HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/12/13 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session If! St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES
MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 13, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor
(Mr. Heintz), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Community Development Director
(Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Housing Supervisor (Ms.
Schnitker), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
Guests: Kathy Schoenbauer (Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC) and Dave McKenzie (Short Elliott
Hendnckson Inc.).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—December 20, 2010 and January 10, 2011
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for December 20th and the
proposed study session agenda for January 10th. He stated that requests have been received from
several nonprofit organizations requesting time with the Council in order to provide an update to
Council, as noted on the proposed January 10th agenda.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she preferred to have the nonprofit organizations provide
Council with a wntten report.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that STEP be invited to attend a public meeting in order to
provide them with an opportunity to discuss the urgent need for foodshelf donations. He agreed
that a wntten report from the nonprofit organizations would be preferable.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he would like to have a short presentation from Meadowbrook due to
the nature of the City's partnerships with that organization.
Councilmember Santa suggested that STEP consider doing a presentation on the local cable
channel
It was the consensus of the City Council to request that STEP, NORC, and Meadowbrook submit
a written report to Council; following that, Council will determine whether follow-up meetings
are necessary with the nonprofit organizations.
2. Civic/Recreational Facilities Survey
Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and introduced Kathy Schoenbauer from Schoenbauer
Consulting who has been assisting staff with the survey.
Ms. Schoenbauer explained that the survey was developed looking at the outcomes from the
City's visioning process and is intended to focus on what is missing in the community from
residents' perspective. She stated that the survey is intended to give all residents an opportunity
Study Session Minutes -2- December 13,2010
to respond to the survey and includes closed-ended questions with answers ranked in order of
importance; the survey also allows residents to provide free form input. She indicated that
residents will be encouraged to complete the survey online in order to keep costs down and paper
surveys will be available at several locations throughout the City, including Lenox and the
libranes. She added that a pool pass will be provided as an incentive for completing the survey
and providing contact information.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about the way in which the survey was designed
because it presupposes that the City needs a community center He stated he thought that the
survey should first seek to find out how the City is meeting the needs of its residents. He
suggested that question #21 be revised to ask if the days that facilities are open represents a
limiting factor for participating in recreation activities or programs. He also stated that the survey
should clearly ask residents if they are willing to spend tax money for additional recreational
facilities.
Councilmember Mavity suggested that residents be asked how much tax money and/or user fees
they would be willing to pay for these facilities.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would rather not focus on the tax or user fee question at the
beginning, and instead initially focus on what is needed in the community, if anything. She
suggested that the survey include an introductory paragraph that discusses the City's interest in
figunng out what might be missing in the community, not how the City is going to pay for it.
She stated the City could then take that data, figure out what the cost would be for additional
facilities, and then ask residents if they are willing to pay for it She also suggested that the
survey demographics be further broken down for people 18 and under.
Ms. Walsh stated that one of the goals of the survey is to determine if residents are simply not
aware of what facilities are available for their use and to determine if facilities are being under-
utilized.
Mr. Harmening noted that the survey questions are not intended to presuppose the physical
solution to meeting the recreational needs of residents. He stated that if the survey responses
show a strong interest in more opportunities for exercise space, for example, it does not mean
that the City will build this type of facility, but may determine that one solution is to work out an
arrangement with existing facilities like Lifetime Fitness that provide a reduced resident rate.
Councilmember Santa stated that the survey needs to be clear from the outset that the City is
using the survey as a tool for its long range planning purposes and that no guarantees are being
made.
Ms. Walsh stated that the 2011 Decision Resources survey will also be used to follow up with
the civic/recreational facilities survey. She indicated that focus groups can also be conducted if
additional information is desired.
3. Freight Rail
Mr. Locke presented the staff report and introduced Dave McKenzie from SEH Inc.
Mr. McKenzie presented an extensive overview of railroad regulation, railroad rerouting, safety,
operations, environmental process, and issues related to the SWLRT. He stated that there are 17
Study Session Minutes -3- December 13,2010
public railroad crossings in St. Louis Park and two pedestrian crossings. He reviewed the railroad
right of way requirements, stating that a typical right of way is 100' but can vary between 20'
and 300'. He reviewed the existing train operations for the MNS and Bass Lake line and stated
that historically, the number of trains per day has declined appreciably. He stated that the
SWLRT has been going through the federal environmental review process and reached a locally
preferred alternative through the Kenilworth comdor. He discussed the Hennepin County
agreement with CP Rail and TC&W that was part of the abandonment of the Midtown
Greenway/29th Street depression freight rail route; and, stated that the ongoing studies now seek
to determine the best route to replace that movement. He indicated that more information is
needed on the TC&W routing alternatives before it can be concluded which, if any, are viable
alternatives. He indicated that some of the alternatives have too many issues to work and should
be eliminated from consideration. He stated that the MNS study is not yet complete and
comments on that study will be provided at a later date. He discussed next steps and stated that
review of the 12 options indicates that only four are reasonable options for further study. He
stated that the issues of right of way, trail location, and parkland impacts need to be further
evaluated on 2 of the Kenilworth Corridor alternatives. He also stated rerouting traffic west of
the metro deserves further study. This alternative would require a freight rate subsidy to work.
