Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/06/09 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study Session /11 St. Louis Park OFFICIAL MINUTES MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA JUNE 9,2014 The meeting convened at 6:33 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Marketing & Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Technology/Web Coordinator(Mr. Huber), and Recording Secretary(Ms. Hughes). Guest: Heather Kienitz (SEH). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning—June 23, 2014 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for June 23`1. He stated that the City recently received a proposal for the northeast corner of Monterey and Excelsior Boulevard and suggested that Council hold a special study session on June 16th to review the proposal. It was the consensus of the City Council to schedule a special study session on June 16`h in order to discuss the proposed mixed use project. Councilmember Hallfin requested that a future study session agenda include a discussion about the Park Improvement Fund and the City's planning process for use of those dollars. Mr. Harmening agreed to include this item as part of an upcoming budget discussion. 2. Update on Citizen Response Management System (Public Stuff/My St Louis Park) Mr. Pires presented the staff report and stated that the 2014-2015 communications work plan includes a focus on Citizen Response Management (CRM) as a way to make it easier for residents to report issues or submit service requests on mobile devices via Public Stuff/My St. Louis Park, scheduled to be launched on July 7"1. Mr. Huber provided a preview of Public Stuff/My St. Louis Park and explained that every CRM request will be private unless and until the City makes the information public. He stated that other communities using Public Stuff include Philadelphia and New York. And Edina will be launching their app in the near future. He stated that Public Stuff is a centralized communication tool that will allow the City to track the status of every CRM request and report back to the citizen. Mr. Pires indicated that Public Stuff also allows for anonymous service requests to be entered into the system,but pointed out if a resident does not provide contact information, City staff will be unable to provide them with further communication regarding their CRM request. Study Session Minutes -2- June 9, 2014 Councilmember Sanger urged the City to include information during the rollout of the program about the confidentiality of information submitted by Public Stuff users. She also requested information about how the program works when issues or complaints are sent to Councilmembers. Mr. Pires advised that any issues or complaints received by Councilmembers can be forwarded to City staff and the issue or complaint will be entered into the system or Councilmembers can go directly to Public Stuff/My St. Louis Park and enter the issue or complaint. Mr. Huber stated that the public can select "private" when entering a CRM request and the City can also force the information to remain private. He provided an example of someone entering a weed/tall grass complaint and stated that each complainant will receive a customized email according to complaint type that explains the process for dealing with the complaint, e.g., a notice is sent to the property owner informing them they have seven days to resolve the issue and on the eighth day City staff will be prompted to check the status and if the issue is not resolved, the City's next step would be to assign the issue to a local contractor and invoice the property owner for the cost. Councilmember Sanger asked if Public Stuff/My St. Louis Park could include a direct link that allows users to connect to their councilperson. Mr. Huber replied in the affirmative. He indicated that Public Stuff/My St. Louis Park includes a knowledge base for answering questions as well as instant translation of up to 22 languages. He reviewed the implementation schedule and advised that integration is scheduled during July and August with a soft launch scheduled on July 7th and a full launch around September 1st Mr. Zwilling advised that information regarding the CRM application will be included in the August newsletter; in addition, staff is planning events and media outreach to announce the launch of the program, including guest columns,blogs, and public service announcements. Councilmember Spano suggested the City announce the program during National Night Out activities. Mayor Pro Tern Mavity asked if the City is purchasing or leasing the software. Mr. Pires replied that the City will pay $12,000 per year for this service and the program is housed on the Public Stuff servers. He acknowledged Council's comments regarding privacy and confidentiality and making sure residents understand the implications of using Public Stuff/My St. Louis Park and assuring their privacy. He advised that further updates would be provided to Council after the July 7`h soft launch. Park Restrooms Mr. Pires stated that Council previously requested that park restrooms remain open for longer hours and stated that adding the parks to the City's fiber network will allow the City to manage the locks to keep restrooms open for longer periods of time as well as to add cameras for security and.wi-fi. He reported that Browndale, Fern Hill, and Nelson Parks would have these amenities by'the end of June. Councilmember Sanger asked if the restrooms would be open all day. Study Session Minutes -3- June 9, 2014 Mr. Harmening agreed to provide Council with the restroom hours, adding that the parks will have a remote automatic locking system on the restroom doors 3. Southwest LRT Preliminary Design Plans—Continued Discussion Mr. Harmening reported that the City Attorneys for the Southwest LRT communities recently met with legal staff for the Met Council to discuss the municipal consent process and the Met Council made it clear that a resolution approving municipal consent with conditions would be effectively considered a denial of municipal consent. Mr. Scott advised that if a community provides municipal consent with conditions, this action is considered a denial or non-action. He explained that each city is required by statute to review the municipal consent plans and either approve or disapprove the municipal consent design plans and if a city does not act before the July 14th deadline, the municipal consent design plans are deemed approved unless an extension has been agreed to between a city and the Met Council He further advised that if a city disapproves the municipal consent design plans, the statute provides that a city shall describe specific amendments to the plans that, if adopted, would cause a city to withdraw its