The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007/11/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session City Council Study Session November 13, 2007 6:40 p.m. Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. - Special City Council (Canvass Election Results) Discussion Items 1. 6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning 2. 6:45 p.m. 2008 Budget Discussion 3. 7:30 p.m. Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services 4. 8:15 p.m. Proposed Redevelopment of the Former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair Property located at 7102 & 7104 Lake Street 5. 8:45 p.m. Highway 7 / Wooddale Avenue Interchange Project Update 6. 9:30 p.m. Communications (verbal) Written Reports 7. West End Financial Assistance Update 8. Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy – Amendment to Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities 9:40 p.m. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD (952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting Date: November 13, 2007 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 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager finalize study session agendas for special study sessions on November 19 and the regularly scheduled meeting on November 26. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed? BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the study sessions on November 19 and November 26. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None VISION CONSIDERATION: None Attachment: Tentative Study Session Agendas for November 19 and 26, 2007 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of November 13, 2007 (Item 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Monday, November 19, 2007 – 6:00 p.m. Board and Commission Interviews Special Study Session – 6:30 p.m. 1. Program Budget Discussion – Finance (45 minutes) This is the last of the four department budget discussions with Council. Information Resources, Finance and Community Development will review the programs and services they provide and discuss their 2008 proposed budgets. Does the Council want to direct staff to make any changes prior to the adoption of the budget in December? Council meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. Special Study Session reconvenes when Council meeting adjourns. 2. Wireless Update – Information Resources (60 - 90 minutes) Staff to provide Council with a wireless update. Monday, November 26, 2007 Study Session - 6:30 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Duke’s West End Plan – Community Development (30 minutes) Staff will report on the results of the West End citizen committee process and share the updated Duke Project Redevelopment Concept plan. Does the Council find the plan acceptable? Is it appropriate for Duke to move forward with preparing an application for a final PUD and plat for future Council approval? 3. 2008 Budget Discussion – Finance (45 minutes) Staff to present the draft 2008 budget to the Council. Does the Council agree with the budget as proposed? 4. Wireless Update – Information Resources (60 - 90 minutes) Staff to provide Council with a wireless update. 5. 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: • Housing Authority Annual Report – Community Development • October Financial Reports – Finance • Sign Ordinance Amendments – Community Development • Vision Update – Administrative Services 9:00 – 9:30 p.m. End of Meeting Meeting Date: November 13, 2007 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: 2008 Budget Discussion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests that the City Council discuss the activities and programs contained in the Public Works and Park & Recreation budgets with the City Manager and department heads. This discussion is intended to focus on the various programs in each department and the budget necessary to accomplish those program activities. This discussion is not structured to be a line item budget review. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the budgets adequately fund departmental activities? Are there specific questions that Councilmembers want staff to follow-up on? Are there programs or services Council would like to see added, deleted or changed? BACKGROUND: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director and Cindy Walsh, Park and Recreation Director will be at the meeting on Monday to discuss their budgets for 2008. Their budgets generally contain modest increases with the exception of the PW-Operations budget where energy and oil costs are projected to increase substantially. The following is a listing of what is covered under each department in this budget discussion: Park and Recreation • Organized Recreation • Rec Center • Park Maintenance • Westwood Nature Center • Environmental (Nature Resources) • Vehicle Maintenance (Fleet) Public Works • Public Works Administration • Pubic Works Engineering • Public Works Operations • Water • Sewer • Storm Water • Storm Water • Solid Waste Meeting of November 13, 2007 Page 2 Subject: 2008 Budget Discussion The utility budgets will require rate increases consistent with the projections that were presented with the rate studies that were performed last year. Those increases are: 2007 2008 $ Increase Water * $1.04 $1.14 $0.10 Sewer* $1.79 $1.88 $0.09 Storm Water** $11.50 $12.25 $0.75 Solid Waste*** $37.50 $40.00 $2.50 * = per 100 cubic feet ** = per standard lot *** = based on 30 gallon cart These proposed rate increases will come back to the City Council in December for official action. VISION CONSIDERATION: SLP Youth Commuter Bus For several years, various groups in St. Louis Park, have discussed the idea of having a bus that would transport youth throughout our community during the summer months. This bus would provide opportunities for youth to catch a ride to places like the Rec Center, library, Central Community Center, parks, metro bus stops and perhaps private businesses like Knollwood Mall, Miracle Mile, Movie Theater, and the Roller Garden. A committee was formed from the Family Services Collaborative to investigate this opportunity. The committee started by looking at what other cities are doing. At this time, there are not any suburbs that are offering this service, but Minneapolis and St. Paul have successful programs. This research committee was made up of Rick Birno Recreation Superintendent, Mary Juberian Community Education Adult Services Manager, Dorothy Karlson Co-Chair of Family Service Collaborative, George Baboila Co-Chair of Family Service Collaborative, Tom Burr Director of St. Louis Park School District Transportation, and Jackie Olafson Director of STEP. If the City is interested in starting a commuter bus for youth ages 9-16 for the summer months, the cost would be approximately $60,000 for 2 buses. This would include bus costs and a supervisor to ride each bus. Although, we would plan to charge kids a minimum rate, the program would still need to be subsidized. Staff thinks there may be opportunities to obtain donations from area businesses, grants from the school and the community foundation, and other organizations that support transportation. Staff is supportive of trying this commuter bus for a year. If council is interested, the City would need to be the financial agent and program coordinator. Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent would be the lead staff person. At this point, no dollars have been included in the budget for this program. A possible source on a one time basis would be the Housing Rehab Fund. (This is the same fund that was proposed to be used for the Senior Community Services dial –a- ride program). Staff believes that this initiative is consistent with VISION in the areas of transportation, gathering places and community events. It will give youth opportunities to get to our main gathering places, attend city and school events and get to employment opportunities. The Children First initiative is also supportive of the idea. Meeting of November 13, 2007 Page 3 Subject: 2008 Budget Discussion Staff needs direction on whether we should try this for the 2008 summer season or wait for the 2009 budget process. Attachments: Departmental Budget Summaries Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director City of St. Louis Park Public Works: Administration Service Overview Staffing The Public Works Administrative group is designed to provide administrative support for the other three Public Works divisions: Engineering, Operations, and Utilities. This division also manages the Solid Waste program and provides project management services for a portion of the City's Capital Improvement Program. The focus in 2008 is to complete the initial development and implementation of management systems to track and manage city infrastructure assets, such as streets, water, and sewer systems. These systems are critical in monitoring and managing our programs, services, and infrastructure assets. Another major initiative is to continue to aid in providing project management services for Capital Improvements which were previously being done only by the Engineering and Utilities divisions. The administrative group coordinates data collection and dissemination efforts for the management systems. Increased mapping capabilities are providing new ways to organize large amounts of data to better inform decision-makers, staff, and the public. No staffing changes are planned for 2008. Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 1 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 714,151$ 748,138$ #766,937$ #793,133$ Supplies 3,382 5,842 7,000 6,000 Services & Other Charges 15,880 33,674 #25,650 #33,450 Capital Outlay - - - - Other Expenses - - - - Total Expenditures 733,413$ 787,654$ 799,587$ 832,583$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Public Works: Administration Budget Highlights Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Personnel expenses dominate this budget, making up 96% of the total. A substantial portion of the funding for this budget comes from transfers from the Water, Sewer, Storm Water, and Solid Waste enterprise funds. To be specific, in 2008 it is proposed that approximately $520,000 from enterprise funds should be used to fund personnel costs associated with this division. Supplies 0.72% Services 4.02% Personal Services 95.26% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 2 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Public Works: Engineering Service Overview Staffing The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works primarily provides support services for the Water, Sewer, Street and Traffic Divisions, Community Development, and Parks & Recreation Departments. Division activities focus on implementing long-term capital improvements to the City’s infrastructure from concept through construction including inspections, studies, analysis, surveys, design, public involvement, construction inspection, and administration. Division staff perform bridge inspections, process and analyze traffic requests, conduct traffic studies, provide input on proposed developments, administer permits, and oversee the City’s Pavement Management Program and Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (CWRMP). The division selects and manages consultants as needed to provide services for the City. The division provides input and coordination with other municipalities, Hennepin County, State, and various other agencies on various transportation-related issues and projects within or affecting the City. The Division also provides timely response and service to general public requests on a daily basis. The Engineering Division has also developed a Residential Street Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program that provides a strategy for the most cost-effective, long-term maintenance of the City’s streets. This program will reference the Utility Division’s infrastructure management system to facilitate utility and roadway improvements in a coordinated, systematic way. Implementation of this program began in 2005. The Engineering Division currently has a full-time staff of seven (7) consisting of one (1) City Engineer, one (1) Engineering Project Manager, one (1) Engineering Program Coordinator, and four (4) Engineering Technicians. The Division was reduced by two in 2004 due to budget cuts (1 Engineering Technician and 1 Survey Aide). The primary tasks performed are the development, design, construction, and inspection/administration of public improvements and the public involvement efforts associated with the improvements, as well as development reviews, traffic requests, right-of-way permitting, and surface water management. Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 3 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 564,151$ 645,855$ 660,469$ 690,511$ Supplies 6,470 4,023 8,400 9,000 Services & Other Charges 76,609 75,909 76,433 85,671 Capital Outlay - - - 5,000 Other Expenses - - - - Total Expenditures 647,230$ 725,787$ 745,302$ 790,182$ Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Public Works: Engineering 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights The 2008 budget is increased from the 2007 adopted budget by $44,880 (6.0% ). The increase is basically due to standard inflationary salary increases and contractual service expenses. 2008 will see the start, continuation, and completion of several capital improvement projects. The pavement management program will see the rehabilitation of streets in the Bronx Park and Birchwood neighborhoods. The Engineering Division is also working with MN/Dot and Hennepin County on future improvements and phases of improvement in the TH 100 and TH 7 corridors as well as Excelsior Boulevard . The division is also working closely with community development to plan and construct infrastructure improvement related to redevelopment, such as the reconstruction of Park Place Boulevard and 36th St. Supplies 1.14% Services 10.84% Personal Services 87.39% Capital Outlay .63% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 4 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Public Works: Operations Service Overview Staffing The Operations Division has a mission to ensure the safety of the traveling public and to provide for a safe, functional transportation system within St. Louis Park. The Division is responsible for providing timely response to citizen requests, providing data for short and long range planning to aid City Council and staff in making sound policy and procedural decisions, and cooperating with other branches of city government so as to maximize service delivery to the public. A computerized asset management system is being utilized by the division to assist in the management of the transportation system facilities. Consistent with the Vision St. Louis Park, the division is striving to provide necessary accommodations to the public for transportation needs such as sidewalks, trails, and a safe transportation system. In order to achieve the goal of responsive government, the division is working with employees and residents to provide effective, quality services. Staff paid from this budget include 12 maintenance employees and 3 management employees. Future staffing in 2008 and beyond may be impacted by evolving budget issues. Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 5 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 1,011,743$ 1,079,676$ 1,189,580$ 1,219,516$ Supplies 265,875 296,952 305,500 331,000 Services & Other Charges 1,107,963 1,023,121 800,583 861,898 Capital Outlay - 8,639 - - Other Expenses 6,430 - - - Total Expenditures 2,392,011$ 2,408,388$ 2,295,663$ 2,412,414$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights Public Works: Operations The 2008 budget increased from the 2007 budget primarily due to three line items: rising electical costs associated with powering our street lights and traffic signals; increased asphalt material costs due to the rising cost of oil; and the continued implementation of our street light replacement program. No major changes are expected in Operations' manpower or services for 2008. Supplies 13.72% Services 35.73% Personal Services 50.55% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 6 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Public Works: Water Utility Service Overview Staffing The Utility Division, Water Operations, has a mission to provide residents and businesses with adequate amounts of clean, safe, drinking water in an environmentally and economically sound manner. Towards that goal, a Water Contingency and Conservation Plan was developed and adopted in 1998 which provides guidance for water system emergencies and conservation of the water supply. An Information Management System (IMS) has been implemented to assist in the preventive maintenance programs for the wells, treatment plant operations, storage facilities, and the distribution system, as well as to aid in long term capital planning. Water production is controlled by a computerized logic system that includes an energy management system that has produced savings in energy costs. Emergency generators are being installed at two water treatment plants that will provide adaquate supply of water in a power outage emergency. Consistent with Vision St. Louis Park, the division is striving to provide education to the public with an emphasis on grade school age children. The Utility Division works as a complete unit sharing all duties in the Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, and Reilly operations. The division has fourteen employees consisting of one superintendent, two supervisors, and eleven employees performing operations and maintenance. Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 7 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed General Property Taxes 539$ 459$ -$ -$ Licenses & Permits 2,625 2,788 1,500 1,500 Intergovernmental 304,671 - - - Charges For Services 2,290,100 2,786,613 2,921,029 - Special Assessments 46,660 55,234 141,625 - Transfers In 73,350 - - - Interest Income 39,463 28,048 40,000 28,100 Miscellaneous 27,375 134,534 150,281 - Total Revenues 2,784,783$ 3,007,676$ 3,254,435$ 29,600$ 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 643,530$ 637,832$ 786,616$ 806,591$ Supplies 304,587 331,221 352,800 341,200 Services & Other Charges 1,324,851 1,529,505 1,505,403 1,506,015 Depreciation 322,152 331,438 - - Capital Outlay - 2,719 1,467,551 1,500,000 Transfers Out 912,771 506,965 538,881 533,656 Other Expenses 12,001 12,895 - - Total Expenses 3,519,892$ 3,352,575$ 4,651,251$ 4,687,462$ Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues 2008 Budgeted Expenses Budget Highlights Public Works: Water Utility Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses The Water Utility Department has just completed a 15-year review of the water infrastructure. The major projects scheduled in 2007 are the water main replacements on Excelsior Boulevard west of Highway 100 and the rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plant No. 16 on Flag Avenue . Other water treatment plants are scheduled to be rehabilitated over the next several years which will improve their filtering efficiency and the addition of treatment to insure radium compliance based on State of Minnesota requirements. Utility revenue is generated through water rates and billed services. No property tax dollars are allocated for the operation of the water utility. Rates for this utility have remained stable for the past few years and are scheduled to increase from $0.90 per 100 cubic feet of water in 2006 to $1.04 per 100 cubic feet of water in 2007. The scheduled rate increase in 2007 is due to the scheduled water treatment plant and watermain rehabilitation programs. For budgetary purposes, depreciation is not included as an expense. Instead, the amount projected to be expended for infrastructure improvements (capital outlay) is included as an expense to the operations. Capital Outlay 32.17% Transfers Out 11.55% Services 31.66% Supplies 7.32% Personal Services 17.30% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenses Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non- capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Depreciation: Depreciation expense on fixed assets Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Transfers Out: Operating transfers to other funds Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 8 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Public Works: Sanitary Sewer Utility Service Overview Staffing Sanitary Sewer Operations has a mission to maintain, operate, and improve the collection system as effectively, economically, and efficiently as possible. An Information Management System is used to assist in the maintenance, operation, and improvement of the collection system. A capital improvement program has been implemented to repair and replace the aging infrastructure. A collection system maintenance program is in place, which provides for the 140 miles of sewer to be cleaned at least once every three years. The system transports over two billion gallons of sewage each year to main collector pipelines operated by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). The sewage is transported to the Metro treatment plant in St. Paul where it is treated and discharged into the Mississippi River. The Utility Division works as a complete unit sharing all duties in the water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and reilly operations. The division has fourteen employees consisting of one superintendent, two supervisors and eleven employees performing operations and maintenance. Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 9 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Intergovernmental -$ -$ 210,000$ -$ Charges For Services 4,366,911 4,584,159 4,588,394 - Special Assessments 958 642 - - Transfers In - - - - Miscellaneous 78,828 118,835 112,000 119,000 Total Revenues 4,446,697$ 4,703,636$ 4,910,394$ 119,000$ 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 459,009$ 436,403$ 336,554$ 330,214$ Supplies 30,492 29,859 52,750 43,450 Services & Other Charges 3,168,333 3,557,264 3,576,276 3,563,723 Depreciation 246,707 231,862 - - Capital Outlay - - 1,302,680 247,245 Transfers Out 720,367 746,060 790,849 741,335 Other Expenses - 13,552 - - Total Expenses 4,624,908$ 5,015,000$ 6,059,109$ 4,925,967$ 2008 Budgeted Expenses Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues Public Works: Sanitary Sewer Utility Budget Highlights Sanitary Sewer rates increased by 5% in 2007. MCES charges - over the past several years, MCES has been working to reduce the amount of reserves they carried. The reserve reduction resulted in lower payments for the discharge of sewer. At this time, the MCES has gone back to charging the full amount for sewer flow. MCES charges account for approximately 80% of the total expenditure budget not including the capital improvement program and transfers to the general fund. Administrative and overhead fee transfer to General Fund - in prior years, this fund has transferred a nominal amount to the General Fund for administrative services and overhead. Beginning in 2004, this fund began contributing the full amount for overhead and services received. For budgetary purposes, depreciation is not included as an expense. Instead, the amount projected to be expended for infrastructure improvements (capital outlay) is included as an expense to the operations. Personal Services 6.67%Supplies 0.88% Services 71.47% Transfers Out 15.98% Capital Outlay 5.00% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenses Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Depreciation: Depreciation expense on fixed assets Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Transfers Out: Operating transfers to other funds Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 10 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Public Works: Storm Water Utility Service Overview Staffing The Storm Water Utility has a mission to maintain, operate, and improve the collection system as effectively, economically and efficiently as possible. Towards that goal, the City has adopted a Storm Water Management Plan that addresses many of the future water quality challenges mandated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and watershed districts. An Information Management System has been implemented for the collection of data that will provide information to assist in the maintenance, operation and improvement of the system. This system will also assist in long range planning and capital improvements necessary for continued optimum operation. A feasibility study of flood problem areas was completed and is being implemented in stages through the capital improvement program. The Utility Division works as a complete unit sharing all duties in the water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and reilly operations. The division has fourteen employees consisting of one superintendent, two supervisors, and eleven employees performing operations and maintenance. Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 11 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Intergovernmental 932,069$ 353,942$ 687,564$ -$ Charges For Services 914,053 1,169,915 1,453,844 - Special Assessments - - - - Transfers In 75,000 - - - Miscellaneous 14,087 18,553 32,000 19,000 Total Revenues 1,935,209$ 1,542,410$ 2,173,408$ 19,000$ 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 120,227$ 151,930$ 196,287$ 212,881$ Supplies 27,865 12,627 12,300 12,150 Services & Other Charges 253,733 477,245 435,996 404,616 Depreciation 371,574 372,128 - - Capital Outlay - - 2,382,241 - Transfers Out 265,241 335,118 317,694 328,437 Other Expenses 20,577 18,482 16,317 18,000 Total Expenses 1,059,217$ 1,367,530$ 3,360,835$ 976,084$ 2008 Budgeted Expenses Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenue Budget Highlights Public Works: Storm Water Utility Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses The Storm Water Utility was established in 2000 to create a revenue source for the capital improvement program and continued repair and maintenance on the storm water system. The rate consists of a basic charge for single/two family residential lots and an acreage charge for multiple residential and commercial use. The rate for 2008 is $12.25. The revenue funds the basic operation and maintenance and provides payment on the special bond for capital improvements. Federal Agencies have enacted regulations that will increase the basic operation cost of the utility. For budgetary purposes, depreciation is not included as an expense. Instead, the amount projected to be expended for infrastructure improvements (capital outlay) is included as an expense to the operations. Personal Services 21.99% Supplies 1.26% Other Expenses 1.86% Transfers Out 32.82% Services 42 07% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenses Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Depreciation: Depreciation expense on fixed assets Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Transfers Out: Operating transfers to other funds Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 12 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Budget Highlights Staffing Public Works: Solid Waste Utility Public Works: Solid Waste Utility Service Overview By contract, the City provides for weekly organized collection and disposal of mixed municipal solid waste, recyclables, yard waste, bulk goods (furniture), white goods (appliances) and electronics for all single through four-plex residential units. These same services are available to small mult-family and commercial properties that can be serviced with carts and bins, rather than rolloffs. The Public Works Administrative Division provides ongoing contract administration services and contractor interface as well as addresses the day-to-day issues, concerns, and questions from the public. The current 5-year contract with Waste Management began 9/30/2003 and extends through 9/30/2008. In 2003 the solid waste program was changed to a pay-as-you-throw program, changing the rate structure to conform with the current contract. Collection & disposal rates change annually based on the current contract. As directed by Council, the revenues need to balance expenditures in the near future, based on the financial plan by Finance, as the Solid Waste Fund reserve no longer has adequate funds to continue to subsidize the revenue from residents. One of the Solid Waste program primary goals is environmental stewardship. This is now a citywide goal as well. In view of this goal, the city has expanded the collection program to include smaller businesses and multi-family residential. The 2008 contract will include commercial and high-density residential solid waste collection, to offer an opportunity for those properties to participate in the program. Consideration is being given to expanding the residential recycling program to include food waste organics and modifying the recycling program to create more control over processing and end markets and ultimately having a more positive effect on the environment. Combined, these new opportunities will revitalize the solid waste program and should have a positive effect on recycling participation which affects our SCORE funding. Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) Public Works Director Operations Superintendent City Engineer Utilities Superintendent Public Works Coordinator Field Supervisor Field Supervisor Engineering Project Manager Engineering Program Coordinator Engineering Technician (4) Field Supervisor ( 2) Administrative Specialist Information Specialist (2)Support Staff (5) Maintenance (2)Maintenance (10)Maintenance (11) The Public works administrative division consists of one coordinator, one administrative specialist, two information specialists, and five support staff. This division performs the administrative duties for solid waste as well as other public works divisions. 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 13 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Intergovernmental 119,165$ 91,516$ 95,000$ 94,000$ Charges For Services 1,857,810 2,124,203 2,235,283 2,364,503 Miscellaneous 55,721 92,511 80,000 90,000 Total Revenues 2,032,696$ 2,308,230$ 2,410,283$ 2,548,503$ 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expense Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 37,472$ 34,382$ 50,398$ 53,283$ Supplies 20,677 50,948 40,000 46,600 Services & Other Charges 1,961,054 1,943,973 2,114,500 2,141,544 Depreciation - - - - Capital Outlay - - - - Transfers Out 345,492 335,617 348,866 356,784 Other Expenses - - - - Total Expenses 2,364,695$ 2,364,920$ 2,553,764$ 2,598,211$ Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenses 2008 Budgeted Expenses Public Works: Solid Waste Utility Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenue Hennepin County has been providing SCORE funding (Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment) to municipalities to offset costs for providing curbside recycling collection to residents since the mid-1980s. The money is allocated based on a city’s share of total households served on curbside collection routes with a few performance based contingencies. In 2007 we received approximately $90,000 in SCORE funding from the County. The SCORE funding actually comes from the garbage taxes collected by the state. Yard waste volume is dependent upon the weather and length of the growing season, both of which change from year to year. One program option allows residents to choose a reduced service and receive a $3 credit on their quarterly utility bill in exchange for not bagging grass clippings and setting them out for collection. Approximately two-thirds of residents have the reduced yard waste service. Personal Services 2.05%Transfers Out 13.64% Services 82.51% Supplies 1.80% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenses Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Depreciation: Depreciation expense on fixed assets Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Transfers Out: Operating transfers to other funds Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 14 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Service Overview Parks and Recreation Staffing The Parks and Recreation Department consists of seven operating divisions: Recreation Center, Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center (WHEEC), Natural Resources/Environment, Park Maintenance, Vehicle Maintenance, Equipment Replacement, and Organized Recreation. Vision St. Louis Park has been a major force in providing direction for Parks and Recreation services. We continue to place children first in our community by providing year-round recreational activities as well as volunteer opportunities for youth in our community. Information regarding the Equipment Replacement is located separately within this budget document. The department has shared resources between divisions. These positions are indicated on the individual division sections within this budget document. Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 15 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Revenue Classification Actual Actual Adopted Adopted General Property Taxes 2,701,446$ 2,841,956$ 3,540,854$ 3,795,867$ Licenses & Permits 7,075 7,485 - - Intergovernmental 53,762 81,511 56,402 56,402 Charges For Services 1,356,417 1,107,658 1,077,220 1,058,170 Special Assessments 17,586 77,214 - - Rent Revenue 823,034 655,364 807,061 820,061 Transfers In 457,302 - 100,000 75,000 Interest Income 718 1,570 8,000 1,600 Miscellaneous 19,553 26,595 18,600 14,100 Total Revenues 5,436,893$ 4,799,353$ 5,608,137$ 5,821,200$ 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Adopted Organized Recreation 1,123,739$ 1,202,686$ 1,223,354$ 1,250,699$ Recreation Center 1,283,891 1,293,032 1,319,600 1,358,382 Park Maintenance 1,532,978 1,608,262 1,333,382 1,377,518 Westwood 411,451 438,971 452,085 466,677 Environment 826,793 508,895 276,598 288,982 Vehicle Maintenance - - 1,003,119 1,061,571 Contingency - - - - Total Expenditures 5,178,852$ 5,051,846$ 5,608,137$ 5,803,830$ Budget Highlights Parks and Recreation Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures 2008 Budgeted Expenditures by Division Vehicle Maintenance 18.29% Park Maintenance 23.73% Recreation Center 23.40% Organized Recreation 21.55%Environment 4.98% Westwood 8.00% Organized Recreation Recreation Center Park Maintenance Westwood Environment Vehicle Maintenance In 2008, the following projects and initiatives are proposed: Fern Hill Park building replacement and park redevelopment, a second off-leash dog park site, an energy audit of the Rec Center, playground replacements at Jackley and Pennsylvania Parks, a Sun Shelter at Louisiana Oaks Park, bathrooms in the new Westwood Hills Nature Center program building, replacing the stairs at Westwood Hills Nature Center, the first phase of relocating the beehive historical artifact, and miscellaneous other park improvements. We will continue to evaluate both active and passive park sites and recommend the capital improvement projects for the future. 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 16 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Organized Recreation Service Overview Staffing The Organized Recreation Division is responsible for providing recreation program opportunities for residents of all ages and abilities. Although many of our programs have user fees, the department offers fee assistance to children and families who can not afford to pay the full cost of the program. There are over 6,000 youth involved in our programs. The majority of our youth programs are instructional in nature. Our mission is to develop skills and have fun. Currently, we have over 30 youth t-ball and soccer teams involved in our programs. In addition to youth sports and recreation programs, we offer several adult team sport programs. Our adult softball program has 190 teams. We also have an additional 140 adult sports teams signed up for basketball, volleyball, football, soccer, kickball, and broomball. The Organized Recreation Division has 6.5 staff including the Parks and Recreation Director. The Administrative Secretary is a shared resource between the Recreation Center Division and Organized Recreation division. Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 17 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 640,400$ 682,333$ 685,781$ 711,222$ Supplies 40,501 46,845 69,832 66,892 Services & Other Charges 428,611 460,237 467,741 472,585 Capital Outlay - - - - Other Expenses 14,227 13,271 - - Total Expenditures 1,123,739$ 1,202,686$ 1,223,354$ 1,250,699$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights Organized Recreation The 2008 Organized Recreation adopted budget includes the recreation programs we offer for youth and adults. Many of these programs are in response to requests from residents or recent trends in the area of Parks and Recreation. We will continue to change our offerings for youth and family programs to meet the needs of the community. Services 37.80% Supplies 5.35% Personal Services 56.85% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 18 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Recreation Center Service Overview Staffing The Recreation Center Division includes the outdoor aquatic park, two indoor ice arenas, a concession stand, and two rooms within the Recreation Center, which can be reserved. The Recreation Center provides a community gathering place and offers wholesome family oriented activities while maximizing revenue opportunities and minimizing operational expenses. The Aquatic Park continues to be a busy place during the summer where children and adults can have fun in the water. The Ice Arenas provide ice for programs operated by St. Louis Park and Benilde St. Margaret's High Schools, local youth hockey associations, a learn to skate program and numerous leaques, clinics and hockey schools. Recreation Center permanent staffing consists of 6.5 employees. The staff consists of one manager, five maintenance staff, and an administrative secretary who shares time between this division and Organized Recreation. Approximately 70 summer staff positions are hired to operate the Aquatic Park in the summer. Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 19 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 689,301$ 683,135$ 735,942$ 765,998$ Supplies 158,203 170,249 160,300 167,100 Services & Other Charges 431,407 439,648 411,358 413,284 Capital Outlay - - 12,000 12,000 Other Expenses 4,980 - - - Total Expenditures 1,283,891$ 1,293,032$ 1,319,600$ 1,358,382$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights Recreation Center Personal Services and utility costs are the major budget expenditures. As equipment upgrades are implemented, cost of operation from a utility standpoint will receive increased attention. In 2007, the East Arena metal halide lighting system was replaced with a more energy efficient compact flurescent system. A major emphasis will continue to be operating the Aquatic Park with efficient summer staff. Efficiencies in equipment operation costs are also being evaluated. Revenues will continue increasing as rental fees increase and demand for ice time remains strong. Supplies 12.29% Services 30.50% Personal Services 56.33% Capital Outlay 0.88% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Depreciation: Depreciation expense on fixed assets Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Transfers Out: Operating transfers to other funds Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 20 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Park Maintenance Service Overview Staffing The Park Maintenance Division maintains the parks and trees in the City. There are 52 park areas including the Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center. Within our parks, we maintain an amphitheater, hockey rinks, ball fields, soccer fields, a water feature, a skate park, irrigation, and trails. In addition to a number of open spaces that we mow throughout the year, there are approximately 500 acres of city property that our maintenance crew mows each year. The Park Maintenance division is also responsible for maintaining the buildings and shelters located in our parks. The Park Maintenance Division includes one manager, one field supervisor, and ten maintenance staff. Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 21 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 864,313$ 909,122$ 933,627$ 961,356$ Supplies 104,766 113,300 92,700 92,700 Services & Other Charges 561,509 585,820 300,055 316,462 Capital Outlay 2,390 - 7,000 7,000 Other Expenses - 20 - - Total Expenditures 1,532,978$ 1,608,262$ 1,333,382$ 1,377,518$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights Park Maintenance The 2008 budget includes the following maintenance projects: overlaying basketball and trail areas, scenery work in parks, building outdoor ice rinks, mowing, ball field maintenance, playground inspection and repair, irrigation, and other routine maintenance items that occur in the parks. The maintenance items in the budget are more routine in nature. All of the redevelopment of existing structures and new development items are in our CIP. Supplies 6.73% Personal Services 69.76% Capital Outlay 0.51%Services 23.00% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 22 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center (WHEEC) Service Overview Staffing The Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center Division (WHEEC) is responsible for providing environmental education and natural history programming, passive outdoor enjoyment, and wildlife observation on the 150 acre nature preserve. On average over the past ten years, over 28,000 individuals participate each year in formal programs conducted by the naturalist staff or visit the interpretive center. Programs are offered for all ages and abilities, not only at the nature center, but in other city park lands and other metro cities as well. Our staff work closely with local school staff to design programs that support their educational outcomes and requirements. The staff at WHEEC consists of one manager, 2.25 naturalists and 1 clerical support person. There are also 2.25 non- benefited staff who are employed year-round to assist in the designing and teaching of the programs. A very active volunteer staff also assist in the operation and programming of the center. Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 23 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 371,507$ 382,913$ 394,253$ 404,678$ Supplies 18,119 23,032 22,300 22,650 Services & Other Charges 21,404 31,927 35,532 39,349 Capital Outlay - - - - Other Expenses 421 1,099 - - Total Expenditures 411,451$ 438,971$ 452,085$ 466,677$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights Westwood Hills Environmental Education Center (WHEEC) Several CIP projects were completed in 2007 at Westwood. These included repaving the parking lot, driveway and main entrance trail; creating a new paved pedestrian trail; installing two new rain gardens and planting native trees and shrubs. CIP projects planned for 2008 include replacement of the front entrance gate and fence, as well as continuing to replant native trees and shrubs. In an effort to increase revenues, staff is continuing to design and implement new daytime program opportunities for home school students, as well as developing a raptor outreach program to be taught in area schools, businesses, churches, etc. Supplies 4.86% Services 8.36% Personal Services 86.78% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 24 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Natural Resources & Environment Service Overview Staffing The Environment Division is responsible for coordinating environmental issues in the City. The forestry portion of the budget provides tree planting and maintenance of 70,000 park and open space trees throughout the City of St. Louis Park. The City also provides professional assistance for 20,000 boulevard trees. The City takes a proactive approach to it’s trees by providing some assistance to residents who want to protect their elm trees and oak trees by injecting them with an fungicide injection that helps to prevent Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt. The City of St. Louis Park provides tree and weed inspectors who inspect both private and public property. The Environment Division provides emphasis on preserving the City's natural areas by assisting staff and residents with issues and concerns. This division is also responsible for planting and maintaining flower beds, landscaping, wildlife management, erosion control enforcement, environmental outreach, and shore line restoration. The Environment Division includes one environmental coordinator and seasonal administration, forestry, weed control, and flower planting staff. The full-time position is a shared resource with Water, Solid Waste, and Storm Water divisions. Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 25 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services 91,254$ 94,697$ 96,663$ 99,297$ Supplies 29,268 13,996 14,100 18,400 Services & Other Charges 703,858 400,085 165,835 171,285 Capital Outlay - 117 - - Other Expenses 2,413 - - - Total Expenditures 826,793$ 508,895$ 276,598$ 288,982$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights Environment The Environmental Coordinator administers the forestation and reforestation programs, oversees turf and natural resource management, assists with the assessment of environmental impact resulting from proposed projects, assists in storm water management, and develops various educational programs to educate the public on environmental issues. The City has lost many Elm trees to Dutch Elm disease. Our goal is to replace all of the trees lost to this disease. Personal Services 34.36% Supplies 6.37% Services 59.27% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenditures Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 26 of 28 City of St. Louis Park Parks & Recreation: Vehicle Maintenance Service Overview Staffing The Central Equipment Services Division under Parks Maintenance within the Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for managing the City's equipment fleet. The division purchases and maintains a wide range of vehicles including cars, light and heavy trucks, and a variety of construction, specialty and public safety equipment. Division services include: development of the vehicle replacement program; preparation of equipment specifications; maintenance and repair of the fleet and management of fuel inventories. The division works closely with all City departments to ensure that the appropriate numbers and types of equipment are available to meet the City's current and future service priorities and minimize fleet costs. The Municipal Service Center's Central Equipment Services work unit operates a full time staff of six (6) employees. Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) Parks and Recreation Director Manager of Buildings and Structures Nature Center Manager Park Superintendent Recreation Superintendent Administrative Secretary Environmental Coordinator Recreation Supervisors (3) Secretary / Program AideMaintenance (5)Field Supervisor Maintenance (10) Equipment SuperintendentNaturalist (2.25) Office Assistant / ReceptionistMaintenance (5) 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 27 of 28 City of St. Louis Park 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure Classification Actual Actual Adopted Proposed Personal Services - $ - $ 440,064$ 461,301$ Supplies - - 414,100 432,050 Services & Other Charges - - 140,210 130,939 Capital Outlay - - - 28,300 Transfers Out - - 8,746 8,981 Other Expenses - - - - Total Expenditures -$ -$ 1,003,119$ 1,061,571$ 2008 Budgeted Expenditures Budget Highlights Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures Park & Recreation: Vehicle Maintenance In 2007 Equipment Services changed budget processes; simplifing equipment cost accounting by eliminating internal chargebacks. Customer budgeting and expense concerns deminished, equipment ownership was no longer a burden. Equipment Services accepted the added responsibility to provide quality maintenance and managing all fleet costs. Operation expenses are strictly monitored through general accounting practices with Squarerigger fleet management support. Enterprise Funds will continue to be charged for their portion of equipment costs through an annual transfer. Services 13.33% Supplies 40.70% Personal Services 43.45% Capital Outlay 2.67%Transfers Out 0.85% Personal Services: All salary and benefit expenses Supplies: Office, operational, general, and non-capital Services: Contractual services, insurance, utilities, repairs Depreciation: Depreciation expense on fixed assets Capital Outlay: Equipment & improvements Transfers Out: Operating transfers to other funds Other Expenses: Interest and bank charges 111307 Item 2 Attachment Page 28 of 28 Meeting Date: November 13, 2007 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: Contract delivery of solid waste services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This study session item is meant to provide Council updated contracting options for the delivery of solid waste collection services. POLICY CONSIDERATION: In deciding services and contracting options, the Council will need to consider and balance collection costs, environmental aggressiveness, staffing impacts, resident impacts, and risks associated with the uncertainty of the availability of organics processing facilities. BACKGROUND: History At the October 22, 2007 Study Session, staff provided Council with a written report and presented options for the delivery of solid waste services to provide organics collection services to residential properties and to expand refuse and recycling collection services to commercial and high density residential property owners. The discussion focused on environmental aggressiveness, financial implications, quality of service, risk and program stability, contractor availability, and staffing implications. Staff expressed the need to collect recycling in a way that it allows for high level processing of materials. Staff also discussed needing to send the material to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) that can process materials in such a way that allows them to be sent to their highest and best use end markets and not land filled elsewhere. Council supported requesting a separate proposal for recycling to ensure this goal. Council expressed support for offering organics collection to residential properties seeing this as a good opportunity to expand environmental stewardship. Council debated the merits of source separated organics (SSO) and co-collected organics (CCO) and determined that CCO would provide the city with the best long-term environmental and financial benefit. Council also discussed whether this is the right time to begin CCO collection considering the limited number of permitted organic composting facilities currently available. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations and state legislation need to be changed to allow permanent sites for CCO. Council also discussed and expressed support for offering businesses and multi-family residential properties an optional service for refuse and recycling collection (dumpster collection). The major reason to add this service to the city collection program is to increase their recycling and reduce their disposal of refuse. Council supported requesting a separate proposal for this service. Meeting of: November 13, 2007 (Item #3) Page 2 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery The other question staff posed to the Council was how the solid waste contract should be structured. Should there be one request for proposal (RFP) for all solid waste services, similar to the current contract, or multiple RFP’s to allow for more flexibility in the program? After much discussion and debate on a variety of options, Council directed staff take the information discussed at the meeting and present Council with a recommended contracting approach for their consideration that best matches their discussion. Contracting Approach • Prepare a separate RFP and contract for recycling collection for residential customers • Prepare a separate RFP and contract for refuse collection and yard waste collection for residential customers with provisions to implement co-collected organics in the future either by: o Negotiating CCO collection prices when co-collection becomes feasible for the city; or, o Establishing future CCO collection prices now during the RFP process • Prepare a separate RFP and contract(s) for optional large volume refuse and recycling collection for commercial and multi-family residential properties FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As noted on October 22, the above approach will likely result in additional staffing needs. There will not be any cost implications to the General Fund resulting from any program or staffing changes, as the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and related collection fees will cover these costs. VISION: The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City Council: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Community members are responsible stewards of the environment and realize their actions today influence the greater ecology inherited by future generations. Focus areas: • Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices. • Working in areas such as…environmental innovations. Attachments: 10/22/07 Study Session Report Organics Collection Program Outline Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Administrative Coordinator Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of: November 13, 2007 (Item #3) Page 3 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery Meeting Date: October 22, 2007 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: Contract options for solid waste services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This study session item is meant to provide Council the opportunity to discuss and decide which proposed solid waste services and contracting option might be right for the community. POLICY CONSIDERATION: In deciding services and contracting options, the Council will need to consider and balance collection costs, environmental aggressiveness, staffing impacts, resident impacts, and risks associated with the uncertainty of the availability of organics processing facilities. BACKGROUND: History At the March 12, 2007 Study Session, the major focus of the discussion was how to enhance the existing recycling program as well as a desire to expand recycling to the entire community. At the May 14, 2007 Study Session, staff provided Council with options to consider for increasing recycling and improving environmental stewardship as well as asked if Council was interested in renegotiating a contract (extending the existing collection contract) with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI). Council provided input on the proposed program changes, expressed an interest in a public involvement process to consider possible changes, and stated they desired staff to utilize an RFP process to establish the next collection contract. At the May 29, 2007 Study Session, the following timeline was discussed to allow a new contract to be put in place to avoid extending the current contract: 1. Review and revise the existing program / services - complete by September 31, 2007. 2. Review and revise the existing contract (program and service delivery requirements) - complete by October 31, 2007. 3. Begin and complete the RFP process (new contract in place) - complete by January 31, 2008. 4. New contract begins October 1, 2008. On May 29 staff also provided Council with the proposed public process to 1) Inform residents of future service / contract changes or offerings; and, 2) Inform commercial / industrial and high density residential property owners of our intent to offer them collection services and assess their interest in that regard. Council then directed staff to assess public interest in the proposed program changes. Meeting of: November 13, 2007 (Item #3) Page 4 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery At the September 24, 2007 Study Session, staff provided Council with a written report presenting the survey results for extending refuse and recycling collection services to commercial and high density residential property owners and for providing organics collection services to residential properties. Residential Organics Collection Based on the 2007 Solid Waste Program Survey results, it is projected that approximately 6,000 out of 12,200 residential customers could have an interest in organics collection. Eleven cities in the metro area currently have a residential organics collection program, are beginning a program, or are participating in a pilot project. Over fifty schools in Hennepin County, including St. Louis Park elementary schools, currently participate in organics collection in their cafeterias. There are three options for organics collection: 1. Collect yard waste only (current program). 2. Source Separated Organics (SSO). Food wastes and non-recyclable paper are collected separately from refuse, recycling, and yard waste. The major benefit of SSO collection is it provides for a better environmental use of organics rather than just burning or landfilling them. Haulers are currently available to provide this collection service. The Hennepin County transfer station in Brooklyn Park is the closest disposal location with a low disposal rate as it is currently subsidized by the county. 3. Co-Collected Organics. Food wastes and non-recyclable paper (SSO) are placed and collected in the same cart as yard waste. Yard waste that doesn’t fit into a cart may be bagged separately in biodegradable or craft (brown paper) bags and collected by the same truck. The major benefit of co-collection over SSO is the cost savings achieved by collecting all organics in the same cart(s) with one truck. Organics Processing Facilities There are currently only four permitted organics composting facilities in the State of Minnesota which accept SSO. The Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) facility is the only one of these four located in the metro area. The RRT facility is located in Empire Township south of Farmington in Dakota County. Staff has some concern regarding the permanency or long term viability of the RRT facility, as RRT has a primary focus on the Municipal Solid Waste industry rather than the organics processing industry. There are currently two other sites in the metro area with special MPCA rule waivers allowing them to accept co-collected organics. One is owned by the City of Hutchinson and the other is owned by Carver County. At this time, the City of Hutchinson is fully utilizing the portion of their site that is permitted by the MPCA; however, the site has additional capacity should they decide to expand and MPCA permits the expansion. The Carver County site is accepting organics and is interested in getting commitments for more co-collected organics from additional cities (like St. Louis Park). Carver County desires to expand their site capacity in the spring of 2008. While this seems likely to occur, there are no assurances this will happen or that the MPCA will allow this or permanently allow the co-collection / processing of organics in the future. Staff has had recent discussions with Hennepin County staff that are looking into the possibility of locating multiple organic composting sites in the county, assuming there is a demand from cities like St. Louis Park and that the MPCA will allow this. Meeting of: November 13, 2007 (Item #3) Page 5 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery Recycling Processing Facilities Currently, recycled materials collected in our city are being processed at the WMI Municipal Recycling Facility (MRF). Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (Allied) operates a similar such MRF. The collection and processing of materials at these types of facilities generally results in a degradation of the quality of the recycled materials with their end use being diminished. Increasing volumes of recycled materials are not meeting manufacturers’ needs and they are ending up in landfills elsewhere. Eureka Recycling operates a MRF which focuses on recycling collection and processing in order to produce larger volumes of high quality materials for manufacturer use. As a result, they are able to accept and process recyclable materials which WMI and Allied can not. This allows residents the opportunity for expanded recycling; however, it does require residents to perform additional sorting of materials at the curb to effectively utilize this. In the end, environmental impacts seem to balance on resident convenience (no or low sort) and cheap collection cost vs. an increased resident sorting need (inconvenience) and higher collection costs. Service and Contracting Options for Residential, Small Businesses, and Small Multi-family Services In evaluating services and contracting options for solid waste collection services, staff has determined there are several ways this can be accomplished. Listed below are the options along with considerations that should be discussed before a decision is made. Environmentally Aggressive or Green Customer or Resident Confidence Risk Tolerance Financial or Cost Contractor Availability, Quality, Experience Staff Resources Staff Rankings RESIDENTIAL, SMALL BUSINESS & SMALL MULTI-FAMILY (Carted Collection) RFP Option 1 (One Contract) #3 - Short Term (YW Alternate) RFP Option 2 (Two Contracts)#2 - Short Term Collection of refuse, recycling, and yard waste Collection of SSO RFP Option 3 (Three Contracts)#1 - Short Term Collection of refuse and yard waste Collection of recycling Collection of SSO RFP Option 4 (Three Contracts)#1 - Future Collection of refuse only Collection of recycling only COMMERCIAL & MULTI-FAMILY (Optional Dumpster Service for Large Properties) #2 #1Option 6 - RFP / Negotiation for services CONTRACTING OPTIONS OPTIONS FOR DELIVERY OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES Option 5 - Negotiate with current vendor for services CONSIDERATIONS Collection of refuse, recycling, yard waste and organics (3 alternates for organics collection) Collection of yard waste and organics (3 alternates for organics collection) Based on past experience and resident complaints, it appears providing residents with a program that is environmentally progressive while maintaining stable, quality, cost effective services weighs most heavily in determining what and how solid waste services should be provided. Meeting of: November 13, 2007 (Item #3) Page 6 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery Staff feels the following six factors (identified above) should be considered in determining which services and contracting options will best meet community needs: 1. Environmental Aggressiveness: Reducing waste, improving recycling and finding the best way to recycle organics should be the environmental goal. Improving recycling means more than simply increasing recycling tonnage or resident participation. More and better use of recycled materials should also be considered. At this time this appears to require separating recycling collection into a separate contract and specifying where collected materials are to be processed. This would be supported by selecting Option 3 or Option 4. 2. Financial Implications: Should the cheapest cost be our goal or should it be to provide environmentally acceptable high quality services at the lowest possible cost? Collection costs will remain the lowest if we continue to deliver our current program. It appears all changes aimed at minimizing environmental impacts will increase costs at this time; SSO collection is expected to increase costs the most now and in the future. SSO collection, if pursued, should be developed as a pilot program (short life expectancy) with the contractor including carts and their cost in the pilot program. Eventually, lower costs associated with the co-collection of organics will be realized if (when) this industry develops in our state. Therefore, Option 1 or Option 4 would be the least expensive, depending upon how the haulers structure their proposals. 3. Quality of Service: Residents expect seamless service between contracts and during the life of the contract. Regardless of the quality, size and experience of a contractor, residents will experience some initial collection and customer service problems whenever a new contractor is selected. Having more than one contract(or) will add complexity and difficulty when dealing with service issues and complaints. Staff will work diligently to monitor, enforce and stress quality of service, but more contractors will complicate service delivery quality. Therefore, Option 1 would be the best choice to ensure the top quality of service. 4. Risk / Program Stability: People do not like change (or they do not like it very often). The amount of change and the frequency of change in our program and services impacts residents. The organics processing industry in Minnesota is in its infancy. Technologies, Facilities, and Regulations are in the development stages and have not quite reached a level of self sufficiency and stability yet. Some cities and counties are pushing the industry forward and creating facilities where there is a need (various pilot programs and MPCA Permit waivers). At this time, it appears we are at the “chicken or the egg” point - increasing demand without established facilities or authority (regulations or legislation); SSO collection will be costly and probably an interim solution with co-collection of organics expected to eventually become the industry standard. The risk for change or instability in the organics collection area is significant at this time. Option 1 (yard waste only) is the least risky option now while there are no current facilities available for Option 4 right now. Options 2 and 3 will subject residents to a likely interim SSO solution at high cost - this may not be a concern if it is voluntary on their part and not aggressively implemented by the city. 5. Contractor Availability: There are contractors available to provide some, if not all, the services we are considering. Some contractors are interested in providing all the services we are considering while some contractors are only interested in some of them. No matter which option is chosen, it appears two or more contractors will be interested in providing us services. Meeting of: November 13, 2007 (Item #3) Page 7 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery 6. Staffing Implications: Depending upon the options chosen, staffing will be impacted. For every program or contract added to the current solid waste program there will need to be additional new staff. It is expected that the multi-family and business solid waste program and collection contract (described below) could be handled by one new staff person. If multiple contractors or haulers are used, public education efforts are increased, and organics collection is pursued, then an additional two to three new staff may be needed. Space at city hall is limited so office facilities, equipment, and supervisory considerations will need to be determined. In this sense, Option 1 requires the fewest additional staff. Service and Contracting Options for Large Businesses and Multi-family Residential Services Businesses and multi-family residential both fall into the commercial category of solid waste collection. At this time, these properties can subscribe services from any city-licensed hauler. Recently, we have extended our current collection services to small businesses and multi-family properties that requested us to provide their service. However, in some cases the size of service required is larger than what is currently provided under our carted program. To do this will require us to contract for dumpster (vs. carted) provided refuse and recycling collection services. These contract services can be obtained as follows: 1. Amend the current solid waste contract by negotiation to add larger service level options for collection using dumpsters (Option 5). 