HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/05/22 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 22, 2017
(Mayor Spano, Councilmember Mavity & Councilmember Miller Out)
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
2. 6:35 p.m. Council Chambers Remodel Update
3. 7:20 p.m. Solid Waste Program and Collections Services
8:05 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
8:10 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
4. April 2017 Monthly Financial Report
5. Vision 3.0 Update
6. Minnehaha Preserve Operations & Maintenance Agreement with MCWD
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 22, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 5 and June 12, 2017
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the
Special Study Session scheduled for June 5 and the regular Study Session on June 12.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the
Special Study Session scheduled for June 5 and the regular Study Session on June 12.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – June 5 and June 12, 2017
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 5 and June 12, 2017
JUNE 5, 2017
6:00 p.m. – Special Study Session – Council Chambers
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Ranked Choice Voting – Administrative Services (90 minutes)
Follow-up discussion requested by City Council on ranked choice voting.
JUNE 12, 2017
6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Community Room
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2.PRAC Recommendations re: Fastpitch Soft Ball Facilities – Operations & Recreation (60
minutes)
The task force has concluded its process and presented its findings to the Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRAC). The PRAC recommendations will be communicated at this meeting.
3.NOAH Preservation/Advanced Notice of Sale and Eviction for Cause – Community
Development (60 minutes)
Staff will review the specifics related to the implementation and possible impact of two
strategies/tools to preserve existing naturally occurring affordable rentals.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Future Council Requested Study Session Discussion Items – Dates TBD
(NOTE – the following are in no priority order)
•Living Streets Policy
•Walker Building
•The NEST
•Bird Friendly Glass
•Streetlight Pollution/Dark Skies
•Flavored Tobacco
•Youth Advisory Committee
•SLP Policing Model/Scenario Discussion
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 22, 2017
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Council Chambers Remodel Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to provide one more update to Council on this
project such that staff can proceed with implementation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to proceed with the current overall design
and provide staff direction on the preferred technology alternatives.
SUMMARY: At the April 3, 2017 Study Session, Council was presented with an electronic 3-D
greyscale rendering of the currently developed plans, highlighting the layout, media, and finishes
being proposed.
Cindy Nagle from KOMA will be presenting Council with the latest floor plan, finishes, and dais
design. Clint Pires will be present to clarify planned location of the monitors and other
technological improvements.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The original project estimate of $870,000 for
the building remodel remains feasible. The largest single cost will be installation of the exterior
windows. Contractor pricing for the windows is expected to be received during the next couple of
weeks and will help verify the total project cost. The city will be general contractor for the whole
project and pricing from other sub-contractors for mechanical, electrical, finishes, and furnishings
will not be known until after the plan set is completed and distributed.
The technological improvements may exceed the $100,000 estimate for the project. More
information will be provided at the study session.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Council Chambers Remodel Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The architect and staff have been working on developing the final plans and
incorporating previous comments from council.
Further evaluation of the exterior windows, ballistic safety, window wall, chair closet, and location
of monitors have been incorporated into the plan:
Exterior Windows
The first plan set completed is for installing the new exterior windows. Staff is in the process of
receiving price quotes for the masonry, frame and glass. These are expected to be under the
amount requiring public bid. As discussed previously, electronically operated roller shades for
light filtering and room darkening will be built into soffits for these two large windows.
Ballistic Resistance
Further study of providing a reasonable level of ballistic safety for staff and elected officials has
resulted in finding a relatively low cost product that can be easily integrated into construction for
the council dais and the walls behind the council dais. A reinforced door will also be installed for
the storage/control room, providing an area of refuge. This cost will be absorbed into the existing
budget and offers preparedness for those using the space many years into the future.
Glass Wall to Lobby
Glass will provide an inviting and transparent feeling from the lobby for public
meetings. Overflow crowds or people waiting for an agenda item will be able to see and also hear
through ceiling speakers. A monitor will also be in the lobby streaming a live feed. While the
glass is helpful for public meetings, it is a likely distraction during large training sessions or with
other groups, especially as the seating direction in the room will likely be facing the glass. Some
method to darken the glass will also be helpful for viewing the main monitor (adjacent to the glass)
for presentations during the day.
Options for the glass panels in aluminum frames adjoining the lobby include either the use of
frosted electronic switch glass in all the panels and doors, or motorized roller shades encased in a
ceiling soffit. Both would allow full visibility through transparent windows during most times,
including public meetings, and then be made translucent for when the room is used by other groups
or for training. Staff is recommending to proceed with the switch glass as it is within the estimated
project budget (originally priced as an open-able window wall), eliminates the need for blinds, and
enhances the overall design.
Chair Closet and Portrait Display
One additional feature since last discussed with Council is a chair closet along the north wall and
built-in counters. With the added capacity of the room, 100 new stackable chairs will be
purchased. Since many room uses do not require full seating, and the current storage location for
extra chairs is in front of the west windows, a plan was needed to make the new room design better
organized. The historical mayor portraits will come off the exterior wall and be incorporated into
a series of flush doors across the closet. The designer will distribute drawings during the meeting
of this detail and other changes.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Council Chambers Remodel Update
Room Monitors
Originally, viewing monitors were planned to be suspended from the ceiling throughout the
Chambers. That became infeasible due to the lack of ceiling height and clearance between the
bottom of monitors and walking traffic. Instead, monitors for viewing staff or guest presentations
are planned for the following locations:
1. Front of the presenter podium angled toward the Council from the west side of the room
(primarily for Council viewing).
2. Southwest corner wall behind dais (primarily for audience viewing).
3. East wall between staff table and lobby glass (largest view, primarily for audience and
training viewing, and also somewhat visible to Council). Note that staff is currently
reviewing 3 – 4 options, and trying to balance view-ability and quality with costs.
The designer and staff believe the proposed locations and sizes will be usable for a variety of room
functions.
NEXT STEPS: The designer will complete the full plan set within the next week and Facilities
Maintenance will begin distributing to sub-contractors. Material ordering and coordination with
selected contractors will result in development of the project timeline. Staff will submit to Council
options and costs for the major room display on the east wall once known. A July start of
demolition is planned providing Council accepts the current design. Three to four months of
construction is expected.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 22, 2017
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide the City Council with
current program information, to obtain City Council input on program and contract issues, interests
or concerns, and to discuss the process and time-frame for future solid waste program and
collection service contracts.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council still in agreement with the current “Purpose,
Goals and Objectives for the Solid Waste Program” (attached)? Does the City Council have
additional program changes other than those staff is recommending in this report?
SUMMARY: The current 2013 - 2018 solid waste collection contracts expire September 30, 2018.
As staff begins the process of preparing Requests for Proposals (RFP) for the upcoming five-years,
we are seeking input from the City Council on future program changes. We intend to survey
residents this summer on program satisfaction and any concerns they may have. Additionally, we
plan to research surrounding communities and national environmental leading cities to see what
innovative initiatives are being done.
To assist the City Council, we have attached a description of the existing program, a history of the
program, the current program Purpose, Goals, and Objectives and future program change
considerations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: 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.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Att. A – Existing Solid Waste Residential Program
Att. B – History of the Solid Waste Program
Att. C – Solid Waste Program Purpose, Goals, and Objectives
Att. D – Future Program Considerations
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
DISCUSSION
This report is broken up into two sections: 1) the “Existing” section to provide Council the
background and history of the program; and 2) the “Proposed” section to address future program
direction. Discussion is intended to focus on the “proposed” section.
Existing Residential Program Background
The city provides organized garbage, recycling, organics recycling and yard waste collection for
residents in single family through four unit dwellings. These residents are automatically provided
garbage, recycling and yard waste service. They must opt-in for organics recycling service, which
is an industry standard used to ensure the residents participating understand guidelines.
As a supplement to these services, residents who receive city recycling services may also
participate in the textile and home goods recycling program which started in 2017. All St. Louis
Park residents may access the city’s clean-up day events held twice per year, and the city’s brush
drop-off site at 2501 Edgewood Avenue for disposal of large branches and brush from April
through October.
A detailed description is available in the Existing Solid Waste Program - Attachment A.
Existing History of the Program and Contract Timeframes
The first documentation staff has been able to find regarding organized garbage collection in the
community dates back to 1958. Details of the entire history of the City’s organized collection
program are available in the History of Solid Waste Program - Attachment B.
The city currently holds five-year contracts for residential solid waste services with Waste
Management, Inc. (WMI) and Advanced Disposal (f.k.a. Veolia).
Contract terms October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2018:
• Garbage and recycling collection provided by WMI
• Organics recycling and yard waste collection provided by Advanced Disposal
These contracts will both expire on September 30, 2018.
Note: The city contracts with Simple Recycling for curbside collection of textiles and small home goods
for recycling and reuse (at no cost to the city or the residents). The initial contract term ends September
30, 2018 and will automatically renew for a subsequent five-year term from October 1, 2018 –
September 30, 2023 unless cancelled in writing by the city or Simple Recycling with appropriate notice.
Existing Purpose, Goals, and Objectives
In 2001, staff and Council developed the Purpose, Goals and Objectives for the residential solid
waste program. In 2007 and again in 2013, Council reviewed and reaffirmed these goals. The
program goals below guide how Public Works staff deal with resident concerns, program issues,
and contractors to ensure quality and consistency.
1. High Quality Service
2. Environmental Stewardship
3. Cost Effective Services
4. Effective Communication
5. Continual Evaluation of Program and Industry
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
A detailed description is available in the Purpose, Goals, and Objectives - Attachment C.
Proposed Residential & Multi-Family Program Change Considerations
Staff has generated a number of future residential and multi-family program change considerations
in response to requests from the City Council and as part of staff’s ongoing evaluation of the solid
waste program.
Residential Program Considerations
The following are future program changes for consideration and discussion (Supporting
information is available in “Future Program Considerations - Attachment D”)
• Offer two garbage service levels less than 20-gallons by offering every other week garbage
collection frequency for 20- and 30-gallon customers (only available to organics recycling
participants); staff intends to conduct a pilot project during the current contract period and,
assuming the pilot is successful, staff would recommend this option be added to the
upcoming RFP.
• Continue to evaluate and revise Pay-As-You Throw (PAYT) rates to encourage increased
recycling and organics recycling.
• Eliminate 450-gallon & 540-gallon garbage levels-of-service.
