborhood gathering places? (Mark the locations with a green dot.) Include parks, open space, and places to meet & socialize. What improvements are desired to make your neighborhood more attractive for walking? (Describe and draw the desired connections on the map.)Describe any traffi c safety and congestion issues identifi ed with red dots.DrivingConditionsHousing NeedsLand UseCharacter Neighborhood Features Game Planning Area 1Neighborhood(s) ___________________Neighborhood Features Game Planning Area 1Neighborhood(s) ___________________What are the important features of your
neighborhood’s character
that should be preserved?
Are there any changes desired to the planned land uses for
your neighborhood?
If so, what are they?
Are there additional types or sizes of homes that you would
like to see in your neighborhood?
If so, what are they?
Are there any safety, housing conditions, or maintenance
concerns in your neighborhood?
If so, what are they?
Figure 4 - Neighborhood Features Game
Features Game to ask participants questions about
their neighborhood, both positive and negative aspects.
The gameboard for this exercise, which is shown in
Figure 4, consisted of a large aerial map of the group of
neighborhoods in the NPA and a series of questions
surrounding the map, similar to a Monopoly or Sorry
gameboard. The questions were organized around four (4)
general topics: living areas, shopping nodes, connections,
and recreation/natural areas. Participants were instructed
on how to play the game, which involved discussion of
each of the questions, writing down people’s responses to
the questions, placing colored dots on the aerial map to
identify participants’ homes, neighborhood commercial
centers, traffic issue areas, and neighborhood gathering
places, and drawing on the map to clarify the specific
location of issues/opportunities. The small groups
were able to spend approximately one hour playing the
Neighborhood Features Game. The final step of the game
asked each participant to rank their top five (5) priorities
from the entire gameboard of comments to identify areas
of consensus on the priorities among the small group.
In addition to the small group exercise, each participant
was provided with a short two-page questionnaire to
give them an alternative opportunity for providing
more individualized input. Approximately 90
questionnaires were completed which represents
approximately 80% of the meeting participants.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 7
6 - Neighborhood Input Report Introduction
The input received during the Neighborhood Input
Meetings is summarized at three different levels:
city-wide level•
seven (7) neighborhood planning areas•
35 individual neighborhoods. •
The two methods for gaining the neighborhood
input – the Neighborhood Features Game and the
Neighborhood Questionnaire – provided input based on
small group discussions as well as individuals’ concerns
and ideas. The city-wide level input is based solely on
the questionnaire responses, whereas, the NPA level
and individual neighborhood level input incorporates
both the small group comments (as documented on the
gameboards) and the individual questionnaire responses.
Input Results Summary
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 8
July 2009 Plan by Neighborhood - 7
The following input is a city-wide level summary of
all responses to questions #4, #5, #6 and #7 of the
Neighborhood Questionnaire. Refer to the Appendix for
a fully ranked listing of the responses.
Types of Desired Neighborhood Improvements
(Question #4)
Based on all of the submitted questionnaires, the most
desired neighborhood improvements were expanding
the network of sidewalks, improving street traffic
calming measures, and increasing street lighting, which
all relate to the design of neighborhood streets. The
other most mentioned neighborhood improvements
were reducing public nuisances (typically noise, light
and property maintenance concerns), enhancing the
natural environment, improving access to the Cedar Lake
Trail, improving existing commercial areas, increasing
the number of walkable neighborhood businesses,
and improving housing is adequately maintained.
Types of Positive Neighborhood Attributes/
Strengths (Question #5)
Neighborhood parks/playgrounds/open spaces was
the most common response. By far, the most common
category of positive neighborhood attributes/strengths
identified related to the neighborhoods’ close proximity to
community amenities, including shopping/entertainment,
trails/recreation, regional destinations (“central” location,
downtown, uptown, etc.), natural areas (lakes, especially
the Chain of Lakes in Minneapolis), and regional highways.
Good neighbors (stable, friendly, diverse) ranked high also.
Other high-ranking responses were low traffic streets,
variety of housing styles (older, high quality architecture),
well-maintained houses/yards, plentiful mature trees,
safe low-crime neighborhoods, and quiet neighborhoods.
Types of Desired PUBLIC Facility Improvements
(Question #6)
By far, the most common response was expanding the
network of sidewalks, followed by increasing street
lighting, increasing trees/landscaping, and improving
access to bike trails (particularly the Cedar Lake Trail).
Types of Desired PRIVATE Facility Improvements
(Question #7)
By far, the most common response was increasing the number
of walkable neighborhood businesses, followed by improving
existing retail development areas, and adding grocery stores.
Figure 5 - Reasons for Living in Your Neighborhood
Source: Neighborhood Questionnaire, Question #3
City-wide Level Summary
What are some of your primary reasons for deciding to live in that
neighborhood? (check all that apply)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%ConvenientlocationNeighborhoodqualitySafe areaQualitySchoolsClose to parksHousedesignAffordable housingClose toworkCloseto family/friendsSmall townfeelOtherNeighborhood Planning Areas
Summary
The summaries of each of the seven Neighborhood
Planning Areas are provided on the pages 8-21.