disapproval. He stated that disapproval triggers a requirement for the Met Council to hold a subsequent hearing that would provide an opportunity for a disapproving municipality to present their views to the Met Council. He stated the statute also provides that the Met Council can conduct an independent study and may mediate and attempt to resolve the disagreement about the plans and then the Met Council would decide if it were going to make any changes to the plans to accommodate the objections presented by the disapproving municipality. Mr. Harmening stated that staff attended a meeting today with the city managers, community development directors, Mark Fuhrmann, and the Executive Director of the Met Council and discussed whether there was a way to memorialize in a legal document or Memorandum of Understanding an agreement to continue to work on unresolved items and Met Council representatives indicated they are willing to do that. He added the Met Council indicated they cannot guarantee to meet any requests but are willing to memorialize in writing that they are willing to look at a possible joint development project with St. Louis Park at the site of the proposed parking lot at Beltline as well as a willingness to consider grade separation of the trail and other City requested changes to the SWLRT plans. He stated that Mr. Fuhrmann indicated they would work out that agreement in advance but would not approve it until action is taken on municipal consent. Mr. Scott stated if a city disapproves the plans and specifies changes that need to be made to the plans, Met Council can continue to discuss the requested changes or mediate the issue and if Met Council agrees with the requested changes then no further action is required by a city. He explained that if the Met Council does not agree to make requested changes, the Met Council is required to conduct a hearing within sixty days from the time a city issues its disapproval where a city and anyone else wanting to be heard would present its position and Met Council would then make a decision about whether to make amendments to the plans. He indicated if Met Council says no changes will be made, then the municipal consent process is done and the project can proceed without a city's approval. He noted there is nothing in the statute that talks about providing approval with conditions and the statute only states that a city can provide approval or disapproval with specified changes. Study Session Minutes -4- June 9, 2014 Councilmember Sanger stated it appears the process boils down to how much contingency money is available and how those funds are going to be allocated for the various additions or modifications to the project. She stated the City does not yet have a sense of how much money will be available to St. Louis Park for some of the plan modifications it seeks and yet Met Council is asking for the City's approval without providing this information before the municipal consent vote. She felt that if the City disapproved the municipal consent design plans, it could potentially give the City more leverage to have specific discussions about what Met Council will or will not fund, as well as providing additional time during the process whereby the City would be able to review public information about requests from other communities and the costs associated with those requests. Mr. Locke stated it was the City's understanding that the Met Council has indicated they are not paying for anything that has not already been included in the municipal consent plans and the only modifications that will be agreed to will be those that do not have an impact on the current budget and any other modifications are going to be treated as Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCI), e.g., the grade separation of the bike trail. He added that as Met Council starts reducing the contingencies and funds become available, Met Council would use a prionty system for deciding where to spend the contingency funds and could conceivably pay for some of the LRCIs. Councilmember Brausen felt that the City could craft a municipal consent resolution that includes an enforceable Memorandum of Understanding. He stated the City has laid out everything it expects and can argue later about who pays for the improvements. Councilmember Spano stated his preference would be to provide a clean approval of municipal consent with the proviso that the City's prioritized list has to be negotiated with Met Council and Met Council needs to understand the City would not provide municipal consent without that list. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Spano about giving Met Council upfront information about what the City wants and asking Met Council if it is willing to make commitments that the City can rely on. If they are not, then the City might have to pass a resolution of disapproval with conditions. The City should get Met Council's take on that disapproval approach. She stated if Met Council is not willing to make commitments, she was not in favor of the Memorandum of Understanding approach. Councilmember Brausen agreed that the City needs to be assertive in advocating for these essential improvements and he would not vote in favor of municipal consent with these essential improvements. Councilmember Hallfin stated he would like to see the City give a clean approval, but there were certain things that the City needs to have done and will need to strategize and figure out the best way to get the most it can. Councilmember Lindberg stated he is currently leaning toward disapproval and specifying amendments to the plans, especially since Met Council wants the City to provide a clean approval without the City having any bargaining power to negotiate. Mayor Pro Tern Mavity stated it was not clear to her at this point whether providing a clean approval and Memorandum of Understanding gives the City more political capital to get what it wants versus providing a disapproval. She stated she would like further clarification on the Study Session Minutes -5- June 9, 2014 statutory definition related to preliminary design plans and to see examples of how it has been applied in other cases. Mr. Scott agreed to look for further information and provide it to Council. Councilmember Sanger stated that residents have lived with the uncertainty of a reroute for many years and suggested discussing the matter with Chair Haigh and asking her if there is any way the City can get this matter addressed as part of the municipal consent process. Councilmember Brausen spoke in favor of including an explicit statement in the municipal consent resolution that states it is the City's understanding that the plans include abandoning the idea of rerouting freight rail. Councilmember Hallfin felt