• Transition to providing organics recycling participants with vouchers for buying
compostable bags at local retailers; vouchers would cover all or a portion of compostable
bag costs.
• Eliminate $3 per quarter “no grass clippings yard waste” credit.
• Change ordinance to allow 8 a.m. collection start time on Saturdays (during holiday week).
The following program considerations could be included in the RFP as alternative collection
methods which bidders may provide a proposal for:
• Weekly recycling collection.
Other future residential program consideration:
• Discontinue compostable bag distribution by city. Require residents to purchase bags from
retailers – recommended only if voucher option is first implemented to allow for measured
phase-out.
Multi-family Program Considerations
The city was recently selected as a Minnesota GreenCorps Host Site, allowing the city to host a
Waste Prevention and Recycling member, similar to an intern, who will focus a majority of their
project time on multi-family recycling from September 2017 through August 2018. This person
will support staff efforts to study and gather current baseline information on the status of multi-
family recycling in the city.
Staff recommends the following multi-family program considerations:
• Conducting a 2017 pilot project to evaluate the possibility of creating permanent organics
recycling drop-off sites for multi-family residents on several city properties, similar to what
is currently being done in Minneapolis and other metro cities.
• Require all haulers, through city licensing, to have recycling labels with pictures (along
with company name and phone number) on all collection containers.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
Proposed Program Education Needs
Ongoing education is an important component of the solid waste program which helps increase
program understanding and participation, reduce contamination and litter, and allows the city to
provide high quality services. Public Works staff continually work with contractors and other city
staff to provide residents program information. Staff has recently developed a Recycling
Champions program and trained residents to become volunteers and peer-to-peer educators in the
community, sharing waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and organics recycling messages with their
neighbors.
The following are priority operational concerns that staff will be continuing to educate residents
on in the future:
Garbage
1. Bulk items set out for collection require prior arrangements with the contractor
2. Overfilled carts and garbage bags outside of the carts without extra garbage stickers
(staff has noted an increase as new organics recycling participants downsize their
garbage carts)
3. Carts left on sidewalks and in streets/alleys during collection
Recycling
4. Recyclables put in plastic bags (plastic bags are not collected)
5. Unacceptable materials in the recycling
6. Large cardboard left unbundled outside cart
Organics
7. Unacceptable materials in carts (plastic coated items no longer accepted)
8. Use of plastic kitchen bags (not certified compostable) to collect food scraps
Yard Waste
9. Use of plastic lawn and leaf bags (not certified compostable) to collect yard waste
10. Brush/branches set out for collection without being bundled/in container
11. Containers overfilled causing safety issues for collection (too heavy)
Other program education being considered includes:
• Shredded paper: Material recovery facilities (MRF) are voicing growing concern over
their ability to efficiently capture shredded paper, even if bagged, and stop it from
ending up in glass as a contaminant. Staff is evaluating messaging for dealing with
shredded paper.
• Fats, oils, grease (FOG): This material is not accepted by compost facilities. Disposal
of FOG down kitchen drains causes buildup in city owned sanitary sewer pipes, which
can result in expensive backups. Staff will be evaluating disposal education and
recycling options.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
Proposed Process for Solid Waste Collection Contracts / Timeline
New contracts for garbage, recycling, organics recycling and yard waste collection should be
awarded before the end of March, 2018 to allow contractors time to adequately prepare for the
work. If this deadline cannot be met, extensions of the current contracts will need to be negotiated.
Listed below is a draft schedule showing major steps to develop and award new collection
contracts.
Item Completion Date
Staff / Council review of current & proposed collection program & services May 2017
Solicitation of public input (resident survey) June 2017
Staff / Council determine future collection program and services July – Aug. 2017
Staff present revised Solid Waste Ordinance Aug. 2017
Staff / Council determine proposal and contract requirements Aug. – Sept. 2017
Draft Request for Proposal and Contract completed Sept. 2017
Ordinance changes, if any needed, are identified Sept. 2017
Ordinance revisions made (if needed) Oct. 2017 –
March 2018
Council authorizes Request for Proposal Oct. 2017
Proposals received by Staff Nov. – Dec. 2017
Proposals and staff recommendations reviewed with Council Jan. 2018
Staff negotiates collection contracts with vendors Jan. – Feb. 2018
Council approves new collection contracts March 2018
Staff conducts public education outreach with residents April – Sept. 2018
New collection contracts begin Oct. 1, 2018
Next Steps
Next steps are based on the timeline outlined in the report above and will be adjusted if needed
based on the City Council input provided during the study session discussion.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
ATTACHMENT “A”
2013 – 2018
EXISTING SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
St. Louis Park has organized garbage, recycling, organics recycling and yard waste collection for
single family and multi-family dwellings of four units or less. In an organized collection system,
the city provides collection services through a contract(s). The City entered into five-year contracts
with Waste Management (garbage and recycling) and Advanced Disposal (organics recycling and
yard waste) on October 1, 2013. Staff in the Operations & Recreation Department - Public Works
Division manage the contracts and oversee day-to-day operations.
GARBAGE
• Pay-As-You Throw (PAYT) Program for single family to 4- plex residential properties
where the garbage rate increases as garbage service level (cart capacity) increases
• 12 Levels of Service (30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, 210, 240, 270, 360, 450 and 540 gallon)
• Garbage must fit in cart with lid completely closed
• Residents may purchase “extra garbage stickers” from the city for bags of household
garbage that do not fit into their carts
• Weekly collection (5 days / week) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• City owned carts (30-,60-,90-gallon)
• Hauler provides cart storage and distribution
• Collection on city approved routes (routes determined by contractor and mapped by city)
• Disposal (incinerated) at the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) or alternatively at
a Hennepin County approved facility
• Optional walk-up service for weekly garbage collection (at additional cost)
• Extra collection upon request (additional pick-up of regular, carted household garbage at
additional cost)
• Bulk collection upon request (pick-up of large, non-carted garbage at additional cost)
• Emergency or disaster services agreement in place
RECYCLING
• Single-sort collection (all materials comingled)
• Materials collected inside the cart include paper: newspaper, magazines, mail,
phonebooks, shredded paper, soft cover books, box board (i.e. crackers, cereal, pasta,
toothpaste, pop & beer boxes), corrugated cardboard (3’x3’); metal: steel and aluminum
cans; glass: bottles and jars; plastic: bottles, cups, containers, and jugs; cartons: aseptic
(shelf-stable cartons for soup, wine, non-refrigerated items) and gable top (refrigerated
cartons for milk and juice) cartons.
• Materials collected outside the cart include scrap metal: 2’ x 2’ maximum; large
corrugated cardboard: greater than 3’ x 3’; extra recyclables
• Unlimited material collection
• Every other week collection (5 days / week) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• City owned carts (30-,60-,90-gallon)
• Extra collection upon request (additional pick-up at additional cost)
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 7
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
• Collection on city approved routes (routes determined by contractor and mapped by city)
• Optional walk-up service (at additional cost)
• Appliance and electronics recycling collection upon request (pick-up at additional cost)
• Contractor provides revenue sharing with city
• Annual material composition analysis by contractor
• Contractor provides end market information (upon city request)
• Emergency or disaster services agreement in place
ORGANICS RECYCLING
• Collection of food scraps, certified compostable products, and food-soiled paper like paper
napkins, towels, facial tissues, and greasy pizza delivery boxes
• Weekly collection (5 days/week) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• City-owned carts (30-,60-,90-gallon)
• Organics must be bagged in certified compostable bags and be placed inside city-owned
organics carts
• Yard waste can be included inside the cart
YARD WASTE
• Collection of grass clippings, leaves, weeds, brush, and tree limbs
• Weekly collection (5 days/week, 2 routes/day) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• Collection from April to November
• Material for collection must be in a container or compostable bag, or tied and bundled
Containers owned by resident and require a “yard waste only” sticker
• Containers must be 40 pounds or less
• Brush must be bundles in lengths 4’ or less
• Tree limbs must be 4’ or less and have a diameter of 4” or less
• Special collection upon request (additional pick-up at additional cost)
• Pumpkin collection starts November 1
CUSTOMER SERVICE
• Contractor staffed call center from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. (Monday – Friday), 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
(Saturdays when collecting during holiday weeks)
• Calls or emails responded to with 30 minutes or by 9 a.m. if received after
• Calls documented by contractor and city staff in city database
EDUCATION
• Educational tags issued to residents by contractor when collection material isn’t properly
prepared
• Education letters to residents by city if education tag issues are not corrected
• Resident education prepared by city (website, Park Perspective, Sun Sailor, social media,
mailings, brochures, neighborhood association newsletters)
• Community outreach at city and neighborhood events
• Recycling Champion program to train residents to educate their neighbors
• Bi-monthly industry related information or educational material provided by contractor
• Annual recycling guide by recycling contractor
• Annually the contractor participates in at least two community events
• Host open house one time during 5-year contract by recycling contractor
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 8
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
BUSINESSES
• Allow garbage, recycling, and organics recycling collection from small businesses that
have the same collection parameters as residential customers (cart collection, level of
service) and as long as one type of recycling service is also used
• Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance education and enforcement for affected businesses
OTHER
• Special collection of textiles such as clothing, linens, shoes and small home goods (at no
additional cost) through separate contract
• Holiday tree collection in first two weeks of January
• Two clean-up day events per year by city and contractor for recycling of mattresses, box
springs, scrap metal, tires, appliances, fluorescent tubes, paper for shredding, bicycles,
TVs, computers and other electronics, holiday lights, textiles, household goods, and
disposal of large trash items.
• Hennepin County Public Space Recycling Grant project 2016/2017 to increase recycling
opportunities in city parks
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 9
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
ATTACHMENT “B”
HISTORY OF SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
IN ST. LOUIS PARK
(Revised 5/2/2017)
2017 City implements Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance, drops opt-in fee for
organics recycling program. City adds curbside textile and home goods
recycling/reuse program through contract with Simple Recycling, develops
Recycling Champion program.
2016 City provides incentive to residents to sign up for organics recycling and
receives a $15,190 grant from Hennepin County to increase recycling collection
in city parks.
2015 City adopts Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance requiring all licensed food
establishments to serve food and beverages in-house or to-go in reusable,
returnable, recyclable, or compostable packaging and provide in-house
collection for recyclable or compostable packaging used on-site. City adopts
resolution to amend the 2012 - 2015 SCORE (recycling) agreement with
Hennepin to extend for one year through December 31, 2016.
