Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/01/12 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session (2) L6 1 MINUTES 111PSTUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL January 12, 1987 1 . Call to order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. 1 2. Roll Call The following Council members were present at roll call : Ronald Backes, Thomas Duffy, Allen Friedman, Keith Meland, Larry Mitchell , David Strand, Lyle Hanks. 3. Liaison position The City Manager was directed to prepare a letter to Erica Buffington to inform her of the status of the selection of a legislative liaison to the City Council . 4. Legislative issues The City` Council discussed the following legislative issues and assigned a 1 , 2 or 3 priority rating to each of them. I a. Louisiana Ave./Hwy. 7, motor vehicle excise tax transfer and light rail transit 11 were all assigned a No. 1 priority. Councilman Strand asked about the joint powers agreement. The City Manager stated that the agreement allows the cities to evaluate light rail transit, but not to act on anything until everyone agrees to do so. b. Property tax reform. The Council directed the legislative liaison to monitor this closely and the City Council also recommended that the effect of the tax reform act on St. Louis Park be looked into. This issue was designated as a No. 1 priority. c. Tort liability - The City Council recommended that the legislative liaison play a watchdog role on this issue due to the League's heavy involvement in this area. The City Manager said that the legislative liaison would not duplicate any of the League' s efforts. The City Council assigned a No. 3 priority to this issue. d. Fiscal disparities - The Mayor stated that St. Louis Park is a leader in this area. The Assistant City Manager commented that there is no AMM involvement and therefore cities are on their own. The Council recommended this issue to be a No. 2 priority and that the legislative liaison should stay on top of this issue. e. Time and distance requirements - Councilman Strand recommended that the City Council ask the St. Louis Park legislative delegation to sponsor a bill removing the metropolitan area from the exemption of time and distance requirements. IlkCouncilman Mitchell asked who would author it. The legislative liaison recommended that a coalition of cities be formed which hire fire employees. This issue was assigned a No. 1 priority. f. Metro-wide cab licensing - There was no one on the Council opposed to this issue and the City Council assigned it as a No. 3 priority. Cancer surveillance study - g. This issue was assigned a priority No. 1 and the legislative liaison will track this issue during this legislative session. h. Levy limit repeal - This issue was assigned priority No. 3 and the legislative liaison was asked to monitor the legislation. i. Local government aid - This issue was assigned priority No. 3. The Assistant City Manager added that this issue will surface should property tax reform, in fact, occur. j. Tax increment financing - This issue was assigned a priority No. 3. k. Economic development authorities - Councilman Strand asked whether or not we were going to study this issue. The City Manager responded that staff has studied the issue and that economic development authorities can't do more than a housing redevelopment authority or a tax increment financing district. The legislative liaison was directed to track developments in this session and this issue was assigned a No. 1 priority. 1 . Industrial development bonds - This issue was assigned a No. 3 priority. m. Land use planning and annexation recodification - This issue was assigned priority No. 3. n. Open meeting law - Councilman Meland asked that the City ask for an Attorney General 's opinion. The legislative liaison commented that thatmay be an effective way to direct the Legislature to clarify -the laws. Councilman Strand suggested that the St. Louis Park legislative delegation be asked about this issue. Mayor Hanks directed the City Manager to outline and highlight problem areas with the current law. This was assigned a priority No. 3 n. Comparable worth - This issue was assigned a priority No. 3 and the Council requested that they be- kepi -informed of this issue. o. Public Employment Labor Relations Act - This issue was assigned a No. 3 priority. Councilman Strand asked for a summary of the law and how it applies to elected officials. The City Manager stated that it doesn't apply to elected officials and that perhaps Councilman Strand was referring to PERA. Councilman Strand requested a summary of PERA and how it applies to elected officials. p. Charitable gambling - This item was assigned a No. 3 priority. Councilman Meland stated that a State lottery would—benefit -State income, but At is up to local governments to pay the cost of enforcement and therefore the local government should get a percentage of the income. q. Hennepin County legislative program - This was assigned a No. 3 priority and the legislative liaison was directed to track the Hennepin County legislative program. r. Clean Air Act - The legislative liaison stated that Phyllis Kahn will introduce a bill that would mandate a smoke free environment for non-smokers. She added that enforcement will not be included as Ms. Kahn feels it will weaken the potential passage of the bill . This was assigned a No. 3 priority. Mayor Hanks recommended that the Council reserve 1/2 hour prior to regular Council meetings to meet with the legislative liaison to provide an 'update. The City Council set January 26 at 6:00 p.m. to meet with the St. Louis Park legislative delegation. 