Individual Neighborhoods Level
Summary
The summaries of each of the 35 individual
neighborhoods are located in the Appendix.
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 9
22 - Neighborhood Input Report Conclusion
By offering the multiple neighborhood-focused meetings,
the City was successful in attracting more public input
(approximately 150 people) regarding the updates to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Plan by Neighborhood
chapter than if it had simply held a single community-wide
event. During these neighborhood meetings, it was evident
that participants generally identified with and greatly
valued their neighborhood. Participants were interested
to hear about the updates to the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and anxious to share their input regarding their
particular neighborhood’s assets, issues, and opportunities.
Analysis and evaluation of the neighborhood input
at the three levels – 35 individual neighborhoods,
seven (7) NPAs, and city-wide – resulted in some
key findings. Based on the neighborhood input that
was received, this report recommends the following
neighborhood elements as the most critical to be
addressed in the updated Comprehensive Plan:
Increasing neighborhood walkability by expanding •
both the network of sidewalks and trails
Improving the safety and convenience of •
pedestrian crossings of busy streets
Improving street traffic calming measures to •
create safer and more livable neighborhood streets
Reducing nuisances, particularly noise and •
light impacts from streets, rail lines, industrial
areas, and large commercial areas
Enhancing public natural areas, open •
spaces, and the urban forest
Enhancing and maintaining the City’s •
public facilities, such as streets, sidewalks,
community centers, parks, fire stations, etc.
Expanding the network of bike routes•
Promoting opportunities to expand and improve •
walkable neighborhood commercial nodes
Supporting residents’ desires for •
neighborhood commercial nodes to
include local small businesses
Improving the compatibility between •
industrial areas adjacent to residential areas
Mitigating the nuisances created by freight •
rail lines adjacent to residential areas
Improving access from the neighborhoods •
to the Cedar Lake Trail, particularly
neighborhoods north of the trail
The findings of the neighborhood input process provide
very beneficial information for updating the Plan by
Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which
was one of the primary purposes of conducting these
meetings. In general, the neighborhood input findings align
with the updated city-wide directions, goals and policies
for the City’s Comprehensive Plan. However, interpretation
of the neighborhood input should account for the lack of
participation of some neighborhoods. As the City moves
forward with updating the Plan by Neighborhood chapter,
the neighborhood input findings will be supplemented
by an urban design analysis of each neighborhood’s
unique location, design, issues and opportunities.
Conclusion
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No. 8)
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Neighborhood Planning Input Process Update Page 10
Meeting Date: August 10, 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:
Budget Update – Sidewalk and Trails Snow Removal Operations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide information showing where sidewalks and trails exist in the city and
how respective snow removal services are delivered.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
On June 22nd Council and staff discussed the possibility of eliminating city provided sidewalk snow removal
services as a possible budget reduction measure. Council decided then not to eliminate that service, but did
request additional information regarding the location of walks in the city. The attached “Sidewalk & Trails
Winter Maintenance Map” shows all the Sidewalks and Trails in the city and also identifies the party
responsible for winter maintenance of the walks (city, adjacent property owner, or Special Service District).
Trails, if plowed, are plowed by the city. This map is located on the city website in the “Maps” section under
“About St. Louis Park” – the link is:
http://www.stlouispark.org/st_louis_park_maps.htm
Staff also thought Council might find the following sidewalk and trail information interesting:
1. miles of city maintained sidewalk – 44.7
a. annual average snow removal cost – $57,000
2. miles of property owner maintained sidewalk – 59.1
3. miles of Service District maintained sidewalk – 2.3
a. annual average snow removal cost - $88,000
4. miles of city plowed trails – 26.9
5. miles of unplowed trails – 6.4
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
As per the June 22nd discussion, the city spends, on average, about 360 man-hours totaling about $57,000 on
city provided sidewalk snow removal services every snow season. This consists of about $45,000 in
equipment charges associated with four vehicles that plow or blow snow along with about $12,000 in fully
burdened labor charges.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Maintaining a quality sidewalk and trail system is consistent with the City’s Strategic Direction of being a
Connected and Engaged Community.