2014 City conducts a survey of licensed food establishments on polystyrene plastic
product use and recycling practices. City begins providing compost each spring
and fall to residents. Compost comes from the commercial composter that
composts organic material from the city’s program.
2013 City brush drop-off site (2501 Edgewood Avenue) opens to residents to discard
branches, brush and logs.
5-year contracts (2013 - 2018) for garbage and recycling collection with Waste
Management and organics recycling and yard waste collection with Advanced
Disposal begin.
1. Single-sort recycling begins and city requires use of city-owned carts for
recycling collection.
2. Organics recycling begins and requires use of city carts and city provided
compostable bags for organics recycling collection. Organics customers are
also allowed to put un-bagged yard waste in the organics recycling cart.
3. Organics recycling and yard waste are co-collected in the same truck.
4. Scrap metal curbside recycling begins.
5. Textile recycling is no longer available.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 10
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
2012 Council approves Amendment No. 2 to contract with Eureka Recycling to
expand plastics accepted to #1-5 and #7 plastics containers/lids and clear rigid
packaging and a revised revenue sharing agreement with Eureka in response to
new materials accepted. City adopts resolution to enter into a 2012 - 2015
SCORE (recycling) agreement with Hennepin County which requires the city
to collect #1 thru #5 plastic containers and lids by January 1, 2013.
2011 City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the solid
waste program. City adds pizza delivery boxes to the list of recycling items
collected. City provides recycling bin wheel kits to assist residents in
transporting their bins to the collection location.
2010 City adds pumpkins to the list of yard waste items collected. City conducts
customer service survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the solid waste
customer service. City amends backyard composting ordinance to allow food
scraps and the container size and material. City adopts resolution to amend the
2008 - 2010 SCORE (recycling) agreement with Hennepin to extend for one
year through December 31, 2011. State law requires residents who bag their yard
waste to use compostable bags (either paper bags or compostable plastic bags).
2009 City approves Amendment No. 1 to contract with Eureka Recycling to modify
the financial terms relating to revenue sharing and bond requirements. City
conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the solid waste
program.
2008 5-year contracts (2008 - 2013) for garbage and yard waste collection with Waste
Management and recycling collection with Eureka Recycling begin.
1. Curbside textile recycling begins.
2. City adds pop and beer boxes, aseptic juice and milk cartons to the list of
recycling items collected in recycling bins.
3. City adds Field Inspector position to solid waste staff.
2007 Council authorizes staff to solicit proposals for recycling, garbage and yard
waste collection services for the period of Oct. 1, 2008 to Sept. 30, 2013. City
conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the proposed
solid waste program changes.
2006 City receives a $3,000 Keep America Beautiful grant from Waste Management
to create a Green Business Program. State law prohibits electronic products
containing cathode-ray tubes (TVs and computer monitors) from disposal in the
garbage. City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with
the solid waste program.
2005 City received $14,000 grant from Hennepin County to create a recycling project
in city parks. City adopts resolution to enter into a 2005 - 2007 SCORE
(recycling) agreement with Hennepin County. Decision Resources conducts
customer service survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the solid waste
customer service.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 11
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
2004 New rates for Pay-As-You-Throw program become effective.
2003 New contract with Waste Management becomes effective.
2002 Solid Waste Program changes approved by Council. Decision Resources
conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the solid waste
program. City authorizes 1-year extension of contract with Waste Management
to allow staff time to complete program changes process.
2000 City conducts program survey to measure resident’s satisfaction with the solid
waste program.
1997 City authorizes a 5-year agreement with Waste Management, Inc. beginning
October 1, 1997.
1989 City amends Ordinance #1794-89, relating to garbage collection by adding new
sections 9-310 through 9-320 relating to environmental preservation.
1988 City passes Resolution #88-99 Supporting Recycling Collection by Garbage
Haulers at Multiple Family Residential Dwellings. City also hears task force
recommendation to have county do more commercial recycling so that cities
could concentrate on residential recycling.
1987 The City passes Resolution #87-202 Intent for Implementing City Wide
Recycling Programs.
City establishes goals for a city sponsored recycling program. Citywide
recycling goal of 50% participation from all single-family homes, multiple-
family dwellings, and businesses by 1990. City authorizes agreement for a
recycling & composting program. City enters into recycling collection
agreement with Super Cycle.
1986 City terminates recycling contract with US Recyco. City contracts with
Beermann Services to provide interim services until May 3, 1986.
1978 Newspaper recycling containers regulated.
1958 First documentation of Garbage Collection available.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 12
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
ATTACHMENT “C”
SOLID WASTE PROGRAM PURPOSE, GOALS, OBJECTIVES
Purpose: To provide solid waste services responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a vital
community.
Goal 1: High Quality Service
Objectives:
• Collaborate with other departments and groups to maintain a clean city.
• Provide consistent and reliable service.
• Merit high regard from citizens for the Solid Waste Program.
• Provide convenient, user-friendly solid waste services.
Goal 2: Environmental Stewardship
Objectives:
• Promote public health and safety.
• Encourage citizens to take responsibility for the management of their solid waste.
• Achieve the most appropriate level of reduction, reuse and recycling.
Goal 3: Cost Effective Services
Objectives:
• Pursue changes that may reduce cost while continuing to meet the other goals of the
Program.
• Minimize city administrative effort and costs without compromising the other Program
goals.
Goal 4: Effective Communication
Objectives:
• Inform residents about the city’s program and services.
• Solicit public opinion.
• Provide public education on reducing, reusing and recycling solid waste.
Goal 5: Continual Evaluation of Program and Industry
Objectives:
• Continually monitor program performance with surrounding communities.
• Track industry standards.
• Measure our own performance.
• Comply with regulations on solid waste.
• Be proactive in providing new and better ways to provide service.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 13
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
ATTACHMENT “D”
FUTURE PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
RESIDENTIAL
1. Pilot project to test optional every other week garbage collection for 20- and 30-gallon service
levels. Staff recommends conducting a pilot project to explore the possibility of providing residents a
choice for smaller garbage service level by offering a decreased collection frequency. The pilot project
should be conducted during the current contract and only available to residents participating in organics
recycling. Assuming the pilot is successful, this service level would be included in the next contract.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Option for residents who generate less waste
than current 20-gallon/week service level (10- to
15-gallons/week)
• Adds complexity for hauler
• Potential cost savings for participating residents • Adds complexity for Utility Billing
• Potential for increase in number of missed
pickups
2. Weekly collection of recycling. Staff is recommending this collection method be included as an
alternative option in the request for proposals which bidders could provide proposals.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Fewer carts needed for residents • Significant collection cost increase to the city
• Smaller cart sizes needed • Significant cost increase
• Less resident confusion on their collection day • Cost to city to purchase more smaller sized
carts
• More trucks - increase of greenhouse gas
emissions and wear on roadways
3. Continue to evaluate and revise PAYT rates to encourage increased recycling and organics
recycling. Staff recommends in order to support program goals.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Fairly charges residents
• Promotes waste reduction
• Helps achieve program goals and objectives
4. Eliminate 450 & 540 level-of-service for garbage collection (currently only one customer in each
service level). Staff recommends removing high volume garbage service levels to encourage waste
reduction and increased recycling.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Promotes recycling and organics collection • A few residents will have to lower their
service level
• Reduces the number of carts at these locations
• Residents still have option to use extra garbage
stickers
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 14
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
5. Compostable bags – City provides vouchers to cover all or a portion of cost to purchase bags
from local retailers. Staff recommends implementing this option by the end of 2018 to prepare for a
transition to resident purchasing bags from retailers.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Lowers cost to the city to help minimize future
rate increases to residents (current annual cost
for bags is approximately $80,000)
• Need local venders (e.g. Frattallone’s &
Jerry’s) to participate
• City ensures participants are using certified
compostable bags
• Continued cost to city
• Time saving for staff in bag ordering, inventory,
delivery to distribution locations, distribution to
residents, inventory tracking, etc.
• Unknown time needed for coordinating with
vendors, some added time for finance to do
reimbursements
• Increased convenience for residents to pick up
bags outside of city building hours.
• Residents may need to start paying a portion
of the bag costs
6. Eliminate $3 per quarter “no grass clippings yard waste” credit. Staff recommends in order to
offset solid waste program rate increases for residents.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Saves the city approximately $100,000 per year,
savings to help minimize future rate increases to
residents
• No way to know if 8,000 customers are putting
grass out for collection or not
• Simplifies billing and communication with
residents
7. Change ordinance to allow 8 a.m. collection start time on Saturdays (during holiday week). Staff
recommends as this has been allowed administratively by the city for several years.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Ensures collection is completed when scheduled
• This only occurs approximately five times a year
8. Compostable bags - City stops providing and residents purchase bags from retailers. Staff
recommends implementing this option in 3-5 years to offset solid waste program rate increases for
residents.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Significant time saving for staff in bag ordering,
inventory, delivery to distribution locations,
distribution to residents, inventory tracking, etc.
• Residents need to purchase their own bags
• Cost savings of approximately $80,000 annually
for the city
• Greater potential for residents using non-
compostable bags (i.e. increased contamination
in organics recycling)
• Greater potential for resident frustration due
to lower quality bags breaking
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 15
Title: Solid Waste Program and Collection Services
MULTI-FAMILY
1. Create organics recycling drop-off sites for multi-family residents on several city properties. Staff
recommends conducting a 2017 pilot project to evaluate possibility of creating permanent organics
drop-off sites for use by residents living in multi-family housing.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Provides organics collection opportunity for
multi-family residents
• Potential for contamination in carts
• Reduces waste going the incinerator or landfill • Drop-offs are only used by highly committed,
inconvenient for many multi-family residents
• Reduces garbage disposal costs for property
owners
2. Require all haulers, through city licensing, to have recycling labels with pictures, along with
company name and phone number on all collection containers. Staff recommends and will be
implementing in 2017.
Advantages Disadvantages
• Pictures help residents to know what goes into
containers
• Enforcement could be a challenge
• Pictures assist non-English speaking residents
and children
• Picture labels are available at no cost from the
county
• Hauler information helps residents and city
staff know who to contact if there is a problem
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 22, 2017
Written Report: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: April 2017 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of April, General Fund
expenditures total approximately 30% of the adopted annual budget. The attached analysis
explains variances.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures – General Fund
Budget to Actual – Enterprise Funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: April 2017 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included
in this report.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
General Fund
Actual expenditures should generally run at about 33% of the annual budget at the end of April.