He indicated that the freight rate subsidy to TC&W will need to be quantified and a discussion
will need to take place with TC&W representatives regarding this potential subsidy. He stated
that the study of the MNS corridor is ongoing and impacts, including mitigation, are not yet
defined. He discussed other ongoing issues that need to be evaluated, including parkland
environmental impact (40 issues, freight rail impact on the design and operation of the LRT
stations, impact of freight rail on development and redevelopment in the City, and the cost of a
freight rail subsidy and who pays for it.
Councilmember Mavity requested that "safety" be added to the bulleted summary of items
needed for a sound solution to the freight rail issue. She also requested clarification regarding
who is responsible for and who pays for the interconnections to provide a safe, effective
Kenilworth corridor, not only for the railroad but for the City as well.
Mr. Locke stated that staff has not seen the actual agreement between TC&W and CP Rail and
the County. He added that he is not sure that this agreement spells out who pays for anything.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that it would be prudent to obtain a copy of that agreement.
Councilmember Mavity also requested clarification regarding existing train operations and stated
that last week, TC&W sent a letter talking about the amount of traffic anticipated in the future.
She asked how that letter fits with the information contained in Table 4 — Existing Train
Operations. She asked that staff request that TC&W clarify this information to include present
and future traffic.
Councilmember Sanger noted that CP Rail has not provided any information about its current
projected traffic and stated it would be helpful to have some idea whether this traffic is expected
to increase or decrease. She asked to what extent LRT in Kenilworth is predetermined or fixed,
noting that the LRT alignment appeared to be moved in the November 29th presentation and
asked to what extent the LRT alignment can be further modified; if it cannot be modified, she
asked who will make that decision. She also asked what other assumptions were given to the
consultants conducting the Kenilworth study
Study Session Minutes -4- December 13, 2010
Ms. Gail Dorfman, Hennepin County Commissioner, appeared before the City Council and
advised that she asked the Met Council what flexibility they had to move the LRT in the
Kenilworth corridor and was informed that once it reached the preliminary engineering phase,
they will further review the alignment and they have not precluded moving the LRT.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he would like to have the City's consultants review these
materials and also redo the measurements in order to provide residents with a level of confidence
in what is going on.
Councilmember Mavity stated that Table 5 — At-Grade Crossing Summary for the Rail Segments
of Interest looks at traffic counts and stated that one of the things missing from this chart is
looking at pedestrian or bike crossings, particularly at Wooddale and Beltline. She stated that she
wanted to make sure the City looks more closely at having more pedestnan and bike crossings
and to make these areas safe, most notably with their use as light rail transit stations at the
Wooddale and Beltline crossing
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the pinch point in the
Kenilworth corridor and whether the pinch point is 82' or 62'. She added that at the November
29th presentation, she heard for the first time that there is a second pinch point and requested
information regarding its location and width. She asked who is responsible for relocation of the
bike trail. She also requested further information regarding the varying width of the right of way
along the MNS tracks north of Minnetonka Boulevard and the impacts to the wetland in this
area. She asked if the 4f factors are being considered when evaluating whether to relocate
freight rail to MNS and requested that staff verify whether this area contains protected wetlands.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would like to have a better understanding of what authonty
the railroads have to say yes or no to a particular route, and to also request official feedback from
the railroads as to what they may have already vetoed or which items are not on the table for
consideration. She suggested that the railroads be formally invited to speak with the Council.
Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding comments made by the
consultants at the November 29th presentation regarding outstate alternatives and another route
that goes to the nver terminal at Savage and whether this represents a viable alternative. She also
requested clarification regarding how close freight rail can be to light rail and whether the light
rail nght of way can overlap the freight rail right of way.
Councilmember Sanger asked Commissioner Dorfman which entity(ies) will ultimately make the
decision on whether freight rail will stay on Kenilworth or be moved out. She also asked who
will make the decision regarding mitigation measures if freight rail is moved out of Kenilworth
and onto MNS.
Commissioner Dorfman replied that this is a process of building consensus among a number of
players, including the railroads and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). She stated that if
the FTA determines that freight rail and light rail cannot be run together on Kenilworth, they
have the power to say that. She stated that the PMT participants have a fair amount of say in not
only the engineering and design, but also in putting together a set of proposals for mitigation and
making sure that mitigation measures are funded. She noted that Mn/DOT would be the official
applicant to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for relocation and mitigation dollars and
whatever the FRA does not pay, local entities will be required to fill that gap, including the
County and Mn/DOT.