Attachments: Sidewalk & Trails Winter Maintenance Map
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
HWY 7
I-394
HIGHWAY 169CEDAR LA
K
E
R
D
MINNETONKA BLVD
29TH ST WLOUISIANA AVE SWALKER ST LAKE ST W
TEXAS AVE S28TH ST W
31ST ST W
EXCE
L
SI
O
R
B
L
V
DDAKOTA AVE S35TH ST W IDAHO AVE SWAYZATA BLVD
OXFO
R
D
S
TFLAG AVE SLOUISIANA AVE S (E)FRANCE AVE SFORD RDLOUISIANA AVE S (W)FLORIDA AVE S40TH ST WSUMTER AVE S27TH ST W
GEORGIA AVE SWOODDALE
AVEHIGHWAY 100RHODE ISLAND AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SLI
B
R
A
R
Y
L
A
SERVICE D
R
H
W
Y
3
9
4
S
33RD ST W JERSEY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S39TH ST W
32ND ST W COLORADO AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SALABAMA AVE S37TH ST W ZARTHAN AVE S36TH ST W
UTICA AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SOTTAWA AVE S26TH ST W
CO. Rd. 25
42ND ST W WEBSTER AVE SG
O
R
H
AM
A
V
E
25TH ST W
14TH ST W
38TH ST WCAMBRIDGE ST
SERVI
C
E
D
R
H
W
Y
7
S
PARK G
L
E
N
R
D
34TH ST W RALEIGH AVE SBELT LINE BLVDOREGON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SJOPPA AVE SSERVI
C
E
D
R
H
W
Y
7
N
VERNON AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N
GLENHURST AVEDIVISION ST
QUENTIN
AVE
S
25 1/2 ST W
NORT
H
S
TAQUILA LA41ST ST W LYNN AVE SHAMILTON ST
CLUB RD
SHELARD PKWY
ZINRAN AVE S16TH ST W
TOLEDO AVE SFORE
S
T
R
D
EDGE
B
R
O
O
K
D
R SERVICE DR HWY 100ENEVADA AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVEMELROSE AVE SELIOT
VI
E
W
R
D
23RD
S
T
W
18
T
H
S
T
W
36 1/2 ST W
13TH LA
22ND ST W
XENWOOD AVE SKIPLING AVE SMO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
VIRGINIA CIR S
MORNINGSIDE RD
BROOK AVEUTAH AVE SVALLA
C
H
E
R
A
V
E
24TH ST
WMARYLAND AVE SSALEM AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS DRBASSWOOD RD
MONTEREY AVE SMACKEY AVENATCHEZ AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SXYLON AVE SUTAH
D
R
Hospital service driveSUNSET BLVD
POWELL RD
GAMBLE DR
22ND LA
DART AVEZAR'I'HAN AVE SA
Q
U
I
L
A
A
V
E
S
(
E
)QUEBEC AVE
SAQUILA
AVE
SVIRGINIA AVE SSTANLEN RD
36TH ST W (S)
36TH ST
W
(
N
)KILMER AVEPARKLANDS RDFRANKLIN AVE W
Wolfe
Pk
wyJORDAN AVE SBOONE AVE STAFT AVE
CEDARWOOD RD
PRINCETON AVE S35 1/2 ST WCAVELL AVE SRANDA
L
L
A
V
E
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
S
T RIDGE DRINDEPENDENCE AVEFORD LA
32 1/2 ST W
MEADOWBROOK LAHILLSBORO AVE SGLEN PL
BROOKVIEW LA
HIG
H
W
O
O
D
R
D
DECATUR AVE SOREGON CT42 1/2 ST W
BROOK LA25TH ST
W COLORADO AVE SOXFORD ST TOLEDO AVE SAQUILA AVE S34TH ST W
26TH ST W
37TH ST W
36TH ST W
16TH ST W
UTICA AVE SVERNON AVE S22ND ST W
SUMTER AVE SSERVICE DR HWY 394 S
UTICA AVE SJERSEY AVE S25TH ST W
VIRG
IN
IA
AVE
S
34TH ST WHAMPSHIRE AVE S27TH ST W
DECATUR AVE S35TH ST W
RALEIGH
AVE
S
26TH ST W
36TH ST WYOSEMITE AVE SVERNON AVE S35TH ST
W QUENTIN AVE SOREGON AVE SMARYLAND AVE SFRANCE AVE
SHAMPSHIRE AVE SXENWOOD AVE S39TH ST W KIPLING AVE STEXAS AVE S34TH ST W
36TH ST W
22ND ST W
ALABAMA AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE S31ST ST W
23RD ST WFORD RD14TH ST W
VERNON AVE SNEVADA AVE SPRINCETON AVE SFLAG AVE S28TH S
T
W
UTAH AVE SAQUILA AVE SUTAH AVE SCED
A
R
L
A
K
E
R
D
18TH ST W
UTAH AVE SWEBSTER AVE S24TH ST W
QUEBEC AVE S25 1/2 ST W
JOPPA AVE SQUEBEC AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE28TH ST W
WAYZATA BLVD
WEBSTER AVE S33RD ST WSUMTER AVE SIDAHO AVE SUTICA AVE SOTTAWA AVE S31ST ST WALABAMA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE S26TH ST WIDAHO AVE SSidewalks and Trails
Winter Maintenance Responsibility ±
Public Works 6-30-2009
Legend
Sidewalk
Maintenance Responsibility
CITY
PROPERTY OWNER
SSD
Trails
Winter Maintenance
PLOWED
NOT PLOWED
Meeting of August 10, 2009 (Item No.9)
Subject: Budget Update – Sidewalk and Trails Snow Removal Operations Page 2