General Fund expenditures are under budget at approximately 30% of the adopted budget in
April. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they
are received, examples of which include property taxes, State aid payments and seasonal
revenues for recreation programs. A few comments on variances are noted below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues are at 57% of budget in April. This is due in part because the
majority of the 2017 business and liquor license revenue has already been received. Permit
revenue is at 46% of budget through April. Permits issued in April included Parkway 25.
Expenditures:
Communications & Marketing is at 40.9% of budget through April. This is a temporary variance
due to some large expenditures for prepayment of postage, the Park Perspective, and the Park &
Recreation brochure.
Organized Recreation also has a temporary variance of 37.6% because the full annual community
education contribution in the amount of $187,400 was paid to the school district in January.
Utility Funds
Revenues:
Revenue typically lags one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter
behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. Much of the revenue billed
in the first quarter of 2017 actually applied to 2016.
Other revenue is exceeding budget in the Water Fund due to additional antenna lease revenue.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of April 30, 201720172017201520152016201620172017 Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget Apr YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes22,364,509$ 22,653,095$ 23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ -$ 24,748,436$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,248,158 4,312,700 3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 2,134,548 1,611,188 56.99% Fines & Forfeits320,200 263,951 341,200 299,808 254,200 100,637 153,564 39.59% Intergovernmental1,292,277 1,669,395 1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 383,371 1,248,298 23.50% Charges for Services1,907,292 2,116,313 1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 399,718 1,627,919 19.71% Miscellaneous Revenue1,196,018 1,357,373 977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 413,622 860,794 32.46% Transfers In1,851,759 1,867,398 1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 629,976 1,269,951 33.16% Investment Earnings 140,000 68,908 140,000 114,957 140,000 140,000 0.00% Other Income17,900 61,025 27,450 20,440 30,450 10,778 19,672 35.40% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 58,541 - 58,541 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues32,624,438$ 34,370,158$ 34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 4,072,649$ 31,738,362$ 11.37%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration979,183$ 1,012,841$ 1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 309,528$ 739,595$ 29.50% Finance912,685 902,901 933,624 869,759 957,275 273,514 683,761 28.57% Assessing602,299 601,687 641,038 607,443 707,139 198,040 509,099 28.01% Human Resources805,929 857,950 748,718 801,958 754,699 223,654 531,045 29.63% Community Development1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 421,076 944,979 30.82% Facilities Maintenance1,094,836 1,072,749 1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 355,912 776,862 31.42% Information Resources1,468,552 1,374,074 1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 423,673 1,147,039 26.97% Communications & Marketing635,150 571,815 608,228 657,758 646,841 264,371 382,470 40.87% Community Outreach24,677 22,380 25,587 22,718 26,553 6,039 20,514 22.74% Engineering492,838 381,148 549,251 436,228 376,601 60,052 316,549 15.95%Total General Government8,261,762$ 8,051,233$ 8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 2,535,859$ 6,051,913$ 29.53% Public Safety: Police8,511,557$ 8,248,745$ 8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 3,035,010$ 6,182,978$ 32.92% Fire Protection3,722,396 3,759,386 4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 1,322,526 3,085,130 30.01% Inspectional Services2,139,325 2,002,445 2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 701,417 1,717,656 29.00%Total Public Safety14,373,278$ 14,010,577$ 14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 5,058,953$ 10,985,764$ 31.53% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 75,350$ 190,899$ 28.30% Public Works Operations2,763,735 2,388,560 2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 917,137 2,101,880 30.38% Organized Recreation1,304,470 1,360,454 1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 553,525 919,471 37.58% Recreation Center1,591,115 1,575,042 1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 430,666 1,313,985 24.68% Park Maintenance1,550,033 1,513,700 1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 490,641 1,231,091 28.50% Westwood564,055 560,744 576,173 555,887 602,400 179,943 422,457 29.87% Natural Resources472,049 377,617 479,408 362,094 550,235 101,176 449,059 18.39% Vehicle Maintenance1,333,520 1,118,048 1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 376,331 1,007,708 27.19%Total Operations & Recreation9,811,414$ 9,107,547$ 10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 3,124,768$ 7,636,550$ 29.04% Non-Departmental: General -$ 123,720$ 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 10,620$ 21,289$ 33.28% Transfers Out- 2,194,245 - 1,873,000 - - - 0.00% Contingency177,984 14,438 266,719 104,224 385,295 10,683 374,612 2.77%Total Non-Departmental177,984$ 2,332,403$ 297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 21,303$ 395,901$ 5.11%Total General Fund Expenditures32,624,438$ 33,501,760$ 34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 10,740,882$ 25,070,129$ 29.99%Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: April 2017 Monthly Financial Report3Page 3
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of April 30, 2017Current BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,420,438$ 1,105,222$ 5,315,216$ 17.21% 6,915,804$ 1,539,029$ 5,376,775$ 22.25% 3,319,001$ 626,830$ 2,692,171$ 18.89% 2,853,520$ 705,501$ 2,148,019$ 24.72% Other 375,000 418,431 (43,431) 111.58% 30,000 3,336 26,664 11.12% 148,000 564 147,436 0.38% - - - Total operating revenues6,795,438 1,523,654 5,271,784 22.42% 6,945,804 1,542,365 5,403,439 22.21% 3,467,001 627,394 2,839,607 18.10% 2,853,520 705,501 2,148,019 24.72%Operating expenses: Personal services1,322,998 460,955 862,043 34.84% 613,321 256,070 357,251 41.75% 590,172 173,483 416,689 29.40% 705,221 165,383 539,838 23.45% Supplies & non-capital544,800 55,478 489,322 10.18% 65,050 20,543 44,507 31.58% 153,350 61,304 92,046 39.98% 30,800 - 30,800 0.00% Services & other charges1,688,398 435,664 1,252,734 25.80%4,764,546 1,930,860 2,833,686 40.53% 2,692,499 565,969 2,126,530 21.02% 597,828 53,632 544,196 8.97% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,556,196 952,096 2,604,100 26.77% 5,442,917 2,207,474 3,235,443 40.56% 3,436,021 800,756 2,635,265 23.30% 1,333,849 219,015 1,114,834 16.42%Operating income (loss)3,239,242 571,557 2,667,685 17.64% 1,502,887 (665,109) 2,167,996 -44.26% 30,980 (173,362) 204,342 -559.59% 1,519,671 486,486 1,033,185 32.01%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 3,408 - 3,408 1,953 - 1,953 0.00% 30,849 - 30,849 0.00% 2,875 - 2,875 0.00% Other misc income- - - - - -2,500 - 2,500 0.00%- - - Interest expense/bank charges(182,037) (90,659) (91,378) 49.80% (16,016) (4,509) (11,507) 28.15% (11,000) (2,263) (8,737) 20.57% (30,604) (12,061) (18,543) 39.41% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(178,629) (90,659) (87,970) 50.75% (14,063) (4,509) (9,554) 32.06% 22,349 (2,263) 24,612 -10.13% (27,729) (12,061) (15,668) 43.50%Income (loss) before transfers3,060,613 480,898 2,579,715 15.71% 1,488,824 (669,618) 2,158,442 -44.98% 53,329 (175,625) 228,954 -329.32% 1,491,942 474,425 1,017,517 31.80%Transfers inTransfers out(584,451) (194,817) (389,634) 33.33% (799,648) (266,549) (533,099) 33.33% (227,229) (75,743) (151,486) 33.33% (313,067) (104,356) (208,711) 33.33%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,476,162 286,081 2,190,081 11.55% 689,176 (936,167) 1,625,343 -135.84% (173,900) (251,368) 77,468 144.55% 1,178,875 370,069 808,806 31.39%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,163,298) (747) (3,162,551) 0.02% (785,983) (747) (785,236) 0.10%- - - (2,191,667) (747) (2,190,920) 0.03%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(687,136) 285,334 (972,470) (96,807) (936,914) 840,107 (173,900) (251,368) 77,468 (1,012,792) 369,323 (1,382,115) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: April 2017 Monthly Financial Report4Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 22, 2017
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vision 3.0 Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might
have.
SUMMARY: Vision 3.0 activities are beginning to wrap up. To date, we have:
Hosted two Town Hall meetings: 75 total attendees
•Two Facebook Live Town Hall meetings
o March 2: 205 comments/ideas and 1,700 views
o April 13: 98 comments/ideas and 1,000 views
•Trained more than 65 people to facilitate community conversations in their neighborhood,
places of worship, clubs or other groups about the future of St. Louis Park. As of now
(meetings are being finished up and will be reported):
o More than 30 meetings have been held with more than 235 respondents (based on
completed demographic cards)
o 171 comments/ideas have been submitted
o A strong percentage of those who filled out demographic cards are people of color
•Questions of the week: Hundreds of responses have been received via Facebook, Nextdoor,
Twitter and email to staff
•Survey (on-line and on paper): about 150 surveys have been returned
•Chalkboards/sandwich boards
o Chalkboards and sandwich boards at 12 places and events.
o More than 10 events are scheduled for future dates.
o Boards have been staffed by Steering Committee members and city staff
Preliminary themes are outlined in the Discussion section.
NEXT STEPS: Over the next two months, Consultant Rebecca Ryan will analyze the input and
provide a summary of the results.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Photo of Sandwich Board at Home Remodeling Tour
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager
Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Vision 3.0 Update
DISCUSSION
Preliminary Themes from Vision 3.0 Input
While input continues to come in via various methods, a few themes are beginning to emerge as
follows. Respondents:
•Love the city and their neighborhoods
•Love police and fire services; feel safe; believe keeping the city safe is very important
•Are concerned about traffic
•Are requesting more street lights at night
•Would like to see more neighborhood and city activities like Parktacular
•Are aware of racial equity (all ages); many people think it’s the school’s responsibility
•Would like to have more affordable housing
Next Steps
Community conversations are wrapping up. The deadline was May 15, but a few meetings are still
taking place. The online survey has been extended through Sunday, May 21. Chalkboard and
sandwich board input will continue through some of the Parktacular events in mid-June.