Study Session Minutes -5- December 13,2010
Councilmember Sanger asked if the FRA has made a determination as to whether it is okay to
have freight rail and light rail running in the Kenilworth corndor.
Commissioner Dorfman stated that the FTA is not happy with freight rail in the LRT corridor,
but did not believe the agency has said one way or another that you can or cannot operate both.
Mr. Locke reviewed the proposed next steps and stated that staff will work on addressing all of
Council's questions raised this evening. He stated that staff will focus time and resources on
additional study and analysis of the most likely alternatives, including the MNS study. He
indicated that staff's analysis will be done in the context of potential benefits and costs to the
City and the long term best interests of the City. He added that the City will continue to involve
the community in this process and will reach out to other key stakeholders. He requested that
staff be permitted to spend the resources necessary to complete all of the next steps involved in
this process in order to complete everything in a timely fashion.
Councilmember Sanger stated that there are many people who have expressed distrust and/or
anger about the way in which the County has run this process and felt it would be critical to
rebuild and address these credibility problems. She requested that the City's consultant provide
information regarding their rationale for setting aside the four alternatives and the underlying
facts that led the consultants to believe that these four options are viable. She also requested
information regarding the pinch points and the discrepancy in width. She noted that Safety in the
Park has hired its own railroad engineer and asked if Safety in the Park would share any reports
generated by its railroad engineer.
Mayor Jacobs recessed the study session at 8.48 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs reconvened the study session at 9.00 p.m
4. 2011 Budget
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Ms. Schnitker provided an overview of the Housing Rehab Fund budget, which was established
in 1997 to support a variety of housing programs and provides funding for the City's move-up
housing programs. She also discussed a new Dial-a-Ride program to be funded from the
Development Fund. She explained that the program would be provided through PRISM and will
serve all communities that PRISM now serves. She stated that the City's contribution would help
subsidize the rides and supplement PRISM other funds for the Dial-a-Ride program
Mr. Harmening stated that additional details regarding the Dial-a-Ride program will be provided
to Council at a later date.
Ms. Schnitker stated that the Housing Rehab Fund budget is close to the 2010 budget and annual
spending varies, depending on the users of the various programs. She explained that next year,
staff will be conducting a comprehensive review of the programs and their usage to determine if
the programs are worthwhile and meeting the needs of the community.
Mr. Locke provided an overview of the Development Fund budget and stated that the funds in
this budget are primarily used for planning and redevelopment studies and to provide working
Study Session Minutes -6- December 13,2010
capital on redevelopment projects, such as the EDA's purchase of the former American Inn
property. He indicated that the 2011 budget will be used to pay for a vanety of studies including
the freight rail study and the convention and visitor's bureau start-up costs.
Mr. Harmemng presented the proposed levy options for 2011 and 2012, noting that Council set
the preliminary levy at 4.88%. He stated that the levy amount appropriated to operations will
allow the City to continue to provide services in 2011 the same as was done in 2010.
Council discussed levy limits and the impact of levy limits on future budgets.
Mr Harmening stated that the City's policy for the General Fund is to have a fund balance
between 35-50%, and a target of 40%; year-end projections indicate that the City will finish the
year strong with a 52.75% fund balance. He advised that Council has the option of moving some
reserves out of the General Fund to supplement capital funding or in lieu of the proposed portion
of the levy designated for capital purposes.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that he felt the final levy should be lowered to an increase of
2.95% for 2011. He stated that this will still leave the City with over 40% in reserves.
Councilmember Omodt stated that a 2.95% levy in 2011 would require an estimated 5.15% levy
increase in 2012.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she was not comfortable with a 2.95% levy and expressed
concern about what the City will be required to levy in 2012 and beyond. She stated that the
difference between a 4.88% and 2.95% levy is minimal and the impact to taxpayers is small. She
expressed concern about levy limits and what the legislature may do to cut services that the City
depends on. She stated that she preferred to keep the levy at 4.88%.
Councilmember Omodt agreed and stated that he would prefer to see the levy amount remain as
consistent and predictable as possible.
Councilmember Santa stated that she would be comfortable with a 4.0% levy in 2011 and felt
this would provide more stability from one year to the next.
It was the consensus of the majonty of the City Council to adopt a 4 00% property tax levy for
2011 at the December 20 meeting.
5. Communications/Meeting Check-in (Verbal)
The Council conducted its meeting check-in.
The meeting adjourned at 10.00 p.m.
Wntten Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only
4. Business Terms for Development Contract with Hardcoat Inc. (7317 West Lake St.)
5. Governmental Accounting Standards Bo. s (G B) Statement 54 Implementation
6. Selection of City Auditor 11)
avil
Nancy Stroty Clerk Jeff Jac, a a •r