5. Quentin Ave. - Representatives of the Cedarhurst neighborhood were present. The Mayor stated that at a recent City Council meeting, staff was directed to hold a neighborhood meeting and that this item was never intended to be discussed this evening. Councilman Friedman commented that it is important to make MnDOT aware of the problems in this neighborhood. Mrs. Deblock spoke to urge MnDOT to take the homes on Quentin Ave. She stated that the neighborhood is not happy with, the plans to open the Quentin alley at both ends and that the neighborhood objects. She added that the City would not be losing that much in taxes by the taking of the homes. - Mayor Hanks responded to Mrs. Deblock by stating no one disagrees with what she is saying and that staff will prepare a letter to MnDOT to recap her comments and the discussion of this evening. Councilman Strand asked Mrs. Deblock whether or not she had spoken with any members of the St. Louis Park legislative delegation. Mrs. Deblock responded that she spoke to Gloria Segal that evening and that she will be meeting with Levine , the transportation Commissioner. 6. RTB Two representatives of the RTB were present: Katy Turnbull and Randy Rasvold and a representative from MnDOT, Al Pint. Jim Grube, Director of Public Works, introduced five alternate si ,.e locations for the time transfer station and a bus route map. Al Pint, MnDOT, stated that the design, the purchase of right of way and the construction of the transfer facilities along I-394 is the responsibility of MnDOT. He added that a transfer station in this area is one of four along the I-394 corridor. The other three would be located in downtown Minneapolis, Minnetonka and in Wayzata. He reviewed the five alternative sites. The first one being the Lupient Olds site. The cost of this would be $1 .35 million. The second site was at Texas Ave. He stated that this site was previously presented to the neighbor- hood and would require the acquisition of 14 homes at a cost of $1 .7 million. The third site would be the southwest quadrant of Louisiana Ave./I-394. It would require the acquisition of three businesses and cost $1 .6 million. He added that this was evaluated by MnDOT and the RTB as the preferred site. The fourth site is at the northeast quadrant of Lousiana Ave./I-394. This site would require the acquisition of the Valley Square Bldg. and part of Lupient Olds -at a cost of $4.2 million. The fifth site is the northwest quadrant of Louisiana Ave., the Southview site which would require acquisition of part of Lupient Olds property and would cost $2.97 million. The preferred site was highlighted by rsc.y Turnbull and included an access ramp, ability for stopping along the frontage road and access for 11 vehicles. She stated other sites involved more turning movements and are further distant from the 1-394 corridor, therefore involving more time and money to utilize. She then deferred to the Council for comments. The City Manager asked her to elaborate on how the site accommodates buses 111, and how this affects the design of the site. Al Pint responded that 10 buses satisfied the site and the design and length of the site is determined by the number of buses, and the maximum number of park and ride sites is designed for the remaining available property. The City Manager asked about the frequent user inbouod. Mr. Pint said that it is more advantageous in the morning from an operational standpoint. The Mayor asked a question whether or not official action could be taken at a study session. Councilman Mitchell requested an opinion of the legal position of MnDOT. He stated that he would not support any site until this is completed. Councilman Strand stated that if the Council as a group decides against the site, that the City Council should band together on behalf of City residents even though the outcome may be against the City of St. Louis Park. He added that the Council can always work with MnDOT to minimize impact to the neighborhood after this has been completed. He stated that it makes sense to have this type of transfer station, but the people who live near there view it as a big noisy, dirty bus stop. He added that the City will lose major development and redevelopment on and around the site. He added that by supporting this proposal , the Council is almost voting in support of a four-lane road on Louisiana Ave. to accommodate the time transfer station. Councilman Mitchell asked if any meetings were held with the Golden Valley City Council since two sites are located in Golden Valley. Katy Turnbull said no. Councilman Strand asked whether the RTB and MnDOT is seriously considering the sites in Golden Valley. Katy Turnbull said yes. Councilman Strand stated it doesn't make sense that a meeting has not been held with the Golden Valley City Council if sites were seriously being considered in Golden Valley. Councilman Mitchell stated it is difficult to see what the Council can negotiate ` until the City's rights are clarified. Councilman Friedman stated the Council should take into consideration the impact on the City and the financial loss in not being able to develop the 1 site. He added that for mass transit purposes, this may be is the best site but he is hard pressed to endorse anything until its impact on the City can be evaluated. Councilman Backes withdrew his motion. The City Manager asked the representative of the RTB when one looks at various sites, is the most important factor cost or existing and future ridership. Katy Turnbull responded that neither was more important. The City Manager stated that another option may be through a public/private partnership. For this, any one of the four corners would make sense. He stated it could be made into a valuable piece of property and be attractive for future development in that area. Al Pint from MnDOT--responded -that -MnDOT--looked - at a joint development with the City of Minnetonka one year ago, and due to the ties with federal dollars, the requirements become complicated and can turn into a 3-5 year process. Councilman Friedman stated that it would seem reasonable for MnDOT and RTB to have a fallback position and that would probably be a site located in Golden Valley. He added if time was important, then they should