2. Request proposals for a separate contract to add larger service level options for collection using dumpsters (Option 6). The major reason to provide a city collection program for businesses and multi-family properties is to allow them to increase their recycling and reduce their disposal of refuse. Summary Based on the information provided above, the following is provided to aid in focusing on the feasibility of the options discussed: 1. It is to early to pursue co-collection of organics at this time 2. SSO is the most costly organics collection option and appears to be an interim solution to organics disposal 3. Program, cart, service, and contractor changes to residents should be minimized 4. General fund costs are not impacted by any changes, but becoming “greener” will increase costs to residents 5. Adding services beyond those presently provided will require additional staff and office space Recommendations Staff recommends the following: 1. That Option 3 be pursued to provide future residential collection services a. The contract for refuse and yard waste collection should be of 5 year duration b. The contract for recycling should be of 5 year duration c. The contract for SSO collection should be of 5 year duration, but contain provisions for termination with no penalty should SSO processing facilities become unavailable. Any such SSO collection service implemented should be designated as a PILOT program to clarify to residents the temporary nature of the service. Meeting of: November 13, 2007 (Item #3) Page 8 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery d. That these contracts be structured to allow for renegotiation and implementation of co-collection of organics should that prove to be of benefit to the city 2. That option 6 be pursued to provide refuse and recycling collection (dumpster) services to businesses and multi-family as an optional requested service FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There will not be any cost implications to the General Fund resulting from any program changes, as costs will be covered by the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. Collections costs for organics will vary depending on hauler, location and program. The table below illustrates some possible residential collection options and related cost differences for collection/disposal using some very preliminary cost estimates to show what may be expected: Type of Residential Program Total Annual Cost (excluding recycling) Current Solid Waste Collection Program $1,541,000 Solid Waste Program with Co-collected Organics $1,657,000 Solid Waste Program with Source Separated Organics $1,915,000 In the table above, costs and tonnages are estimated. The costs are only for refuse, yard waste and organics. Recycling costs are not included as they do not vary between options. Organic collection is based on the assumptions of 25% organics in single family residential refuse collection and a 50% resident participation rate. With SSO collection, costs are not saved initially as the organics are collected and hauled by separate trucks and drivers. However, the organics can be hauled a shorter distance to the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station where the SSO tipping fee is currently subsidized by Hennepin County. The County hauls SSO materials to RRT for processing at county cost. So, SSO collection increases overall collection costs, but SSO disposal costs are lower for the time being. VISION: The activities above support or complement the following Vision areas: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Community members are responsible stewards of the environment and realize their actions today influence the greater ecology inherited by future generations. Focus areas: • Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship and best practices. • Working in areas such as…environmental innovations. Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Administrative Coordinator Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager ORGANICS COLLECTION INFORMATION GENERAL BACKGROUND A. Organics Composting in Hennepin County [Source: www.hennepin.us] Recycling has been around for a long time, but now there’s a new twist: recycling food waste. Twenty-five percent of our trash is organics, which refers to biodegradable material like food scraps and food soiled paper, such as pizza boxes and milk cartons. Organics are a resource, not a waste. They are collected from schools, businesses and even some households. Instead of taking up space in a landfill or being burned at our waste-to-energy facility, organics are recycled into compost. Compost is a valuable addition to soil in landscaping and construction projects. Thirty-five schools in Hennepin County participate in a very successful school composting program, and the program is expanding. Hennepin County was recently selected for a Local Government Innovation Award by the University of Minnesota’s Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center at the Humphrey Institute for its unique collaboration with four school districts and the City of Minneapolis on the school organics programs. “Hennepin County is excited about partnering with schools on this effort, since early education about waste reduction and the importance of organics composting is a great way to teach young people lifelong habits that will collectively improve our environment,” said Hennepin County Commissioner Linda Koblick. “If kids grow up with an understanding of how to compost and reduce waste, these practices will become community norms.” In April 2003, the City of Wayzata began providing curbside organics collection to its residents. Two tons of organics are collected each week. Trash disposal in the city has decreased by 12 percent, and recycling has increased by 23 percent. Curbside collection pilot projects are scheduled to begin in Minnetonka and Orono in May 2007. The county recycles organics from the Adult Corrections Facility and Environmental Services Building. All of the organics programs combined are diverting 50 to 60 tons of trash to organics composting each month, and those composted organics are being put to use. In November 2006, Hennepin County’s Transportation Department used more than 250 cubic yards of finished compost to prevent soil erosion and accelerate re-vegetation at a construction site. Compost is now being included in the design of upcoming Transportation Department projects. Hennepin County will continue to pave the way to make organics recycling a reality throughout the county. [St. Paul School District has 48 elementary schools in an organics collection program. All organic waste is sent to Bartholomew Farms under the state contract. The organics collection program 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 1 of 9 resulted in a $70,000 cost savings overall the first fiscal year, as the garbage dumpsters were reduced in size.] B. Organics Composting in Carver County Carver County, armed with a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), has launched a long-term demonstration project whereby source-separated organics (food waste and non-recyclable paper) is collected together with yard waste in a process called co-collection. This mixture is delivered to a yard waste composting facility for processing. This is an innovative approach to diverting residential source-separated organics from the waste stream. Working with Waste Management and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, approximately 600 households in Chanhassen, Chaska, Waconia and Watertown are placing their bagged source- separated organics in their yard waste cart where it is collected weekly and taken to the Arboretum’s compost site for processing. The bags used in the program are completely biodegradable and composted along with the collected materials. After inspection of loads to ensure non-acceptable items are removed, the material is shredded and placed in static piles to actively compost. Moisture is added as necessary and temperature readings are taken daily to ensure the composting process is working properly. Operational and environmental data is being collected to ensure there are no problems being caused by the operations. The overall objective of the project is to demonstrate that residential organics can be effectively managed at a yard waste site in an environmentally safe manner. The anticipated results will provide the MPCA with the data they need to make the necessary regulatory changes allowing other communities around the state to implement similar projects. The project and site is successful and an additional site has been developed in the City of Mayer and will open in April 2008 with a permit waiver from the MPCA. Carver County has offered to accept co-collected organics from the City of St. Louis Park. C. Organics Composting in the City of Hutchinson (McCloud County) The City of Hutchinson started a profitable compost site with a $100,000 grant from the MN Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA). The city provided a two-hour course for homeowners on how to compost. Credit for taking the course and backyard composting was applied to the homeowner’s water bill. Twenty-five percent of the public participated in backyard composting. In a subsequent survey, 80% of the community responded that they were interested in participating in organics collection. The city received another OEA grant for $1,400,000 and a $1,000,000 grant from McCloud County. The city used $700,000 from their refuse fund. Hutchinson mandated the use of 90-gallon carts for organics collection. They believe this is what made the program successful. In comparison, Eureka used 30 gallon carts in its pilot project. The Eureka collection numbers and Hutchinson numbers were directly proportionate to the size of the carts. The Hutchinson collection was 2/3 larger than the Eureka collection. Yes, Hutchinson had a lot of calls about where people were supposed to put this big additional cart, but they dealt with it 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 2 of 9 using a public relations person hired for that purpose. The public relations person presented issues prior to the rollout of the program, dealt with the phone calls, cart issues, etc. Now it all works great and no one really thinks much about any of it. Carts were delivered to every home. If someone called to have it taken away, it was removed the same day. Most people asked for it back after seeing their neighbors reduce their garbage – and their bill - dramatically. The city provides biodegradable bags for residents (we have samples) and under the sink containers. If the city didn’t provide them; it isn’t convenient; it wouldn’t be “free”; and people wouldn’t use them. So the cost is in the rate and the bags are given to the residents. McCloud County has a ban on black bags. Only biodegradable bags or brown/craft bags are allowed for yard waste and organics. Doug Johnson, manager of the site, has instructed middle school and high school students on the operations of the site. These students in turn have led tours through the site impressing community leaders. With a ninth grade class, he taught them to clear the table for a two month period and what to do with all waste (recycle, organics, or garbage), and make a deal with their parents that if they could reduce the cart size of garbage (and bill) to split the cost savings. Most parents gave their student the entire cost savings. The City of Hutchinson has offered to accept co-collected organics from the City of St. Louis Park and will haul it from a transfer station in the metro area or accept it directly at their site. D. Compost Benefits • Replenishes our soils • Reduces soil erosion • Prevents polluted stormwater runoff from contaminating our wetlands, lakes, and streams • Captures carbon dioxide for climate protection E. Organic Content: We do not know the organic content of solid waste generated in SLP. We estimate that it is the standard 25% to 30%. In Chanhassen and Chaska, Carver County has determined that of the co- collected organics, by volume, 20% is kitchen organics and 80% is yard waste. By weight, 5% is kitchen organics. In Hutchinson, the 2006-2007 numbers show that 46% of garbage was diverted as organics and processed as compost. The diversion goal was high at 33%-35%. Forty-six percent is much higher than the standard 25% to 30%. Of the co-collected organics, which includes food, soiled non-recyclable papers and yard waste, 90% was recovered. Ten percent of the co-collected organics was garbage and subsequently landfilled. In the City of Hutchinson, only 40 households (1% of all households) do not participate in the co-collection organics program. Through education we would hope that most of that organic material could be recovered through a separate collection program (either as source-separated material or co-collected with yard waste). Hennepin County asked whether we’d be interested in a waste sort project for recycling. This would allow us to collect data to determine the exact makeup of our recycling stream (what percent is aluminum cans, what percent is glass, etc.) and of our garbage stream (what percent is organics, 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 3 of 9 how much recycling is thrown in the trash). Staff is considering this program and needs to gather more detail from Hennepin County (what is need for facilities, staff, length of project and more). F. Current Composting Infrastructure 1. Composting sites in the metro community a. Carver County 1) Located in the City of Mayer (also have Arboretum site) 2) Operated by Carver County. 3) Source Separated. Co-collection site by special MPCA permit. [If co-collection, must be biodegradable bags, fairly contaminate free, weigh ourselves.] 4) Haulers using the site: Waste Management. 5) Would use a transfer station due to distance to site. 6) Tipping fee: $20 per ton (both SSO & CCO) b. Resource Recovery Technologies (RRT) 1) Located in Empire Township. 2) Privately owned and operated by RRT 3) Source Separation. Have co-collected product from Burnsville pilot project. It is monitored by the MPCA. 4) Haulers using the site: Randy’s, Waste Management. 5) Would use a transfer station due to distance to site. 6) Tipping fee: $28.01 per ton for co-collected for WM $45 per ton for source separated c. Hutchinson 1) Located in Hutchinson 2) Owned & operated by City of Hutchinson. 3) Co-collection (commingled) site (organics, paper & yard waste – they refer to it as SSO). 4) Haulers using site: Contract with Waste Management. No other haulers admitted. 5) Would use transfer station due to distance to site. 6) Tipping fee: $38-$41 per ton (estimated as currently no fee) 7) Also permitted as a transfer station for MSW. 2. Transfer Station Option a. Brooklyn Park Transfer Station 1) Located in City of Brooklyn Park 2) Owned & subsidized by Hennepin County 3) Source separation 4) Material is transferred to the RRT facility 5) Tipping fee: $15 per ton (subsidized by Hennepin County) 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 4 of 9 3. Is there any composting being done by farmers, private companies? Yes, but varies widely and inconsistent per the haulers. 