Over the next two months, Consultant Rebecca Ryan will sort and analyze the input and create a
draft Vision 3.0 Statement for the city. The Steering Committee is scheduled to meet July 18 to
review the draft statement. The Committee will work with the consultant to create a
recommendation for the City Council to consider, likely in August.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Vision 3.0 Update
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: May 22, 2017
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Please contact staff if you have questions or
concerns regarding the proposed agreement.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The city and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) partnered to construct
the Minnehaha Creek Preserve Restoration project (Minnehaha Creek Reach 20) which re-
meandered the stream channel, planted more diverse vegetation, treated stormwater, construct
boardwalks, trails, and bridges. The project area opened to the public in 2015.
The city entered into cooperative agreements, easements and conservation easements with MCWD
for the project. These previous agreements indicated that MCWD and the city would prepare and
enter into a management plan for the project area. The management plan was to describe the
general expectations for operations and maintenance of the project area in more detail than
provided in the previous agreements.
MCWD and city staff prepared the attached operations and maintenance agreement to clarify the
expectations and responsibilities for each entity in the project area. City staff included
representatives from the Operations and Recreation and Community Development Departments.
The agreement was also reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
This agreement is consistent with the previous agreements. It represents the obligations, division
of responsibilities, and levels of maintenance that were expected when the parties agreed to
undertake the project. This includes, but is not limited to, city maintenance of the paved trails and
easterly bridge, and MCWD maintenance of the boardwalk system and vegetation associated with
the creek re-meander project.
NEXT STEPS: If there are no objections, the agreement will be added to the city council consent
agenda on June 5, 2017. The council will be asked to authorize the City Manager to enter into the
agreement with MCWD.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The city budget already contemplates and
includes the proposed operations and maintenance activities, and the proposed agreement does not
further impact city budgets.
VISION CONSIDERATION: 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.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Maintenance Director
Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Plan March 2017
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALITY OF WATER QU ALITY OF LIFE
Minnehaha Preserve Restoration Project
{Minnehaha Creek Reach 20)
Operations and Maintenance Plan
March 2017
Photo Courtesy of Erdahl Photos
1
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 2
Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Mai ntenance Plan March 2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Minnehaha Preserve Restoration project, also known as the Reach 20 St reambank Restoration on
Minnehaha Creek, includes nearly one mile of re-meandered Minnehaha Creek stream channel and
approximately 30 acres of wetland and upland habitat. The project is comprised of the re-meandered
stream channel through historic floodplain wetlands; associated wetland and upland restoration;
stormwater facilities that treat direct discharges of urban stormwater; and public trail system; all of
which have been designed to advance water quality goals, improve wildlife habitat, and allow better
public access. The various elements of this project require regular and long-term maintenance to sustain
their function. To ensure that maintenance roles and responsibilities are clearly communicated this
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) plan has been prepared as a cooperative effort by the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District and the City of St. Louis Park. In fulfillment of the conditions of the
Cooperative Agreement, and in furtherance of the mutual goals of the District and the City, the goals of
this plan are to outline specific roles and responsibilities for the periodic and long-term maintenance of
project elements associated with the Minnehaha Preserve Restoration project (Minnehaha Creek Reach
20 Restoration).
This O&M plan is to fulfill obligations proposed under easements. It authorizes no acts contrary to the
easements, and in the case of ambiguity, the O&M plan should be interpreted consistent with the
easements and the cooperative agreement. Any activities not consistent with the easement,
cooperative agreement, and this O&M Plan must be agreed to, in writing, by both parties. All use will
contribute to the rational management of the facilities as a whole.
This O&M Plan is organized into the following sections:
I.Introduction
II.Project Elements Requiring Maintenance
Ill. Site Boundaries and Posting Protected Areas
IV.Law Enforcement and Site Protection and Safety
V.Conclusion
2
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 3
Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Plan March 2017
I.Introduction
The first Cooperative Agreement was executed on August 3, 2012, by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District (MCWD) and the City of St. Louis Park and described roles and responsibilities related to the
construction of the Minnehaha Preserve/Reach 20 Streambank Re storation. A second Cooperative
Agreement (Attachment 1) was executed on January 21, 2013 and provided design and construction
coordination and greater detail on future interrelated project maintenance needs and the responsible
agency. According to the Cooperative Agreement with the City and MCWD, the parties assume the
obligation to maintain the Project in accordance with the O&M plan. MCWD is obligated to maintain the
Project's vegetation for five years from the date of which the Agreement was executed and will renew
automatically for five-year terms except as the parties, in writing, may amend the Agreement to provide
otherwise. Responsibility for each facility includes both routine and long-term maintenance of those
facilities as the responsible party judges appropriate. The responsible parties may coordinate or
combine their maintenance activities in the interest of cost efficiency and other public uses.
This O&M plan will provide a quick reference to specific maintenance needs, the frequency at which
maintenance should occur, the responsible party, and any coordination that must occur to perform
maintenance. All maintenance and other activities will be performed in a manner that reasonably
minimizes impact to the surrounding natural environment and to any prior-constructed improvements.
Each party is responsible for any damage it causes to the facilities owned by the other party due to
maintenance and other activity.
The regular safety inspections and associated maintenance of these facilities will be performed to
reduce the risk of hazards. Further, the documentation of inspections and maintenance tasks is
important to combat possible liability claims. An inspection record (Attachment 2) should be completed
during each inspection and follow-up maintenance should be documented.
II.Project Elements Requiring Maintenance
Table 1: Operations and Maintenance Tasks and Responsibilities for the Minnehaha Preserve
Restoration Project
Table 1 lists the major project elements of the Minnehaha Preserve Restoration project that require
maintenance and the party responsible for overseeing that work. The timing and inspection frequency
for items listed below are based on a consideration of potential hazards, public use patterns, the
benefits of early identification of maintenance and repair needs and staff/contractor costs. Each party
also will respond to information and complaints received about site conditions.
Facility Responsible Party
Bituminous trail St. Louis Park
Snow removal on the bituminous trail St. Louis Park
Boardwalk trail MCWD
Benches along bituminous trail St. Louis Park
Eastern bridge crossing (St. Louis Park Bridge No. St. Louis Park
5)
3
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 4
Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Plan March 2017
Western bridge crossing MCWD
Canoe launch approach trails St. Louis Park
Canoe launches St. Louis Park
Education area on boardwalk trail MCWD
Interpretive Signage MCWD
Wayfinding Signage and Maps MCWD
Trash Receptacles St. Louis Park
Bicycle Racks St. Louis Park
Utility Maintenance St. Louis Park
Vegetation and terrestrial invasive species MCWD -some exceptions apply
management
Stormwater BMPs MCWD
Stream bank and Channel Maintenance MCWD
The quality of vegetation associated with the streambank and wetland restoration is regulated by a US
Army Corps of Engineers Permit for the first five growing seasons (2015-2019.) Vegetation installed and
maintained as part of the restoration component of the project construction must meet specific
performance standards during this period and will be maintained through work contracted by MCWD. A
monitoring plan that details specific inspection of vegetation is attached as Attachment 3. Vegetation
maintenance required for safe trail access will be completed by the City of St. Louis Park.
Table 2: Trail System Inspection and Maintenance Tasks
A major feature of the project that will require coordinated maintenance is the approximate 7,000-foot
trail system. Table 2 details specific activities to maintain the boardwalk and bituminous trail.
Maintenance or Description Frequency Comments/Responsible
Inspection Activity Party
Frost, root heaves in Freeze/thaw or tree roots cause Annually in spring St. Louis Park maintains
bitumi nous trail pavement to heave
Bridge abutment and Frost and water cause trail and Annually in spring St. Louis Park maintains
bituminous trail bridge abutment to become
intersection askew
Settling around Trail settles on either side of Annually in spring St. Louis Park maintains
storm pipes under storm pipe causing uneven trail
bituminous trail
Erosion on trail Unstable slopes adjacent to trail Annually in spring St. Louis Park maintains on
edges/slopes erodes bituminous trail; MCWD
maintains on boardwalk
Debris on bituminous Leaves, sticks, dirt accumulate on Annually in spring St. Louis Park maintains
trails trail with sweeper
Snow removal Snow and ice accumulation during November-March St. Louis Park maintains
the winter months bituminous trail; boardwalk
is closed
4
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 5
Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Plan
Removal of Evaluation/ removal of unhealthy
trees/limbs capable or dead trees and limbs
of falling onto trail
Removal of Evaluation/ removal of unhealthy
trees/limbs capable or dead trees and limbs
of falling onto
boardwalk
Pruning near the trail Prune woody vegetation 4-feet
back from sides of trails, 14-feet
vertical clearance
Pruning near the Prune woody vegetation 4-feet
boardwalk back from sides of trails, 14-feet
vertical clearance
Debris on boardwalk Sweep/remove leaves, sticks, and
other debris
Mowing 3-feet wide along each side of trail
(where applicable)
Replace boardwalk Replace damaged or warped wood
surface
Inspect for bee/wasp Railings and boardwalk may be a
nests location for bee/wasp nests
Wildlife control Beaver or other wildlife
abatement
Inspect bridges Inspection by Professional
Engineer
Graffiti control Remove graffiti, re-paint surfaces
Trash collection Removal of trash from receptacles
at access areas
Litter removal Trail side litter pickup; Access area
litter pickup
Signage Develop, locate, and maintain
directional and informational signs
Ill. Site Boundaries
March 2017
Annually and after MCWD maintains
major storms
Annually and after MCWD maintains
major storms
Annually St. Louis Park maintains
Annually MCWD
Bi-annually in spring MCWD
and fall, or more
frequently as needed
3-4 times annually Flail type mower best-less
debris on trail; St. Louis
Park maintains
As needed MCWD maintains
As needed MCWD maintains
Annual evaluation by Addressed on as-needed
MCWD basis
Every 2 years by PE; St. Louis Park inspects
Annually by Staff eastern bridge; MCWD
inspects western bridge
As required MCWD & St. Louis Park
maintain on their
respective assets
Weekly St. Louis Park maintains
Weekly or as St. Louis Park maintains
required
As needed MCWD develops, installs,
and maintains (City review
and permitting as required)
Attachment 4, Site Boundaries, details the project area subject to this Maintenance Plan.
IV.Site Protection and Safety
The trails are closed before sunrise and after sunset. Only foot travel and bicycle travel are allowed uses
of the bituminous trail and only foot travel is allowed on the boardwalk. Any party will not authorize
5
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 6
Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Plan March 2017
public motorized use, however, each party may cross the facilities owned by the other party and may
operate motorized equipment to perform its roles and responsibilities.