also meet with the Golden Valley City Council . Mayor Hanks directed staff to check the legal position of MnDOT on this issue. ?. Sign Ordinance It was reported that an update would be presented to the City Council at its next study session on Feb. 9. (8 Noise Walls - CSAH 18 and 22nd St. No one on the Council was opposed and staff was directed to proceed on this. Councilman Mitchell asked who was included in the neighborhood. The Director of Public Works responded from 23rd, 22nd and 22nd Lane to Flag Ave. and 16th St. The Director of Public Works also added that he would work with Councilman Mitchell to define the area. 9. Legislative delegation The meeting with the St. Louis Park legislative delegation was set for Jan. 26 at 6:00 p.m. 10. Private wells Councilman Friedman stated that the State law didn't require filling the wells with cement. The City Manager responded that it depends on the circumstances. Councilman Friedman asked whether or not that decision was arbitrary. The City Manager stated that given the City's previous water problems, the City takes the position to fill with cement the ones that are found. Councilman Friedman stated that it is a very expensive process and can cost in the range of $3,000. The City Manager stated that staff can look into alternatives that are less costly. Councilman Friedman stated that perhaps the wells can be sealed and the pumps removed. He added that he wanted to find the safest, best and most s economic way to close the wells. Staff was directed to look at more economically feasible alternatives. 11 . Governance proposal The City Council set the dates of May 19, 20 and 21 to meet with John Carver. It was suggested that a study session be set aside to develop ideas to give to Carver. The Mayor suggested that Sharon Klumpp..meet with individual Council members and put together their concerns similar to what- was done -for—t-he -Police Chief and Public Works Director. 12. Prosecutorial policy Councilman Mitchell asked whether or not they would be present at the Feb. 9 meeting. The City Manager responded that they would. IICouncilman Strand directed staff to find out whether or not the prosecutorial policy can be discussed at ao _executive session. 13. Met Council Sound Abatement Committee It was asked if interviews could be scheduled for Jan. 20. Sharon Klumpp responded Councilman Friedman asked about the use of parking at the park and ride sites. Katy Turnbull said that the preferred alternative has 95 and all sites are around 100 with the exception of the northeast quadrant site which has 180. The City Manager asked whether or not that was adequate in order to prevent future spillover onto residential streets. He reminded Council of the old Park Tavern which is now a park and ride site-,on Louisiana Ave. and Minnetonka Blvd. and is almost always at capacity. Councilman Friedman asked whether or not it is known how many are carpooling and how many are taking the bus of those who use the park and ride - site. Katy Trumbull said the majority take the bus. Councilman Friedman asked about the impact of future dollars. He said the upgrading of Highway 12 encourages more cars, which detracts from light rail transit, buses and carpooling: Yet, the City is encouraged to support this and he wondered where the money is going to come from. Councilman Strand stated that a major factor in his decision is the proximity to residential neighborhoods. Katy Turnbull stated that between the neighborhood and the preferred alternative site would be a frontage road and a buffer. Councilman Strand stated that from his standpoint, the northeast or northwest quadrant would be preferred alternatives since there are no residential neighborhoods, just commercial businesses. The City Manager asked whether or not MlOOT can project noise levels and air quality. Mr. Pint said that that has not yet been done, that studies would be conducted after a site has been selected. He added that MnDOT would provide noise barriers if the noise exceeded the levels. Councilman Meland asked whether or not the proximity to a residential neighborhood factors into the level of ridership. Katy Turnbull stated that there is some potential for additional ridership, but it is not significant. Councilman Friedman asked what has happened oto ridership in the last seven years. Katy Turnbull responded that ridership peaked in 1979 and dropped shortly thereafter It has been stable over the past two years. She stated that there is a 5-10% increase as a result of using the corridor. Councilman Backes asked whether or not this was a joint preference between the RTB and MnDOT. The response was yes. Councilman Backes asked whether or not MnDOT could go ahead without City Council approval and Mr. Pint stated that MnDOT has emminent domain and approval by the City Council is not required but would be preferred. Councilman Strand asked what would happen if the City Council rejected the sites. Mr. Pint said it would depend upon RTB position and that it would ultimately become a policy decision of the Commissioner of Transportation. The City Manager stated that the City has a negotiation position, that being to stipulate requirements to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Pint said he would, do everything in his power to work with the City. It was moved by Councilman Backes, seconded by Councilman Duffy, to direct staff to work with RTB and MnDOT to further look into the site at Louisiana Ave./Hwy. 12 and to resolve potential problems. That the alternate who is serving on that committee is out of town. 1111 Staff was directed to place this on the Jan. 20 agenda to decide the voting rights of the position. 14. City Manager's work program The City Council recommended to meet followingthe 6:00 p.m. meeting on Jan. 26 with the legislative delegation to discuss the City Manager's work program. 15. Adjournment The study session adjourned at 8:45 p.m. / / armen Kaplan Recording Secretary