4. Management of site. Staff viewed RRT site. Two compost sites are government owned. None of the sites are under regulations as MSW operations. 5. The three sites listed above are the three that would accept organics as well as yard waste. There are other sites accepting yard waste only. 6. How is the product being used? At RRT the wood chips are being sold for landscape product. The compost is being sold in bulk only for landscaping. 7. Could we use our own compost? Probably not as only pilot projects are kept separate on a site. 8. Could we get some compost? WM has offered to use empty trucks to haul some compost back for use by residents if we have a place to put it. Several residents expressed a desire for that in the survey. Our Parks and Rec Dept (including Westwood) could use the compost as well as for educational benefit of the complete recycling process. 9. Materials streams for organic collection: • Food products – coffee grounds & filters, dairy, fruits, vegetables & eggshells, meat scraps & bones, cooking oils & food grease, tea bags • Leaf & yard trimmings • Soiled/Wet Paper – juice & milk waxed cartons, pizza boxes, colored construction paper, carbon paper, paper towels, paper plates & napkins, waxed coated paper, food-soiled paper, padded shipping envelopes • Miscellaneous-cotton balls, dryer lint • What may be prohibited: plastic bags, wrap, straws; animal waste; pet litter; diapers; metal, plastic, glass; Styrofoam; liquids 10. Our yard waste is currently being hauled to RRT in Empire Township. G. Cities with Organics Collection 1. Burnsville a. Type of Collection: Co-collection with garbage pilot project until 2007. Now co-collected with yard waste demonstration project. b. Hauler: Waste Management c. Site: RRT d. Miscellaneous: Began in 2002. e. Incentives: Dakota Co. gives hauler $12/ton. f. Cost per HH: No charge to residents if have subscription yard waste service. 2. Chanhassen a. Type of Collection: Co-collection with yard waste b. Hauler: Waste Management c. Site: Carver County d. Cost per HH: Every other week, no cost for 1st year. New yard waste customers pay $6/mo more for organics. 3. Chaska a. Type of Collection: Co-collection with yard waste b. Hauler: Waste Management c. Site: Carver County 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 5 of 9 d. Cost per HH: Every other week, no cost for 1st year. New yard waste customers pay $6/mo more for organics. 4. Hutchinson a. Type of Collection: Co-collection with yard waste. b. Hauler: Waste Management c. Site: Owned by City of Hutchinson, Operated by City of Hutchinson & through a city-owned corporation, Creekside Soils, permitted for MSW. d. Miscellaneous: 90 gallon cart, bags delivered, 90% recovery (10% or organics contaminated with plastics, etc.). 46% organics diverted from garbage in 2006/2007 fiscal year. e. Incentives: Bar code credit for organics and recycling bin ($2/mo credit). Credit for every other week trash pickup. Reduced cost for smaller trash container. Free drop off for residents for yard waste, brush, logs, concrete. f. Cost per HH: Garbage monthly rate (includes organics, bags, recycling): Senior citizen bi-weekly collection 30 gal = $2.50 Standard bi-weekly 30 gal = $14.18 Weekly 30 gal = $18.91; 60 = $27.20; 90 = $37.49 5. Loretto a. Type of Collection: Source separated b. Hauler: Randy’s Sanitation c. Site: RRT d. Miscellaneous: Collection begins Jan 1, 2008. 6. Mayer, New Germany, Watertown a. Type of Collection: Co-collection with yard waste b. Hauler: Waste Management c. Site: Carver County, Mayer Site d. Miscellaneous: Begins 2008, 1800 households, organized collection. 7. Medina a. Type of Collection: Source separated b. Hauler: Randy’s c. Site: RRT d. Miscellaneous: Begins Jan 1, 2008 by resident subscription only. 8. Minnetonka a. Type of Collection: Source separated b. Hauler: Randy’s Sanitation, Waste Management c. Site: RRT through Brooklyn Park Transfer Station d. Miscellaneous: Subscription services e. Incentives: HC grant to haulers of $25/HH startup f. Cots per HH: Depends on hauler 9. Orono a. Type of Collection: Source separated b. Hauler: Randy’s Sanitation c. Site: RRT d. Miscellaneous: Resident subscription services only 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 6 of 9 10. St. Paul a. Type of Collection: Source separated b. Hauler: Eureka, Waste Management c. Site: RRT d. Miscellaneous: Begins in 2008 (2002 pilot project). e. Incentives: unknown f. Cost per HH: unknown 11. Wayzata a. Type of Collection: Source separated b. Hauler: Randy’s Sanitation c. Site: RRT d. Miscellaneous: Subscription services, started in 2003 e. Incentives: Reduced cost for smaller trash container. Reduced cost for every other week trash collection. f. Cost per HH: SSO every other week break even. SSO with every other week trash and reduced trash size come out ahead. H. Legislative Barriers Under state law, yard waste compost sites are not permitted to accept and process food scraps and non-recyclable paper waste. Under existing rules, in order for a yard waste compost site to accept source separated food waste, the site would have to apply to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for a solid waste management facility permit. For a yard waste compost site to change its regulatory status to a solid waste management facility would add significant expense and siting issues. Most site operators are not wiling to work through the lengthy process of obtaining a municipal solid waste (MSW) permit when they do not collect garbage. However, the MPCA appears to be changing its views on co-collected organics. The MPCA has shown through temporary rule waivers and project support that it is open to the co-collected organics process. Under the current state definition of “source separate”, if a material is hauled with any other material, it is not considered to be “source separated”. Commingling yard waste, food scraps and non-recyclable paper waste in one truck, by definition, excludes that load from being considered source separated organics. Instead, under the current definition of “Mixed Municipal Solid Waste”, source separated compostable organics is considered solid waste. In the state legislature, Rep. Paul Gardner and Rep. Britta Saylor are currently drafting a bill to remove “organics” from the definition of “MSW”, allowing food waste organics to be collected with yard waste. Yard waste at this time can not be mixed with MSW, which is why a permit waiver is required for co-collection. Those opposed say that that removal will affect the solid waste management tax which affects the amount in the general fund. In essence, this is a policy decision with budget repercussions. Other state regulatory agencies, such as Washington, Colorado and Texas, have allowed co- mingling of compostable materials. It was discovered that the co-collected yard waste, paper and food waste program in Washington increased collection efficiencies, reduced waste, stimulated residential participation and reduced odors. [The above information in section G comes from 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 7 of 9 Collection and Processing of Commingled Residential Yard Waste and Food Waste – a Discussion Paper, 2007, Carver County.] In our area, two sites have special permission (permit waivers) from the MPCA to collected co- collected yard waste and food waste on their sites: Carver County and Hutchinson. I. Questions Asked of Haulers The City of St. Louis Park is interested in beginning an organics collection program in 2008 or 2009. We have approximately 12,200 households. According to a recent survey, about 53% of respondents (1,000 surveyed) are interested in participating in organics collection. 1. How would you provide organics collection service in St. Louis Park? Co-mingled? Source separated? • Randy’s Sanitation: Source separated • Waste Management: Source separated or o-collected • Allied Waste: Source separated • Eureka: Source separated 2. What do you see as options for processing facilities in the metro area? • Randy’s Sanitation: RRT • Waste Management: Carver County site, RRT, Hutchinson. • Allied Waste: Undecided • Eureka: Carver County, Hutchinson, RRT 3. In the future, could you provide that service to multi-family and commercial buildings? • Randy’s Sanitation: Yes. Currently service both MFDs and commercial, including IKEA. • Waste Management: Yes. • Allied Waste: Yes. • Eureka: Yes. 4. What vehicles would you use to service households (alleys and curbside)? (manual, semi-automated, etc.) • Randy’s Sanitation: Semi-automated • Waste Management: Semi-automated • Allied Waste: Semi-automated (assumed) • Eureka: Could order what is necessary 5. What containers would you prefer or suggest? We currently use 30+, 60+ and 90+ gallon carts for refuse, and bins for recycling. Yard waste is in bags or in containers owned by the residents. • Randy’s Sanitation: 35 gallon or larger for SSO. Labeled “organics”. • Waste Management: 96 gallon to include boxes, paper & yard waste. • Allied Waste: Undecided • Eureka: 30 gallon 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 8 of 9 6. Would you prefer to purchase the containers or have the city own the containers? • Randy’s Sanitation: Randy’s own them as they need to work with trucks. • Waste Management: WM or city-owned. Doesn’t matter. • Allied Waste: Undecided • Eureka: Not discussed 7. Do you provide this service in other cities? • Randy’s Sanitation: Orono, Minnetonka, Wayzata, Loretto (start 10/07). • Waste Management: Burnsville, Minnetonka, Chaska, Chanhassen, Hutchinson. • Allied Waste: No, but interested. • Eureka: Macalester Groveland 2008 (St. Paul neighborhood pilot project). J. Costs 1. Capital Costs a. Equipment 1) Collection containers - outside 2) Collection containers – inside (under sink) 3) Bags – initial cost a) City or participant pay for initial purchase b) City or participant pay for future purchases 2. Administrative Costs a. Administrative expenses and labor b. Marketing & Publicity c. Education 3. Collection & Processing Costs a. Collection of organics (contract fees) b. Processing of organics – for example, Brooklyn Park Transfer Station has $15 per ton processing fee (which is low as it is subsidized by Hennepin County). 4. Factors to consider a. Number of participants receiving service. Fifty-three percent of survey respondents were interested in the service without knowing cost implications. [Public Survey Results Relating to the 2007 Solid Waste Proposed Program Changes.] b. Total amount of organic material collected would directly affect amount of garbage collected (and maybe yard waste and recycling). Would this decrease costs in other areas? Would such a decrease help to offset the organics program? c. Participation rates. Recycling participation tends to increase with the rollout of new solid waste programs. Would need to increase bin inventory. d. Fees to residents. e. Distribution of education, packets, possible periodic distribution. Budget $250,000/year to hire volunteer groups (i.e. Scouts) to distribute packets, bags, and include other city information in packets. 111307 Item 3 Attachment Page 9 of 9 Meeting Date: November 13, 2007 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: Proposed redevelopment of the former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair property located at 7102 & 7104 Lake Street. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff wishes to discuss and receive feedback on the Real Estate Recycling’s (RER) proposed clean up and redevelopment plans for the former Erv’s Lawnmower Repair property; and, its request for financial assistance. Specific items staff wishes to discuss include: • The site’s environmental condition • Proposed site plan. • Request for financial assistance from granting agencies and the city. • Next steps Representatives of Real Estate Recycling will be in attendance at the study session to answer any questions the EDA/City Council may have regarding the proposed project and request for financial assistance. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Real Estate Recycling (RER), a company with considerable experience in redeveloping contaminated properties, wishes to purchase, clean up and redevelop the properties at 7102 & 7104 Lake Street (the “subject property” and “site”). The redevelopment is not financially feasible without grant funding from various agencies and city assistance. The question for the City is does the EDA support the submission of grant applications to clean up the property and is it willing to consider providing city assistance to facilitate the redevelopment? BACKGROUND: The former Erv’s property is a 0.4 acre site located in the South Oak Hill Neighborhood between Highway 7 and West Lake Street, and; immediately north of RER’s recently completed Highway 7 Corporate Center (see attached aerial photo). For over 60 years, this site functioned as a gas station and auto or small engine repair shop. The subject property poses several redevelopment challenges as the site is small, narrow, and contaminated. Currently these impacted soils are not covered by a cap. The property is occupied by a tired, single-story building which is currently being used for storage purposes and supports two billboards (nonconforming uses). The site was initially developed in the 1940s while owned by the predecessors to National Lead (the former owners and operators of a secondary lead smelting operation located immediately south of the site). Fill soils, which are attributed in part to the National Lead (NL) site, were placed on site to improve surface water drainage and make the site suitable for development. The fill soils are the primary source of soil contamination on the subject property. Meeting of November 13, 2007 Page 2 Subject: Redevelopment of the Former Erv’s Garage Property Past operations on the site consisted of a multitude of automobile, motorcycle, and small engine repair businesses (see attached 1971 aerial photo). Occupants at the site included West Lake Motors, who probably ran a filling station from 1953-1954; Holzer’s Imported Car Service, an auto station and body shop that operated from 1962-1971; Sport Wheels Motorcycle, a motorcycle repair shop that operated from 1962-1971; and Erv’s Lawnmower Repair, a small engine repair shop that ceased operations several years ago. The existing building at the site served as the service area for previous operations. The area around the building was used for outside storage of vehicles, equipment, and supplies. Across the street from this site, Taracorp/National Lead Industries operated a lead smelter from 1940 to 1982. The smelting operation recovered lead from lead plates, battery fragments, and lead containers. Both a blast furnace and later a reverberatory smelting furnace were used. Industrial operations and on-site waste disposal activities resulted in site soils and groundwater becoming impacted with lead and petroleum. During the operation of the smelter, fill soils were placed on a portion of the site north of the smelter to fill a low area. These fill soils were heavily impacted with lead and lead slag from the smelting operations. In addition to impacted soils placed on the Erv’s site, it is likely air-borne lead contamination has blown onto the site. Environmental Impacts: The environmental investigation work conducted to date on the Erv’s site has identified impacts to the soils which are the apparent result of on-site placement of fill materials originating from the former National Lead facility. Metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) concentrations above regulatory standards were detected in National Lead debris fill material and surrounding soils that were encountered in the site topsoil and underlying fill soils. Groundwater investigations indicated shallow groundwater is not significantly impacted; however, PAHs emanating from the nearby Reilly Tar site are known to impact groundwater in the vicinity of the property. The groundwater at the site is also known to be impacted by volatile organic compounds from an unidentified off-site source. Due to the past use of the site as an small engine or auto repair shop, there is a potential that release(s) of hazardous substances and/or petroleum compounds to soil and/or groundwater water at the site. Current Uses: Currently, the subject property is occupied by a cinder block building (garage) which supports two billboards on its roof. The billboards are a nonconforming use under the city’s zoning ordinance. The unoccupied garage and billboards create a negative visual image along the Hwy 7 corridor. The site is unpaved with impacted soils exposed. The current use generates no jobs and minimal tax base for the city. These factors combined have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The