The bituminous trail is designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access. The boardwalk trail does
not support vehicular loads and is therefore unsafe for emergency vehicle access. MCWD will
coordinate with the City of St. Louis Park to designate location names for various areas of the
Minnehaha Preserve including access points such as Creekside Park, the St. Louis Park Municipal Service
Center, Louisiana Avenue and the future trail extension to Excelsior Boulevard, to aid emergency
personnel in locating trail users in need of assistance.
Trimming of vegetation will be completed to maintain adequate sight distance for crime prevention
purposes. The City of St. Louis Park and MCWD will work in coordination to identify areas that require
open sight lines, and the City will complete necessa ry pruning and trimming.
Since the trails have been open to the public, two common issues with trail maintenance have become
apparent. First, wooden railings and benches have been marked with graffiti. The City of St. Louis Park
regulates the removal of graffiti by City ordinance (Attachment 5, Section 12-34 Nuisances Affecting
Peace and Safety), and the owner of the property must remove the graffiti at their expense and within a
timeframe set by the City of St. Louis Park. Generally, graffiti has been removed with sandpaper up to
the current time. MCWD intends to purchase an orbital sander to remove graffiti from boardwalk
structures in the future. Second, certain sections of the trail are problem areas for litter. Large garbage
bins are located at the trail entrance at Creekside Park and near the east bridge, and are maintained by
the City of St. Louis Park. The City of St. Louis Park also organizes an annual clean-up along this section of
Minnehaha Creek to remove garbage accumulated by creek flow.
V.Conclusion
The City of St. Louis Park and MCWD accept perpetual maintenance responsibility for project elements
under their ownership, but will work to coordinate specific maintenance tasks determined to be
necessary. Both parties will work in a good faith effort toward the rational management of the facilities
as a whole.
6
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 7
Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Plan March 2017
This Operation & Maintenance Plan constitutes the management plan for the Minnehaha Preserve Restoration Project and the underlying land as referenced in the Conservation Easement (Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Doc. No. T4736855; Hennepin County Recorder Doc. No. A9489642); the Easement (Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Doc. No. T5032867); and the Second Cooperative Agreement (December 12, 2013) (City of St. Louis Park Contract No. 121-13).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Operations & Maintenance Plan by their authorized officers.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By _____________________ Date: ___________ _
Its City Manager
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
By _� _______ Date:_Lf LI---�---'-· /_Zr.D_'r_
Its Administrator
Approved for form and execution:
MCWD Counsel
7
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 8
Attachment 1 . CONTRACT NO.
SECOND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK City of St. Louis Park and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
REACH 20 RESTORATION PROJECT
This Cooperative Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set forth at Minnesota
Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D (MCWD), and the City of St. Louis Park, a home rule charter ,city in the State of Minnesota (City).
Recitals
A.The MCWD and the City previously entered into a cooperative agreement (undated) to
coordinate projects for the restoration and improvement of Reach 20 of Minnehaha Creek
within the boundaries of th e City {"1" Agreement").
B.In addition, on February 8, 2010 (accepted February 23, 2010), the City conveyed to the
District a Conservation Easement filed for record with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles
as Document No. T4736855 and with the Hennepin County Office of the County Recor der as
Document No. A9489642 ("Conservation Easement"), and on December 3, 2012 (accepted
January 10, 2013), the City conveyed to the District an Easement filed for record with the
Hennepin County Registrar of Titles as Document No. T5032867 ("Easement"), affording the
District temporary and permanent easement rights to construct and maintain such restoration
and improvement projects.
C.Pursuant to the 1rt Agreement and aforementioned easements, and to the MCWD's April
.2007 Water Management Plan Update (April 2007) (WMPU), the Dis trict has substantially
completed a project to remeander and stabilize the banks of Minnehaha Creek within Reach
20, establish vegetated riparian buff�r, and construct other improvements to improve the
water quality of Minnehaha Creek and manage stormwaterflows into the creek.
D.Under the WMPU, the District also will seek opportunities to install trails in conjunction with
its water resource enhancement projects to enhance educational and recreational
opportunities consistent with its resource protection goals.
E.The MCWD and the City wish to provide for the installation and maintenance of riparian
trails ("Trail Project'') in conjunction with the Reach 20 restoration project and enter into this
Agreement to coordin ate efforts and clarify roles and responsibilities for the Trail Project.
TH ERE FORE the City and the MCWD agree as follows:
1.0 INTENT
1.1 Design plans and specifications for the Trail Project, prepared and signed by a
professional engineering consultant to the MCWD, are included as Attachment A hereto and
incorporated herein (the ''Facilities"). The Facilities include bituminous trail, boardwalk,
bridge crossings, canoe launch facilities, a pavilion and supporting structures such as, but not
1
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 9
limited to, fencing. The Facilities also may Include short sections of trail to the indicated
canoe launches composed of crushed rock, mulch or other �aterial.
1.2 The parties intend that on completion of construction, the City will own, inspect and
maintain the sections of bituminous trail, the eastern bridge crossing indicated on
Attachment A, and the canoe launch facilities and trails. The parties expect that these
sections will be part of local and regional pedestrian and bicycle trail facilities.
1.3 The parties intend that the MCWD will own, inspect and maintain the boardwalk
sections of trail, the Western bridge _crossing and structures associated with the boardwalk
sections of trail, including the pavilion. These facilities are intended to provide public access
to the creek and its riparian environment and for primarily pedestrian use. However, the
MCWD rnay allow these sections to be incorporated into a local or regional trail network as
connections develop to the west of Meadowbrook Road.
1.4 The signed plans and specifications constitute a warranty by the professional
engineering consultant that due care has been exercised in providing for the structural
soundness of the design. They do n.ot constitute a warranty as to the fitness of the bituminous·
trails or bridge crossings for the purpose of public use or the co nformance of these Facilities
to applicable laws or standards, including but not limited to the fitness of the alignment,
width or location of structural features for use by bicycle, wheelchair or other transportation
mode other than pedestrian use. As underlying fee owner and manager of public
recreational lands within its municipal boundaries, the C_ity accepts responsibility for the
fitness and suitability of the facilities referenced in paragraph 1.2 for public use.
2.0 CONSTRUCTION
2.1 The MCWD may proceed to construct the Facilities. Before doing so, it wili obtain all
required permits and approvals. The City will cooperate as landowner and will not apply any
fees to permits or approvals that it requires. The MCWD will manage the construction
contract, but will give the City advance notice of all formal pre-construction and construction
meetings, which the Oty may attend.
2
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 10
2.2 The MCWD's contract will require that:
(a)The contractor name the City as an additional insured for general liability on a
primary basis and for both ongoing work and completed operations;
(b)The contractor will indemnify the City for the Contractor's negligent acts and
those of its subcontractors.
(c)The contractor will be responsible to determine the location of and protect all
utilities;
(d)The cont,ractor will provide a performance bond for the completion ofthe Trail
Project;
(e)The contractor will comply with local requirements for traffic and site control; and
(f)The contractor Will restore or repair any damage to the City's lands, equipment or
facilities resulting from the contractor's activities.
2.3 In part, the plans and specifications present typical alignment and cross-section,
reflecting the MCWD's intent of a designer and staff presence during construction to
conform the Facilities to site conditions anq avoid unnecessary tree removal or other impacts
to the surrounding environment. The MCWD in its judgment may direct such refinements
with or without field directive, or by wor� change directive or change order.
�otwithstanding, the City must concur in any material adjustment of the bituminous trail
alignment or any narrowing of the bituminous surface to less than eight feet at any point. The
City will communicate its decision on any proposed work change directive or change order
with out delay. The City engineer is authorized to make this decision on behalf of the City.
2.4 If a change order or work change dir ective relating to the Facilities that the City will
owri pursuant to paragraph 1.2 above will result in a contract cost allocated to the City in
excess of the amount stated in subparagraph 4.2(b), the City will be responsible for the
additio nal cost if the cause of the change was unforeseeable or if the City agrees to bear the
cost.
2.5 The MCWD or the City may install informational signage wi thin the Trail Project. The
parties will cooperate as to signage ·location, size and content, pu rsuant to such other terms
as may be set forth in the management plan referenced at paragraph 5.3, below. The parties
further will cooperate so that any signage co nditions applicable due to the use of state grant
funds are met. Any signage will identify both parties as contributing partners to the Trail
Project.
3.0 MAINTENANCE
3.1 On the designer's certification of substantial completion of the bituminous trail,
eastern bridge crossing, canoe launch facilities, and launch approach trails, the City will own
3
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 11
those Facilities. The City will be respon.sible for both routine and long-term maintenance of
those Facilities as it Judges appropriate.
3.2 The MCWD will own the boardwalk sections and the western bridge crossing, and will
be responsible for both routine and long-term maintenance of those Facilities as it judges
appropriate.
3.3 The parties may coordinate or combine their maintenance activities in the interest of
cost efficiency and other public purposes.
3.4 A party will not authorize any part of the Faciliti.es for public motorized use.
Otherwise, each party may specify conditions of public use of those Facilities that it owns,
including but not limlted to whether use will be specified to exclude bicycles and whether the
Facilities will be seasonally m_aintained, and may use means within its authority to effect those
specifications. Specifically but not exclusively, each party may use signage and barriers as it
deems appropriate. Consistent with each party's discretion with respect to the Facilities it
owns, the parties will coordinate so that the use conditions each specifies contribute to
rational management of the Facilities as. a whole. Each party also retains·the discretion to
reconstruct or remove the Facilities that it owns. The parties agree that any distinctipns in or
constraints on allowed use.s made under this paragraph in order to align public use with the
design of the Facilities, the capacity of a party, and that party's risk management judgments is
non-discriminatory within the meaning of section 5 of the Conservation Easement.
3.5 The District will be· responsible for inspection and maintenance of the structural
condition of the boardwalk sections of trail and the western bridge crossing, in accordance
with paragraph 1.3, above. As the fee owner of the underlying land and municipal la nd
manager, the City will be responsible for day-to-day inspection and maintenance of the
property where the trail project is located. This responsibility encompasses all matters not
specifically related to the structural soundness and maintenance of the Facilities owned by
the MCWD and includes, but is not limited to, sanitation, Inspection for and addressing
obvious hazards resulting from events such as severe weather, inappropriate or unlawful use,
and law enforcement.