that Council could adopt a new resolution stating this Council's position regarding a reroute and that this Council does not want to have to study the freight rail rerouting issue again. Councilmember Lindberg agreed that residents need relief from this issue and their sentiment on this issue was made clear at the public hearing. He felt strongly that Council needs to be clear and strong in its opinion on this issue and to put the issue to rest so that residents do not have to worry about it anymore. Councilmember Spano asked if the Council could pass a resolution or provide municipal consent with the understanding that Met Council would no longer be looking at a freight rail reroute in St. Louis Park and that no money would be expended on additional study. He also asked if this would carry any legal authority and whether Met Council could fulfill that type of promise. Mr. Scott stated he did not see any way the City could make that a condition of approval or to specify it as one of the items that would gain the City's municipal consent approval, adding that he did not think Met Council has the ability to determine what happens in the future as far as a potential railroad relocation. He stated this issue could be part of a separate resolution as it relates to statements of intent. Councilmember Spano stated his overarching concern related to freight rail traffic is that Mn/DOT owns the State rail plan and not Met Council and he does not want this perceived as a promise to St. Louis Park residents that they do not have to worry about rerouting freight rail traffic in the future. Mr. Harmening agreed to speak with Chair Haigh about this issue as well. Mr. Locke stated that Met Council needs direction from the City about Beltline grade separation before the next level of design plans are started at the end of this year and explained that Met Council proposes to include a design with a grade separated crossing at Beltline as a bid alternative. When the bid comes back, the City can then decide whether to proceed with a grade separated crossing. He distributed a revised plan for the Beltline station area, noting that this design reflects an at grade crossing, but it could be changed to include a grade separated crossing of Beltline. The plans show a traffic signal at Lynn, elimination of the CSAH 25 frontage road and creation of a new "backage road." Acquisition of an additional parcel of land as well as moving the location of the trail bridge crossing over freight rail, would be needed to accommodate the Lynn extension and the backage road. He indicated the SPO proposes to Study Session Minutes -6- June 9, 2014 handle grade separating the trail from Beltline by extending the bridge crossing over the freight rail tracks to extend over Beltline Boulevard as well. The cost of extending the bridge would not be a project cost. The cost of this could be paid by another agency such as Three Rivers or by grants or unused project contingency funds or by the City. Mr. Locke stated the Beltline Boulevard grade separation issue is a question of who pays for it, and the technical traffic analysis done by SEH does not provide support for grade separation sufficient for the City to forcefully argue that Met Council should be responsible for the cost. Councilmember Hallfin agreed with the concept of designing the Beltline crossing as both at grade and grade separated, adding that he continues to be in favor of pursuing a grade separated crossing. Mayor Pro Tern Mavity stated she has been an advocate for a grade separated crossing all along and felt that now is the time to plan for and construct the grade separated crossing. She indicated she was willing to remain open minded to follow the information that indicates a grade separated crossing is not needed at Beltline and unless she sees a stronger argument against a grade separated crossing, she continued to believe the City should pursue a grade separated design for Beltline. She also expressed continued concern that the entire station area planning process is not reflected in the plans, particularly related to pedestrian safety. Councilmember Spano stated his priorities include the two underpasses at Beltline and Xenwood and trail separations. Councilmember Sanger stated her#1 priority is the Beltline underpass and felt that the underpass was directly related to construction of light rail and should be part of the base plan with Met Council paying for it. She stated her#2 pnority is the Xenwood underpass. Mr. Locke distributed revised plans for the Wooddale and Louisiana Avenue stations and noted that the SPO clarified the cost of the Xenwood underpass as $13 million. Councilmember Sanger asked if TIF funds would be available to pay for the Xenwood underpass. Mr. Locke replied that TIF funds could be a key source of money to pay for the underpass, adding that the analysis indicates the tax increment generated represents a substantial amount of money and could be used to pay for the underpass. Councilmember Hallfin stated that his most important priorities are the trail separations on Beltline and Wooddale and grade separation at Beltline. Councilmember Lindberg stated his first priority is the trail separation. He added he also felt that pedestnan access in the hospital area is important. Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated that the bike trail was her first priority followed by grade separation at Beltline. Councilmember Sanger stated her top prionties include the Beltline underpass, Wooddale bike separation, and some type of separation at Xenwood. Study Session'Minutes •-7- June 9, 2014 Councilmember Brausen stated his priorities include trail separation, the Xenwood underpass, and the Lynn Avenue-extension. It was the consensus of the City Council to continue its discussion at a special study session on June 16t. Communications/Meeting,Check-In (Verbal) Mr. Harmening advised he recently met with the Executive Director,of the YMCA-Twin Cities and a representative'from,the JCC and stated that the YMCA,and JCC have asked if the City is interested in entering into,a partnership on the community center project: Her stated that staff will further pursue a partnership with-the YMCA and JCC and provide updates to Council. He stated that the City of'Minneapolis owns property,at 40th andYrance,and the City of Minneapolis has expressed continued''interest in:selling,the property to St.,Louis Park and Edina, adding that staff will be MeetingwithCity of Minneapolis officials this week to further discuss the property. The meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Written reports-provided-and documented for recording purposes only: 4. Blake.Road/Aquila Avenue Corridor Study Update _ `I Nancy Stro , City Clerk Anne Mavity, Mayor Pro Tem