HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/03/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
March 27, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 7:00 PM Whistle Quiet Zone
2. 7:45 PM Review 2005 Telecommunications Annual Report & 2006 Work Plan
3. 8:15 PM Vision Outcomes Committee Survey Results
4. 8:45 PM Human Rights Work Plan and Ordinance Information 2006-2007
5. 9:15 PM Future Study Session Agenda Planning
9:30 PM Adjourn
Written Reports for Council Review
6. 2006 Preliminary Board of Appeals
7. CSAH 25 Pedestrian Crossing Project Update
8. Aquatic Park Update
9. Wellhead Protection
10. Proposed Street Name Change – Stephens Drive.
11. February 2006 Financial Statements
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.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 1 - Quiet Zone
Page 1
1. Whistle Quiet Zones Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To present and discuss a Whistle Quiet Zone (WQZ) study and recommendations to assess
Council’s interest in pursuing these within the city.
BACKGROUND:
At the July 11, 2005 Study Session staff provided Council information on recent changes in
Federal Rules regulating the blowing of train whistles (horns) at railroad/street crossings. Based
on the rule changes, it has become possible to establish whistle quiet zones (see attached APWA
article for general background information on this subject). At that Study Session Council
expressed an interest in assessing what that might mean for the City. Shortly thereafter the SRF
Consulting Group, Inc. was retained to evaluate our situation and provide recommendations for
our consideration. SRF completed this work in early December and provided their assessment,
evaluation, and recommendations in January 2006 (attached).
DISCUSSION:
The SRF study identifies three (3) basic areas where WQZ’s could be established in the city:
1. North Zone: C P Railroad north of Hwy 7
2. South Zone: C P Railroad south of Hwy 7
3. East – West Zone: C P Railroad generally paralleling Hwy 7
Within each of these areas, there are quite a few options available to the Council/residents in
establishing a WQZ. As can be seen from the SRF study, some options can be relatively
inexpensive, but possibly controversial (such as crossing closures); while other options could be
viewed as noncontroversial, extremely costly, but of questionable benefit to the community at
large.
Edina staff has been provided basic information on our South Zone along with options for the
creation of a WQZ in Edina (identified as Edina Zone in the SRF attachment). It is not known at
this time if Edina staff or Council has an interest in establishing WQZ’s in their community.
Crossing improvements necessary to establish WQZ’s could be funded from several different
sources such as GO Bond Funds, Municipal State Aid Funds (MSA), Special Assessments, or
possibly Minnesota Capital Bond Funds. It may be possible to utilize some or all of these funding
sources. Given that existing City funds have been allocated to other projects, using them for this
project would likely necessitate reprioritizing projects. No State or Federal Funds are specifically
available for improvements necessary to create WQZ’s. As per the State and Federal
Governments, the creation of WQZ’s is solely a local issue. The following matrix provides details
and possible funding scenarios that could be used to implement the SRF recommendations – other
scenarios are also possible. Ultimately, one scenario from each category will need to be selected if
the City desires to implement WQZ’s.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 1 - Quiet Zone
Page 2
WQZ Option Street Treatment Cost Funding Source
North - #1 Cedar Lake Road 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
W. 28th Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
W. 29th Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
Dakota Avenue 2Q+CWT+Median $25,000 MSA
$260,000
North - #7 Cedar Lake Road 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
W. 28th Street 2Q+CWT $185,000 Special Assessment
W. 29th Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
Dakota Avenue 2Q+CWT+Median $25,000 MSA
$420,000
North - #9 Cedar Lake Road 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
W. 28th Street 2Q+CWT $185,000 Special Assessment
W. 29th Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
Dakota Avenue 2Q+CWT+Median $25,000 MSA
Library Lane Close $25,000 GO Bonds
W. Lake Street 2Q $155,000 MSA
Walker Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
$625,000
East/West - #3 Wooddale Avenue Median $25,000 MSA
Beltline Blvd CWT+Median $55,000 MSA
$80,000
South - #1 Alabama Avenue 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
Excelsior Blvd CWT $30,000 MSA
W. 41st Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
W. 42nd Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
Brookside Avenue 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
$450,000
South - #4 Alabama Avenue 4Q+CWT $260,000 MSA
Excelsior Blvd CWT $30,000 MSA
W. 41st Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
W. 41nd Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
Brookside Avenue 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
Yosemite Avenue 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
$710,000
South - #8 Alabama Avenue 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
Excelsior Blvd CWT $30,000 MSA
W. 41st Street 2Q+CWT $185,000 Special Assessment
W. 41nd Street Close $25,000 GO Bonds
Brookside 4Q+CWT $260,000 MSA
Yosemite Avenue 2Q+CWT $185,000 MSA
$870,000
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 1 - Quiet Zone
Page 3
Our consultant will attend the Study Session to answer questions Council may have regarding
their study.