3.6 Each party may cross and recross the Facilities owned by the other party and may
operate motorized equipment thereon to perform its roles and responsibilities under this
Agreement. All maintenance and other activities will be performed in a manner that
reasonably minimizes impact to the sufrounding natural environm.ent and to any prior
constructed improvements. In no event will maintenance disturb vegetation outside of a
three-foot-wide corridor on either side of a trail. A party is responsible for any damage
caused to the Facilities owned by the other party as a result of its activities under this section
3.0.
4.0 COST RESPONSIBILITIES and REMEDIES
4.1 The MCWD is responsible to make payments to the contractor in accordance with
the terms of the construction contract.
4
I
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 12
4.2 On the designer's certification of substantial completion of the Facilities to be owned
by the City pursuant to paragraph 1.2, above, the City will be responsible to:
(a)Reimburse the MCWD for any cost assumed by the City under paragraph 2.4,
above; and
(b)Reimburse the MCWD for contract costs paid by the MCWD for construction of
that part of the Facilities referenced in paragraph 1.2, above, not to exceed $442,257.
If substantial Completion is not achieved by the date stated in the contract documents, the
MCWD may have reimbursement from the City for contract payments made.
Notwithstanding, the City may withhold up to $22,113 of its reimbursement obligation until
final completion of paragraph 1.2 facilities.
4.3 Except as p_aragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, above, may provide otherwise, each party is
responsible for the cost o_f performing its roles and responsibilities under this Agreement.
4.4 Each party agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the other party from and
against that portion of any and all liability, loss, claim, damage or expense (including
reasonable attorney fees, costs and disbursements) that the indemnified party may incur as a
result of.the p·erformance of this Agreement due to any negligent act or omission of the
indemnifying party or any other act or omission that subjects it to liability in law or equity.
Notwithstanding, this Agreement creates no right in and waives no immunity� defense or
liability limit with respect to any third party or the other party to this Agreement. This
Agreement is not a joint powers agreement under Minnesota Statutes §471.59 and nothing
herein constitutes either party's agreement to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the
other party pursuant to subdivision 1 (a) of that statute.
4.5 Only contractual remedies are available for the failure of a party to fulfill the terms of
this Agreement.
5.0 RELATION TO OTHER AGREEMENTS
5.1 The parties acknowledge that the Conservation Easement and Easement afford the
MCWD all rights necessary for the MCWD to exercise its rights and pe rform its
responsibilities under this Agreement and in the event of any ambiguity, will interpret the
easements accordingly.
5.2 The parties concur that the Trail Project as constructed and maintained in accordance
with this Agreement will not materially impair a Conservation Value within the m�aning of
paragraph 2.1 (c) of the Conservation Easement.
5.3 The Conservation Easement and the Easement reference a management plan that the
parties will agree to, specifying how they will manage the property on which the Trail Project
is located and the improvements thereon. The management plan has not yet been put into
place. The parties agree that the management plan Will be consistent with the construction
and maintenance of the Trail Project In accordance with this Agreement. Notwithstanding, If
agreed to by the parties, the management plan may include terms that more closely
5
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 13
constrain maintenance of the Trail Project or other activity under this Agreement provided
they do not make such activity materially more burdensome for a party.
5.4 This Agreement, and not the 1st Agreement, governs the coordination and work of
the parties on the Trail Project.
6.0 GENERAL TERMS
6.1 Each co"mmunication under this Agreement will be made to the following
representatives:
MCWD:
Project Manager, Reach 20 Trail Project
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
15320 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka MN 55345-1503
City:
Sean Walther, Senior Planner
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park MN 55416
Contact information will be kept current. A party may change its contact by written notice to
the other party.
6.2 This Agreement is effective on execution by both parties and will remain in effect
indefinitely for successive five-year terms unless and until term inated by the parties by written
amendme nt.
6.3 · A party to this Agreement may not assign or transfer any right or obligation under this
Agreement ex cept by means of an assignment agreement exeCuted by both parties,
6.4 Except as stated in section 5.0, above, this Agreement incorporates all terms and
understandings of the parties concerning the Trail Project.
6.5 An amendment to this Agreement must be in Writing and executed by the pa rties.
6.6 A party's failure to enforce a provision of this Agreement does not waive the provision
or that party's right to enforce it subsequently.
6.7 The above Rec itals are incorporated into this Agreement.
IN ·WITNESS WHEREOF the parties execute this Agreement by their authorized officers.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
6
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 14
Date: [({ ( &/ f 5
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
I'
By �� ;:;', C,:4-,,,..-a
lt&resident Date: /;?-
/
�
-
Is
7
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 15
Attachment 2
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FORM No Project ID
Project Name: Minnehaha Creek Reach 20
Project Summary: The project is comprised of the re-meandered stream channel through historic floodplain wetlands; associated wetland and
upland restoration; stormwater facilities that treat direct discharges of urban stormwater; and public trail system; all of which have been designed
to advance water quality goals, improve wildlife habitat, and allow better public access.
Location: 7341 Oxford Street, St Louis Park (Creekside Park) I Inspector/ Date:
Site Specific Actions (SSA): 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 128, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31 Last Annual Inspection (date):
.... onrinea tntry t-'erm1t Kequirea r NO JLast Kain \In./ aatei:
SITE SPECIFIC ACTIONS
2.Bank Stabilization Vegetation/Stabilization Condition Comments/Pictures
(annual)
Inspection/Erosion Notes
Visual Inspection &.Damage Notes Comments/Pictures
3.Bridge {annual inspection)
Structural Rating & Notes . . .
4.BufferNegetation {annual)Coverage (%) Flowering Species Species gone to seed
Native species present
Invasive Species
Bare Soil
Additional Comments: Maintenance Required? {Y /N)
5.Channel Relocation Vegetation/Stabilization Condition Comments/Pictures
{annual)
Inspection/Repair Notes .·
7.Elevated Trail {annual)Condition Cracking, deformation, damage? Comments/Pictures
Inspection/Repair Notes
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 16
Notes/Actions: (1) Record areas where stian or sealers are needed on wood members {planks, railings, etc.)
128. Infiltration Basin Condition Repair, Erosion or Comments/Pictures (poor, fair, good) Pre-treatment cleaning needed?
Basin Inlet
Basin Outlet/EDF
Sedimentation Accumulation notes:
Vegetation notes (replacement or replanting required?):
Filter media and drain tile notes (replacement or cleaning required?):
19. Rain Garden (annual) Condition Repair, Debris Removal, or Comments/Pictures (poor, fair, good) Cleaning needed?
Basin Inlet/pre-treatment
Basin Outlet piping
Vegetation notes (replacement or replanting required?):
Filter media and drain tile notes (replacement or cleaning required?):
20.Small Site Riprap Condition Repair/replacement needed? Comments/Pictures
Notes: Replace or reposition rock, Add additional riprap, and replace filter media and/or vegetation as needed.
24. Storm Sewer (annual) Condition Repair, Debris Removal, or Comments/Pictures (poor, fair, good) Cleaning needed?
Pond Inlet piping
Pond Outlet piping
25.Trails Condition Repair needed (resurface, etc)? Comments/Pictures
Notes/Actions: Replace lost agggregate periodically and resurface and restripe as needed
27.Terrestrial Vegetation Condition Types of Vegetation Present Comments
(poor, fair, good) (Erosion observed?)
Upland area
Shoreline Area
Surrounding Area
28.Water Access Condition
(poor, fair, good) Vegetation/Erosion Notes Comments/Pictures
Annual Inspection:
Notes/Actions: (1) Annual installation and removal as necessary. .
30. Wet Detention Pond Water Quality/Clarity Sediment build-up? Comments/Pictures
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 17
Annual Inspection:
Sediment suNeys!sampling!testing Notes: (Date of last testlsuNey: )
31.Wetland Restoration Condition Inspect outlet for erosion, blockages, and Comments/Pictures I I (poor, fair, good) Debris
Annual Inspection:
Vegetation Inspection . Coverage (%) Flowering Species Species gone to seed
Native species present
Invasive Species
Bare Soil
Notes/Actions: (1) Annual vegetation monitoring, mapping and reporting, (2) Annual herbicide treatment, re-seeding, & replanting.
Additional Comments: Maintenance Required? (Y /N) I
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 18
Attachment 3
Stream Restoration Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project
Prepared by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
February 11, 2015
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 19
Summary
The Minnehaha Creek Reach 20 Restoration Project remeanders the existing stream channel through its historic floodplain wetlands, provides stormwater
management facilities that treat direct discharges of urban stormwater, and creates pedestrian trail systems that connect Methodist Hospital to the SW Cedar
Regional Trail, ultimately to 325 Blake Road (the Hopkins Cold Storage Facility) and Cottageville Park, through the Minnehaha Creek corridor.
This Stream Restoration Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (SRMAMP) seeks to describe monitoring and the tracking of restoration progress to
determine if the site is advancing towards the established goals.
Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Permit Number 2012-03067-MMJ requires the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) to prepare and submit
three monitoring reports by December 31 of the first, third, and fifth growing seasons after completion of on-site restoration work to the Saint Paul District,
Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch (Attention: 2012-03067-MMJ), 180 E 5th Street, Suite 700, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1678 that address the following
performance standards and describe the status of the restoration:
1.A description of the plant communities and hydro logic conditions at the stream and wetland restoration
2.Color photographs taken during the growing season
3.Information described in the project's USACOE approved SRMAMP
Substantial completion and final plant installation for the project occurred in late fall 2014. The first full growing season will occur in 2015. Monitoring will begin
in 2015 and will continue, at a minimum, in 2015, 2017, and 2019 with reports completed and submitted to the USACOE by December 31 of 2015, 2017, and
2019. This SRMAMP includes monitoring, which includes quantitative and qualitative data collection measuring the physical and biological properties of, at least,
a representative portion of the restored stream channel. Sufficient information and data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted to determine whether
proper actions have been taken and have been effective in achieving the project's overall purpose: to restore geomorphic and ecological function to Reach 20.
More specifically, the monitoring plan seeks to determine if the goals of the restoration are met. These goals are to:
1.improve fish and wildlife habitat,
2.create a more naturally functioning stream and riparian zone,
3.improve stormwater detention, storage, and infiltration within the project's segment of the Minnehaha Creek floodplain,
4.strengthen regional connectivity and recreational opportunities along the stream corridor,
5. reduce erosion, and
6.improve water quality.