current owner of the site, Mayflower Hwy 7 Properties LLC, is using the garage for storage, and receives income from the billboard leases. The current owner has expressed no intention of cleaning up or redeveloping the site to its highest and best use. Proposed Redevelopment Plan: Real Estate Recycling recently acquired an option to purchase the subject property. It also prepared a Response Action Plan (RAP) for the site to address the contamination issues on the site. The RAP recently received approval from the MPCA. The Redeveloper has plans to clear the site, properly address the contaminated soils and construct a new one-story, 1,770 SF retail Meeting of November 13, 2007 Page 3 Subject: Redevelopment of the Former Erv’s Garage Property building in its place (see attached site plan). The new facility would be attractively designed to complement RER’s newly constructed office/showroom building immediately across the street. The new building, given its prominent highway location and the number of businesses in the area, would lend itself to use such as a neighborhood sandwich or coffee shop. RER states: The redevelopment of the Erv’s Garage site is a natural step following the significant reinvestment and redevelopment of the neighboring Golden/National Lead site. This site is the last piece of blighted property in the area and continues to be a significant eyesore, highly visible from Highway 7. The only foreseeable way in which the subject property will see meaningful environmental and economic change is through a comprehensive redevelopment approach. This will involve remediating the pollution and constructing an attractive “green” building at the site. Real Estate Recycling proposes to develop a 1,770 square foot state-of-the art “green” building for a restaurant tenant at the site. This redevelopment is consistent with the city’s goal to clean up the Highway 7 Corridor and create more “green” buildings in the area, and will fill an important gap by providing a community meeting place for the neighborhood as set forth in the St. Louis Park Vision statement. A restaurant use at the site will help eliminate a blighting influence in the neighborhood and create much needed retail tax base and employment activity. In addition, this use will leverage the investment in the cleanup and development of the NL Site by creating an amenity for the new tenants in the Hwy 7 Corporate Center. With no other restaurants in the immediate area, a restaurant will help diminish lunchtime traffic and provide the surrounding residential neighborhood with a convenient place to dine. RER currently has an agreement to purchase the subject property for $630,000. Contingencies include receipt of funding necessary for RER to perform its approved RAP. Upon successful award of grant funds, RER will complete the purchase of the site and perform the necessary and proper cleanup. Development of the new building will begin upon completion of remedial actions in the Spring of 2008. Current and Proposed Market Value: The 2007 assessed value for the subject parcels is $377,000. This reflects the fact that the building is aging and usable primarily for storage purposes. Upon redevelopment, the property would have an estimated market value of approximately $800,000. Need for Financial Assistance: Total project costs for the acquisition, cleanup and construction of a new retail building are $1,265,985. These costs cannot be recovered from the new development on the site. RER’s project pro forma reflects a shortfall of $795,000. The dilemma RER faces with this project is that the real value of the property is in the billboards; and those would be removed with the proposed redevelopment. In addition, the cost of the property can’t be recovered with the proposed project given that the square footage of the site dictates a very small building. Meeting of November 13, 2007 Page 4 Subject: Redevelopment of the Former Erv’s Garage Property RER has proposed to fill the project shortfall with $320,000 in grant funding (to help cover cleanup costs), and $475,000 from the city. With this assistance RER would achieve a modest market rate of return. Agency Grants: Grant applications to DEED, the Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County were due November 1st. Applications were submitted to these agencies in order to preserve financing options for the Redeveloper and the EDA. The agencies allowed us to submit applications without the standard EDA authorizing resolutions so that there could be time for the City Council/EDA to review and consider the proposed project. If the EDA views the project favorably resolutions authorizing the submission of the grant applications will need to be approved by the EDA and submitted to the agencies. The authorizing resolutions can be presented for formal consideration November 13th if the EDA chooses to pursue this project. Should the EDA not wish to seek grant funding for the project at this time the applications can be withdrawn. Had the applications not been submitted, the Redeveloper would have to wait until the next grant cycle deadline which is May 1, 2008. The DEED grants require matching funds. The authorizing resolution would include a commitment for a “local match”. The local match is anticipated to be met by the Redeveloper and/or the other grant funds. Requested City Assistance: RER maintains the redevelopment of the Erv’s property will not move forward without the City’s contribution of $475,000 to write down the cost of the land, and help with the removal of the billboards. Staff is currently reviewing the RER’s proforma with Ehlers and Associates to determine precisely how much assistance is warranted by the proposed redevelopment. Staff is also evaluating other possible funding sources for the assistance. RER is investigating all other financing options to help cover project costs. It has looked to the Twin Cities Community Capital Fund (“TCCCF”) for a low-interest loan to write down the cost of the land. However it has become clear that no matter how low the interest rate, a loan is simply not feasible to fill the gap. Along with RER’s equity, a construction loan from First National Bank of Omaha will cover the costs associated with the market value of the land and the construction of the new building. Land Use: The subject property is currently located in the Highway 7 Redevelopment District and is guided commercial. The proposed use is consistent with the goal of “Higher density/intensity near Hwy 7” stated in the Redevelopment Chapter within the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project fulfills the following Objectives for Improvement within the Highway 7 Redevelopment District: • Eliminate physical blight in the Highway 7 corridor. 1. Redevelop or substantially rehabilitate deteriorated buildings. 2. Replace non-conforming land uses, obsolescent businesses, deteriorated buildings with contemporary developments which are compatible with their surroundings and consistent with City plans. • Improve the image and appearance of the Highway 7 corridor. • Develop all sites in a manner consistent with City, State and Federal environmental regulations. Meeting of November 13, 2007 Page 5 Subject: Redevelopment of the Former Erv’s Garage Property • Improve the economic viability of the Highway 7 corridor. 1. Promote new employment opportunities within the area. In addition, the proposed retail building conforms to the current C2-General Commercial zoning. THE REDEVELOPER: Real Estate Recycling is an award-winning developer of contaminated real estate based in Minneapolis. Established a dozen years ago, RER has been an innovative leader in managing risk and adding significant value to polluted property. In addition to the Edgewood Business Center and Highway 7 Corporate Center projects in St. Louis Park RER has developed and held for investment over 1.5 million square feet of industrial real estate on environmentally impacted property throughout the Twin Cities and Milwaukee areas. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: RER has requested authorization to apply for contamination grants from DEED, Met Council and Hennepin County totaling $320,000 to cleanup the subject property. It also has requested $475,000 from the EDA to make the project economically feasible. Staff is evaluating RER’s request from the city and the appropriate funding source. VISION CONSIDERATION: The proposed project is consistent with the Strategic Directions of Vision St. Louis Park as it relates to environmental stewardship and community gathering places. The proposed project is also consistent with the goals expressed in the Redevelopment section of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: Aerial photos Proposed Site Plan Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, EDA Deputy Executive Director © 2007 Microsoft Corporation © 2007 Pictometry Inter© 2007 Microsoft Corporation © 2007 Pictometry Inter R H Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Images courtesy of: Microsoft© Virtual EarthTM 2006 SPrint: Flight Date: April 2006 Page 1 of 1Hennepin County Oblique Aerials 111307 Item 4 Attachment Page 1 of 3 111307 Item 4 Attachment Page 2 of 3 111307 Item 4 Attachment Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: November 13, 2007 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 Avenue Interchange Project Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this Study Session is to update the Council on the interchange concepts developed for the project, provide information on next steps and project schedule, and answer any questions Council may have regarding the project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None have been identified at this time. BACKGROUND: History: As part of the Elmwood Land Use and Transportation Study, conducted in 2002 and 2003, the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue/W. 36th Street area was identified for redevelopment. Consistent with this study, redevelopment projects have begun to move forward in this area. As the City's traffic consultant, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. (SRF) completed several traffic studies for the Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue/W. 36th Street area at that time. SRF and City staff then participated in discussions with Mn/DOT staff regarding potential grade-separated concepts for the intersection of Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue. As a result of those discussions, the City submitted a request for federal funding during the Regional STIP Solicitation process in 2005. From this solicitation, the City of St. Louis Park was successful in obtaining about $5.9 million in federal funds to aid in constructing a proposed grade-separated intersection at Highway 7/Wooddale Avenue. Shortly after receiving notice of being awarded these federal funds, Council directed staff to tentatively schedule this project for construction in 2009. To aid the City in the development of this project, SRF developed a planning guide last year for us to meet that timeline. The SRF planning guide proposed four phases to move this project to the construction stage. During October of 2006, the City entered into a contract with SRF for Phase I of this process, an areawide traffic study, which was necessary to prepare for the analysis and modeling necessary to evaluate interchange concepts plus lay the foundation for the eventual preparation of project design layouts. SRF completed Phase I work in March and began Phase II activities in April. SRF expects to complete Phase II activities in early December. Phase II Activities and Findings: Phase II can generally be described as the process for the technical/public development and comparison of the proposed interchange concepts and activities consist of: Concept Design Work / Project Management Traffic Operations Analysis Environmental Inventory/Investigation Public Involvement Meeting of November 13, 2007 – Item No. 5 Page 2 Subject: Highway 7 / Wooddale Ave Interchange Project Update Two round-a-bout concepts to explain this project were developed several years ago when this project was first conceptualized (A and B attached). During Phase II, two other interchange concepts were also developed for consideration (C and D attached). Further evaluation resulted in the dismissal of the original concepts A and B. Concept A did not adequately serve the school in the NW quadrant, and also received strong opposition from the neighboring community because of the roundabouts shown. In addition, this concept required more pavement, more land, and has a higher construction cost than the Tight Urban Diamond configuration shown in concepts C or D. Concept B also required significantly more pavement than Concepts C and D, required additional right of way acquisition, and had several circuitous movements for traffic – most notably the movement for EB TH 7 to NB Wooddale. Concepts C and D have been evaluated for feasibility, effectiveness, impacts, and cost (Comparison Matrix attached) in relation to the No-Build Scenario (at-grade intersection). Several SRF findings are worth noting: 1. Under year 2030 no build conditions (no grade separated crossing), the intersection of TH 7/Wooddale Avenue is expected to operate poorly during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour for year 2030 conditions. Significant queues along Wooddale Avenue also impact future operations at adjacent side-street stop controlled intersections. As an at-grade signalized intersection, the TH 7 and Wooddale Avenue intersection requires a long cycle length with longer waits for Wooddale Avenue. Light Rail Transit (LRT) significantly impacts TH 7, due to the frequency of the pre-emptions required to clear out Wooddale Avenue. However, Heavy Rail Traffic (HRT) significantly impacts Wooddale Avenue and W. 36th Street, but slightly improves TH 7 operations because the duration of the HRT crossing provides extra green time to TH 7. These operations reflect the combined impacts of both HRT and LRT at-grade crossings. It does, however, only include one HRT at-grade crossing during the peak hour timeframe. System recovery is poor as TH 7 never recovers during peak hour conditions with both HRT and LRT. 2. Under year 2030 conditions with grade-separated Concept C, the TH 7 South Ramp/South Frontage Road roundabout intersection is expected to operate poorly during the p.m. peak hour for year 2030 conditions. Significant queues from the signalized intersection at Wooddale Avenue impact the future operations at the roundabout intersection. Concept C is expected to experience poor operations with the presence of at-grade HRT, regardless of the type of intersection control at the South Ramp/South Frontage Road and the Wooddale Avenue/South Ramp/South Frontage Road intersections. With HRT crossing Wooddale Avenue at grade, the duration of the HRT pre-emption and crossing time will create significant queues on the south ramp that would extend past the exit gore onto mainline TH 7. From an operations perspective, Concept C is not feasible with the presence of HRT. Furthermore, the north ramp intersection operates acceptably with side-street stop control. However, this intersection would need to be monitored to determine if/when signals need to be installed based on traffic conditions and delay. If LRT were added to the system (in absence of HRT), its separate impacts on the overall vehicular operations are much less. With a grade-separated TH 7/Wooddale Avenue intersection, the shorter LRT pre-emption and crossing duration allows the system to recover quickly. After LRT crosses Wooddale Avenue, the future traffic signals along Wooddale Avenue are anticipated to go back into coordination within one cycle. Meeting of November 13, 2007 – Item No. 5 Page 3 Subject: Highway 7 / Wooddale Ave Interchange Project Update 3. Under year 2030 conditions with grade-separated Concept D, all intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour for year 2030 conditions. With HRT crossing Wooddale Avenue at grade, the ramp intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service for the critical movements toward the at-grade crossings. However, system recovery time is approximately five cycles and the ramp queues are not expected to extend to mainline TH 7. If LRT were added to the system (in absence of HRT), its separate impacts on the overall vehicular operations are much less. With a grade-separated TH 7/Wooddale Avenue intersection, the shorter LRT pre-emption and crossing duration allows the system to recover quickly. After LRT crosses Wooddale Avenue, the future traffic signals along Wooddale Avenue are anticipated to go back into coordination within one cycle. The above findings focus on year 2030 conditions. With the construction of the interchange and associated ramps (year of opening), the ramp intersections will operate acceptably with side-street stop control. The ramp intersections should be monitored with side-street stop control to determine when signals need to go in after year of opening. Traffic operations results identify that traffic signals are needed at the ramp intersections by year 2030. Based on the above, Concept D is the preferred concept. Details regarding the above findings are provided in the attached SRF Memorandum “Traffic Operations Analysis” dated November 1, 2007. Final Phase II Activities: Final Phase II activities consist of preparation of final SRF reports / documents (Intersection Control Evaluation, Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum, Environmental Evaluation Report, Concepts, Concepts Comparison Matrix, Concept D Rendering) and a public meeting reporting our findings of this phase of the project. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday evening, December 6th at Central Community Center. Next Phase - Phase III effort: The next phase of the project development process, Phase III, is best described as the preliminary detail design and environmental study / documentation phase of the project. There will be an appropriate public information and involvement process developed for the Phase III activities as that phase is implemented. The following is a list of tasks associated with this phase of the project: • An environmental assessment • Geometric layout development • Development of a preliminary cost estimate • A determination of right of way needs • Preparation of the required state / federal Design Memorandum and Design Study Report • Public involvement activities • Project management activities Meeting of November 13, 2007 – Item No. 5 Page 4 Subject: Highway 7 / Wooddale Ave Interchange Project Update Project Schedule: SRF developed a planning guide last year to aid the City in the development of this project. The SRF planning guide proposes four phases to move this project to the construction stage. The project schedule has been updated to reflect the expected completion of Phase II activities and the planned Phase III work briefly described above. The attached Project Schedule (Updated October 2007) provides the basic steps in each of the four phases along with a project timeline. Phase III activities are scheduled to begin in December and are expected to be completed by September 2008. Assuming adequate funding is available, this schedule provides for a bid opening in April of 2009; construction is expected to last two years, 2009-2010. Summary: Staff has not identified any policy issues for Council input at this time. SRF staff will attend the Study Session to explain their findings and answer questions. A photo rendering of preferred Concept D is planned to be available for viewing at the Study Session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: To meet the project schedule, Phase III activities need to be commenced in December. Staff is planning to request Council approval on December 3rd for an agreement with SRF to provide engineering services for Phase III activities. This work plan is currently being developed and estimated by SRF; it is expected to cost over $200,000. HRA Levy funds are planned to be used to pay for this work. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council earlier this year: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT. Attachments: Concept A Concept B Concept C Concept D Comparison Matrix SRF Memorandum “Traffic Operations Analysis” dated November 1, 2007 Project Schedule (updated October 2007) Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Scott Brink, City Engineer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 1 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 2 of 16 36" X 45" - 100 SCALET.H. 7 / WOODDALE AVENUE GRADE SEPARATED INTERSECTION- CONCEPT C TH 100LEGEND RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS PAVED SHOULDERS BRIDGES & RETAINING WALLS PAVED ROADWAY TRAFFIC LOCATION AND DIRECTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL BITUMINOUS TRAILS / BIKEWAYS EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL 2000 scale in feet 100 SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRELIMINARY 4LAKE ST W WA LK E R S T WOODDALE AVE36TH STOXFO RD S T GOO D R I C H AV E PARK CENTER BLVDMI N N E S O T A 10 034TH ST33RD STHAMIL TON S T T A R G E T POST OFF ICEALABAMA AVE37TH AVE S C H O O L RAILROADTH 7 EXISTING REGIONAL TRAIL EXISTING RAILROAD 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 3 of 16 4LAKE ST W WA LK E R S T WOODDALE AVE36TH STOXFO RD S T GOO D R I C H AV E MI N N E S O T A 10 034TH ST33RD STHAMIL TON S T POST OFF ICEALABAMA AVE37TH AVE S C H O O L RAILROADTH 7 EXISTING REGIONAL TRAIL EXISTING RAILROAD 36" X 45" - 100 SCALE TH 100SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRELIMINARY 2000 scale in feet 100 LEGEND RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS PAVED SHOULDERS BRIDGES & RETAINING WALLS PAVED ROADWAY TRAFFIC LOCATION AND DIRECTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL BITUMINOUS TRAILS / BIKEWAYS EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL T.H. 7 / WOODDALE AVENUE GRADE SEPARATED INTERSECTION- CONCEPT D 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 4 of 16 TH 7/Wooddale Avenue Grade Separated Interchange StudyInterchange Concepts Comparison MatrixPRELIMINARY - November 13, 2007No BuildConcept CConcept DCharacteristicsInterchange Type Existing At-Grade IntersectionCombined Tight Diamond-Frontage Road (roundabout shown)Tight DiamondHeavy Rail * In existing location (south of the Regional Trail) * In existing location (south of the Regional Trail) * In existing location (south of the Regional Trail)Regional Trail* In existing location (north of the Heavy Rail) * In existing location (north of the Heavy Rail)* In existing location (north of the Heavy Rail)* Connects to and follows Wooddale along its west side * Connects to and follows Wooddale along its west side * Connects to and follows Wooddale along its west side* At grade crossing at Wooddale* At grade crossings at Wooddale, frontage road and ramps * At grade crossings at Wooddale, frontage road and rampsTraffic Operations (2030)Network Travel Time* 350 vehicle-hours* 175 vehicle-hours*154 vehicle-hoursIntersection Operations (Critical Intersections-P.M.)* LOS F* LOS F regardless of intersection controls* LOS C or better with traffic signalsQueuing Impacts* Queues on Wooddale extend onto mainline TH 7 * Queues extend beyond ramps onto mainline TH 7* Queues do not extend beyond ramps onto mainline TH 7System Recovery Time* TH 7 system breaks down* 10+ traffic signal cycles for system to recover* System recovers within 5 traffic signal cyclesVehicle Safety* Vehicle safety concerns with higher speed traffic on TH 7* Vehicle safety concerns with higher speed traffic on TH 7* No vehicle safety concerns for traffic operationsDesign IssuesTrail Safety:* Safety concerns with at-grade crossing* Safety concerns with at-grade crossing* Safety concerns with at-grade crossing Efficiency:* Delay for trail users with at-grade crossing* Delay for trail users with at-grade crossing (4)* Delay for trail users with at-grade crossing (4)Heavy Rail Safety:* Safety concerns with train / vehicle conflicts * Safety concerns with train / vehicle conflicts* Safety concerns with train / vehicle conflicts Efficiency:* Delay for vehicles with at-grade crossing* Delay for vehicles with at-grade crossing* Delay for vehicles with at-grade crossingBridge* Not Applicable* No Issues(Wooddale Avenue over TH 7)Other ConsiderationsDevelopable Parcels* 2* 2* 2Miscellaneous* Access changes to school and businesses and apartments on south side of TH 7* Access changes to school and businesses and apartments on south side of TH 7* Slip ramp from south frontage road to EB TH 7 required* Rail corridor expected to be contaminated.* Rail corridor expected to be contaminated* Lesser impact to identified contaminated parcel (SW) (2)* Some impact to identified contaminated parcel (SW) (2)CostsConstruction (3) and Engineering/Const Admin * Not Applicable* $15.0 M - $18.4 M* $15.8 M - $19.3 MNOTES:(2) Phase I and II studies complete; Voluntary Response Action Plan (VRAP) in place.(3) Cost does not include right of way costs or trail and heavy rail re-alignment.(4) Concepts do not preclude future grade separation of trail with Wooddale Avenue (with or without heavy rail and/or light rail)Interchange Options (1)* Additional retaining wall costs due to tight diamond configuration(1) The project area includes no state or federal protected species, wetlands, hydric soils, floodplains, nearby open water, natural resource corridors, environmental justice (i.e. low-income, minority) populations, directly-affected Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) parkland, identified historic properties or wellhead protection areas. O:\Pubwks\Agenda\Study Session\2007\11-November\November 13\Hwy 7 and Wooddale\Concept Matrix (11-6-07)111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 5 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 6 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 7 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 8 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 9 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 10 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 11 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 12 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 13 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 14 of 16 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 15 of 16 Wooddale Avenue Grade Separated Intersection TH 7 City of St. Louis Park Stakeholder Involvement/Project Management • Monthly PMT Meetings • Coord. Meetings w/ Int. Parties (PAI’s) • Public/Neighborhood Info/Meetings • EA/EAW Public Hearing • City Council Work Sessions Phase I (3 months) Areawide Traffic Study Phase II (7 months) Concept Alternatives Traffic Analysis Environmental Investigation Phase III (9 months) Preliminary Design Environmental Document (EA/EAW) Phase IV (8 months) Final PS, & E Mn/DOT Review ROW Acquisition/Relocation Bidding Construction Complete Complete Complete Complete 2006 2007 2008 2009Project Tasks SEPO CTNOVDE CJANFEBM ARAPRM AYJUNJULAUG SEPO CTNOV D ECJANFEBM ARAPRM AYJUN JULAUGSEPO CTNOVDECJANFEBM ARAPRM AYJUNProject Schedule (Updated October 2007) 111307 Item 5 Attachment Page 16 of 16 Meeting Date: November 13, 2007 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: West End Financial Assistance Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the proposed level of financial assistance as described below to facilitate Duke Realty’s proposed West End redevelopment project? BACKGROUND: Over the past year, the EDA/City Council has worked with Duke Realty on its redevelopment plans for the 38 acres it owns in the vicinity of Park Place Boulevard, Utica Avenue, Wayzata Blvd and Gamble Drive. The EDA/City Council reviewed Duke’s TIF application (3/26/07), approved and amended a Preliminary Development Agreement (5/21/07 and 9/4/07); and, discussed potential redevelopment contract terms and levels of city assistance (7/24/07 and 9/24/07). At its last meeting however the precise amount of financial assistance had not yet been agreed to and staff was encouraged to complete these negotiations. Staff, in conjunction with Ehlers and Associates, has been working with Duke representatives to arrive at a level of financial assistance that would be both appropriate and mutually acceptable. While negotiations are ongoing, it appears that $27 million would be a supportable level of assistance consistent with City policies, and past practices. The form of the assistance would be derived from $26.1 million in tax increment and a reduction of $900,000 in Parkland Dedication fees (approximately half the required amount) in recognition of the considerable public gathering places to be provided by the Redeveloper. The tax increment would be generated over 20 years. The city’s participation of $27 million would leverage approximately $375 million in new investment. As a percentage of total project cost the proposed amount of financial assistance is less than 7.5%. This is reasonable in light of the assistance required by other redevelopment projects the city has assisted. Given the substantial size of the proposed West End project (approximately 1.5 million square feet of new office, hotel and retail space), Duke Realty will incur substantial extraordinary development expenses (building demolition, soil corrections, and utility relocations). In addition, significant on-and-off-site infrastructure improvements (i.e. roadways, intersection improvements, medians, pedestrian connections, parking ramps and various utility work) will be required in order for the project to proceed. While Duke is responsible for the majority of these compoents, the project is not financially feasible without some public assistance to offset these extraordinary costs. Duke’s request for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance is considered reasonable given the complexity, quality, projected total value, and other residual economic benefits derived from the proposed West End redevelopment. Meeting of November 13, 2007 Page 2 Subject: West End Financial Assistance Update FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The EDA will have the opportunity to consider the financial assistance as proposed above when a redevelopment contract with the Redeveloper is presented in the coming week(s). VISION CONSIDERATION: This project supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community and the focus area of creating community gathering places. Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, EDA Deputy Executive Director Meeting Date: November 13, 2007 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: Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy – Amendment to Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Council with an update on the Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy prior to the 1st reading of an ordinance amendment. The proposed ordinance amendment will allow a charge to the consumer’s water bill to recover the cost of replacing the consumer’s water service line beneath the City right-of-way in conjunction with street reconstruction projects. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Adoption of the ordinance amendment would allow staff to implement the new Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy which was developed for funding the replacement of privately owned water service connections beneath City right-of-way. The service connections would be replaced in conjunction with certain street reconstruction projects and paid through a surcharge on the consumer’s water bill. BACKGROUND: History At the June 26, 2006 City Council Study Session, staff presented information to the Council with regards to developing a policy requiring the replacement of privately owned water service connections beneath the street right-of-way in conjunction with street reconstruction projects. In addition, information was provided on different funding mechanisms available to pay for those water service line replacement costs. A subsequent written report was provided to Council at their August 28, 2006 Study Session. The report explains that the preferred funding mechanism would be through a surcharge added to the consumer’s water bill. The report also explains the practice that would be used in determining when to replace aging water service lines beneath the City right-of-way. The August 28, 2006 report is attached for addition information. Additional Information The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance amending the Ordinance Code Chapter 32: Utilities, which will allow charges to consumer’s water bills for the purpose of recovering costs associated with the installation of new water service line connections beneath the City right of way. Staff will schedule first reading of the ordinance amendment at the November 19, 2007 City Council meeting. Second reading will be at the December 2, 2007 City Council meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None VISION CONSIDERATION: None Attachment: August 28, 2006 Study Session Written Report Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Scott Merkley, Public Works Administrative Coordinator Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director 111307 Item 8 Attachment Page 1 of 4 111307 Item 8 Attachment Page 2 of 4 111307 Item 8 Attachment Page 3 of 4 111307 Item 8 Attachment Page 4 of 4