SUMMARY: Staff desires Council direction in the following areas:
1. Does Council wish staff to pursue establishing WQZ’s in the City?
2. Does Council have a concern over closing crossings? Any in particular?
3. Does the E-W WQZ need to be expanded to include the Oxford Street and Louisiana Ave
crossings?
4. Does Council have a preference or an aversion to any of the funding sources mentioned
herein? Are special assessments for some of these improvements an issue?
5. Are WQZ’s a high priority or could they be established over a 5 to 10 year period? If so,
which ones should be first, last?
6. What impacts or implications, if any, need to be considered with regard to possible future
LRT development / freight rail changes?
7. If staff is to facilitate a community discussion to consider WQZ’s, what parameters, if any,
would Council like to set prior to a discussion like this?
Attachments: APWA Article – Supplement
SRF Study - Supplement
Prepared By: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 2 - Telecom Annual Report
Page 1
2. Telecommunications Commission 2005 Annual Report Cable TV Department
Purpose of Discussion:
Staff and representatives of the Telecommunications Commission desire to review with the City
Council the activities of the Commission in 2005 and discuss the proposed 2006 Work Plan.
Background:
The Telecommunications Advisory Commission held 6 meetings in 2005, but Commissioners
also remained involved in other ways including:
• Attended the March 14 Study Sessions to discuss the Telecommunications Commission
annual report and franchise renewal business points
• Attended Minnesota Association of Community Television Administrator (MACTA)
events in the spring and fall and Telecommunications Forums at the Humphrey Institute.
• Attended negotiation meetings with staff and Time Warner Cable
• Chair Dworsky contacted staff as needed to prepare or follow up on Commission
activities
• Chair Dworsky attended a National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors (NATOA) conference in Washington, DC, reported to the Commission and
shared numerous handouts with staff.
Renewal of Time Warner Cable Franchise Negotiations with Time Warner were held throughout the year, and Commissioners Rick Dworsky, Ken Huiras and Dale Hartman attended negotiating sessions. Staff gave updates at every Commission meeting and appreciated the formal and informal contributions of Commissioners during the process, which was concluded by Council on December 19. School District #283 funding grant On May 5 the Commissioner recommended fully funding the District’s request for a $35,000 operations grant, approved by Council on the consent agenda June 6. Wireless Town Meeting The Commission hosted a meeting in July attended by about 50 people, and 17 of those testified. Eight spoke to the concern about Electrical Sensitivity Syndrome if Wi-Fi was deployed in St. Louis Park. This led to additional research by the City staff, the Commission and the City’s consultant to investigate health concerns, which were essentially concluded to not be significantly impacted by Wi-Fi. Legislative Issues No new State telecommunications bill passed. MACTA continued to play a role by working with the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Telecommunications Association on a bill to amend state law to make it easier for small community telephone companies to compete with cable providers while retaining city authority over right of way. This bill has been introduced in the 2006 legislature as HF 1319 by Representative Michael Beard (Republican, Shakopee).
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 2 - Telecom Annual Report
Page 2
More onerous are possible national cable franchising bills in Congress, proposed by Representative Joe Barton (Republican, Texas) and Senator Ted Stevens (Republican, Alaska). MACTA and its parent organization, NATOA, have been active in protecting the rights of cities with help from Senator Conrad Burns (Republican, Montana) and Senator Daniel Inouye (Democrat, Hawaii). Some undesirable features of possible national cable franchising bills, present in some state bills are: 1) not requiring uniform availability of service to all residents; 2) less than ninety days allowed from start to finish for negotiating an agreement between a municipality and a telecommunications company; 3) new maximum (2) number of local Public-Educational-Government (PEG) Access channels (SLP has 5 local analog channels); 4) no support for PEG channels beyond the traditional franchise fee; 5) local authority transferred to state level, along with franchise fees transferred to state, approval by state required within ten days of new franchise application. Also, the Federal Communications Commission has been receiving comments about whether or not local governments are a barrier to entry for traditional telephone companies to improve their networks to offer video services. Industry comments claim it’s too difficult to negotiate thousands of franchise agreements, and use anecdotal evidence alleging local governments make exorbitant demands. NATOA, MACTA and many individual cities are filing comments to set the record straight. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 set the current rules for cable companies to compete with telephone companies and vice versa. The cable industry spent billions relatively quickly to introduce high speed data services, which debuted in St. Louis Park in June of 2000, and telephone service followed at the end of 2004. Verizon and AT&T began their network upgrades in 2005. Qwest hasn’t made their plans public yet, but at this point offers DSL in only about 30% of St. Louis Park, so introducing video services doesn’t seem imminent.