Following the end of the monitoring period, District staff will perform regular site inspections and coordinate long-term maintenance of the project site.
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 20
These metrics will be assessed using techniques summarized in Table 1. Stream Restoration Metrics. The table is adapted from Craig, et al. "Promoting Successful
Restoration through Effective Monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed." (2011).
Table 1. Stream Restoration Metrics
Stream Metric Measured Variables Timing & Functions or Performance Adaptive Management Quantitative
Restoration Frequency Processes Measures Assessments
Success Supported
Category
Vegetative -Width -Width of vegetative Once annuaJly, at -Width of -Width increases -Desired width may -Total width of
Success -Composition buffer at a minimum. vegetative over period. require replanting or vegetative buffer
-Cover representative buffer, species -Composition and protecting from animal at representative
location above the composition,cover of all browse in following location
normal water line and cover seeded/replanted growing season -% natives at
-Composition:% of support water areas shall achieve -Desired composition representative
plants native,% non-quality 80% or greater may require removal of location; species
native; species list through aerial vegetative exotic species and list with FAC,
with FAC, FACW, or erosion coverage replanting in following FACW, orOBL
OBL designations;% control and (excluding non-growing season designations"'
woody or vegetative species native species), -Desired cover may -% non-natives at
-% Cover composition less than 10% of require planting of representative
and cover the seeded/additional vegetation in location
provide replanted areas following growing -% cover at
habitat and shall have bare season representative
support the spots larger than 1 location
food web. ft2, and more than
75% of all plant
species within the
restored wetland
communities shall
be facultative
{FAC) or wetter
(FACW or DBL).
Hydrologic Wetland Hydrology Primary and secondary Once annually -Vital habitat -One primary -Discharge may be -Survey restored
Success Indicators indicators of wetland during years 1, 3, -Floodplain indicator or two adjusted through dam areas for at least
hydrology listed and 5. storage secondary management to 1 primary
below.""" -Nutrient and indicators from manage moisture wetland
sediment any group listed in availability to restored hydrology
removal "Measured wetland indicator or at
Variables" is least 2 secondary
sufficient to wetland
conclude that hydrology
wetland hydrology indicators.
is present.
Improved Fish -!BJ score -tBI: once during -Vital habitat -Taxonomic -Adaptive management -Various
and Wildlife IBI score, bird and -List oftaxa to the monitoring period, composition in other areas will affect sampling devices
Habitat fish species highest possib)e likely in 2018.includes a more biotic species diversity. to gather
resolution (e.g. Data compared to diverse range of organisms to
% Sensitive Taxa species)2013 data. taxa (including determine taxa
-% considered -Bird count: once sensitive species)richness and
sensitive taxa annually composition
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 21
Stream Metric Measured Variables Timing& Functions or Performance Adaptive Management Quantitative
Restoration Frequency Processes Measures Assessments
Success Supported
Category
Stormwater -Downstream -Qualitative -At least annually -Water -Outflow water -BMP structure is -Measured
detention, flooding,assessment of volume during a rain quality,quality improves repaired as can be decrease in
storage, and downstream water and suspended solids event, except downstream -BMP structure scheduled downstream
infiltration quality in outflow pond sediment nutrient functions correctly -Trash is removed flooding
-BMP outflow -Trash accumulation at surveys, which are loading, and -Pond sediment immediately -Measured
conditions inflow and outflow completed every volume level is managed -Associated vegetative increase in
observed during a -Soundness or three years control by periodic cover or composition is detention,
rain event presence of damage to dredging enhanced in following storage, and
-BMP structura!BMP structure growing season infiltration
stability -Vegetation conditions -Pond dredging is -Measured
-BMP maintenance around stormwater completed in following improvement in
BM P assessed winter vegetative cover
-Pond sediment level and diversity
surveyed on 3-year
rotation
Strengthen -Connection locally -Assessment and -Annual review of -Community -Trails and -Enhanced efforts to -Estimated
regional and within region review of use and available engagement,boardwalks are heighten awareness in number of
connectivity -Availability of establishment of educational access to used, interpretive the surrounding visitors to site,
and appropriate regional connectivity programming transit, public signage is used, community of the number of users
recreational recreational -Assessment and education educational available uses on site in of boardwalk
opportunities opportunities review of programming is subsequent efforts and canoe
establishment of well-attended launches
adequate recreational -Number of
opportunities attendees to
-Assessment of future educational
connection to SW programs
Light Rail Transit line
and Methodist
Hospital Reach
Reduce -Bank stability Within representative -Annually, if -Stable site -Within -Re-stabilize banks -Percent area of
erosion -Vegetative cover location: possible following providing safe representative -Repair fabric representative
on bank and upland -linear feet of a rain event access, water portion, banks are encapsulations (soil location with
watershed bioengineered quality, water stable, vegetative lifts)stabilized bank
-Water clarity stabilization failure or clarity, habitat cover of native -Re-set root wads
-Presence of premature erosion availability species is -Replant or reseed bare
sediment deltas -Percent vegetative approaching 80% ground
cover -Work to be completed
as soon as practicable
after issues are
discovered
Improve -Water quality -Dissolved oxygen -Averaged from -Contributes -Water quality and -Adaptive management -Water quality
water quality based on nutrient -Total suspended measurements to water water clarity are in other areas will metrics improve
levels, oxygenation,solids taken semi-weekly quality improved impact water quality in comparison to
and suspended -Phosphorus, Chloride, from approx. mid-improvement -Measured pre-restoration
solids Nitrogen March to mid-system-wide nutrients move conditions.
concentrations November toward
acceptable levels
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 22
*State of Minnesota Wetland Plant List can be found at http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/nwpl static/data/DOC/lists 2014/States/pdf/MN 2014vl.pdf
** Primary indicators of wetland hydrology listed in bold. Secondary indicators of wetland hydrology listed in italics.
-Observation of surface water, high water table, or saturated soils
-Evidence of recent inundation (water marks, sediment deposits, drift deposits, algal or mat crust, iron deposits, inundation visible on aerial imagery, sparsely
vegetated concave surface, water stained leaves, aquatic fauna, true aquatic plants, surface soil cracks, drainage patterns)
-Evidence of current or recent soil saturation (hydrogen sulfide odor, oxidized rhizospheres along living roots, presence of reduced iron, recent iron reduction
in tilled soils, dry-season water table, crayfish burrows, saturation visible on aerial imagery)
-Evidence from Other Site Conditions or Data (gauge or well data, stunted or stressed plants, geomorphic position, FAC-neutral test)
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 23
ATTACHMENT 4: SITE BOUNDARIES
I ��� Cl <( Q , A9'KALT TR.tJL :1 O'�I en'�I
� �---------' -. -�!:,(,' f I . ) I I I
�--------�' - : --
1 ' ) I I ' \ I \ j \
�( "'
? \
OR4WM ST:� JOII DAm "''°"-"---AP�� JOB NUMIER: 2012000J,02
�O,\Tt:::1(;!(%0U$:21:17PiA CAD F1U'.: 0: 1200Cl.02C-.tl C10:�lllt.»I
r-t/ \ I ; I J \ ) )
l../.l \/
--------
\
MEADOWBROOK MANOR
� (APPARlMENTS) --
_____ _J \
-=--•r�'------' -�n......:c-
----------------�----.... ...
11111 HRGreen.comHRGrnen
MNE<AHA CRaX M'A04 20 '1'RAll5 fwrn,tJ'N£; RtW.. D£:5K:N &: CONS'l'RUC'l'ION CM:RSD!T MINNOWo!A CRE!I< w,1,TERSHED DISTRICT" ST, LDUIS PAA!<, MINNESO'!'A.
-------------
SITE PLAN
CONFORMED DRAWINGS
AS OF 1/29/2014 11 Stittf NO. G102
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 24
Attachment 5
IFF St. Louis Park JJ_J M I N N E S O TA
Graffiti Ordinance
St. Louis Park City Ordinance:
Sec . 12-34 Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety
The City of St. Louis Park will issue a notice of need to abate nuisance when graffiti comes to
the attention of the health official. The owner of the property will receive a written notice with
a description of the nuisance (graffiti) which must be abated at the owner's expense and a
timeframe in which to complete this task. Graffiti on public property wiH be promptly deaned
up by the City of St. Louis Park once there is knowledge of the occurrence.
MN State Statutes:
617.90 GRAFFITI DAMAGE ACTION.
Subdivision 1. Definition. For purposes of this section, "graffiti" means unauthorized
markings of paint, dye, or other similar substance that have been placed on real or personal
property such as buildings, fences, transportation equipment, or other structures, or the
unauthorized etching or scratching of the surfaces of such real or personal property, any of
which markings, scratchings, or etchings are visible from premises open to the public.
Subd. 2. Cause of action. An action for damage to property caused by graffiti may be
brought by the owner of public or private property on which graffiti has been placed. Damages
may be recovered for three times the cost of restoring the property, or the court may order a
defendant to perform the work of restoring the property. Damages may be recovered from an
individual who placed graffiti on public or private real or personal property or from the parent
of a minor individual. The liability of the parent is limited to the amount specified in section
540.18. The court may award attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff.
History: 2004 c 149 s I
540.18 DAMAGE BY MINOR; RESPONSI BILITY OF PARENT, GUARDIAN, AND
MINOR.
Subdivision 1. Liability rule. The parent or guardian of a minor who is under the age of
18 and who is living with the parent or guardian and who willfully or maliciously causes injury
to any person or damage to any property is jointly and severally liable with such minor for such
injury or damage to an amount not exceeding $1,000, if such minor would have been liable for
such injury or damage if the minor had been an adult. Nothing in this subdivision shall be
construed to relieve such minor from perso�al liability for such injury or damage. The liability
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 25
provided in this subdivision is in addition to and not in lieu of any other liability which may
exist at law. Recovery under this section shall be limited to special damages.
Subd. 2. Not applicable to certain persons. This section shall not apply to persons
having custody or charge of any minor under the authority of the Human Services or
Corrections Department of the state.
www.leg.state.mn. us/leg/statutes.asp
Study Session Meeting of May 22, 2017 (Item No. 6)
Title: Minnehaha Preserve Operations and Maintenance Agreement with MCWD Page 26