Telecommunications Commission
Attendance: 2005
Commissioner 2/3 5/5 7/26
Wireless
Town
mtg.
8/4 10/6 12/8 Total
attended
Rick Dworsky (Chair) YES YES YES YES YES YES 6
Mary Jean Overend (Vice Chair) YES YES YES - YES YES 5
Bruce Browning YES YES YES - YES - 4
Dale Hartman - YES YES YES YES YES 5
Ken Huiras YES YES YES YES YES - 5
Bob Jacobson - YES - YES YES - 3
Rolf Peterson YES - - YES YES YES 4
Attachments: Work Plan for 2006
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Through: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 2 - Telecom Annual Report
Page 3
2006 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan
work2006
January 19: Council Chambers
♦ Testimony from Jim Erickson & Craig Rapp about Fiber First project & first discussion about
model fiber optic ordinance
♦ Elect Rick Dworsky as Chair & Ken Huiras as Vice Chair
♦ Review draft 2005 Annual Report to Council and 2006 Work Plan
♦ Update on wireless project
February 9 Council Chambers
♦ Host town meeting on City web site features
♦ Update on wireless project
March 27 Joint meeting at City Council Study Session, Westwood Room
♦ Review 2005 Annual Commission Report to City Council
♦ Review Work Plan for 2006
♦ Progress on fiber optic ordinance
♦ Wireless update
♦ Web site update
♦ Local origination programming transition update
May 4 Senior High School or Council Chambers
♦ Fiber optic ordinance background from developers
♦ School District funding for 2006
♦ School District quarterly report
♦ Review: School District using interns for extra experience & to produce programming
♦ Using High School studio for Community TV productions
♦ Studio at Pavek update
♦ Local origination programming transition update
August 3 Council Chambers or TWC or Comcast
♦ Review Time Warner or Comcast Annual Filings
♦ Customer service update
♦ Website update
♦ Wireless update
♦ Local origination programming transition update
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 2 - Telecom Annual Report
Page 4
October 5 Council Chambers (if needed)
December 7 Council Chambers
♦ Time Warner or Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line
up
♦ Review School District reports
♦ Wireless update
♦ Set meetings for 2007
♦ Work Plan for 2007
♦ Local origination programming transition update
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 3 - Vision Outcomes Committee Report
Page 1
3. Vision St. Louis Park Outcomes and Indicators 5 Year Report Administrative
Services
Background:
Vision St. Louis Park projected a vision for the future of our community, a vision based on ideas
and suggestions of hundreds of St. Louis Park residents. Participants in Vision St. Louis Park
recognized that the future they wanted for themselves and their children would require time to
develop and the City Council and other community leaders recognized the importance of
establishing goals and measures of results. In an effort to assist the community achieve its vision,
the community’s elected officials authorized and supported the formation of the Vision St. Louis
Park Outcomes Committee in 1996.
The current members serving on the Vision Outcomes Committee are: Chair, Roger Isreal, Barb
Person, Bridget Gothberg, Larry Karkela, Linda Saveraid and Mark Schwartz. Many have served
on the committee for more than 10 years.
2005 Survey and Data Collection:
The data measured in 2005 for the outcomes report originates from several sources. Most of the
measurements are taken from the 2005 Decision Resources Vision residential telephone survey. It
was conducted in the same manner as the year 2000 survey through a random selection of 400 city
residents. Additional data for indicators is collected through various sources including police
records, Children First youth surveys, business surveys and School District Records
It is important to note the results of the Vision Residential Survey in both 2000 and 2005 were very
good. Overall, residents had positive feelings about community life in St. Louis Park. Decision
Resources, the firm conducting the survey reports that community satisfaction levels are very high
in St Louis Park compared to other metro area suburban cities. Therefore, for many indicators
that measured the same as five years ago, a lack of improvement may not indicate a serious
deficiency. The Outcomes committee when considering goal setting after the year 2000 in many of
these cases still set a slightly higher target number reflecting a community value to constantly
strive for improvement.
The following chart summarizes the change in data by category from the year 2000 Outcomes
measurement to the Year 2005 Outcomes measurement.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 3 - Vision Outcomes Committee Report
Page 2
2005 Vision Outcomes Data
Number of indicators showing change by vision area
Declined
since 2000
Statistically
the same
as 2000 Improved
Met or
exceeded
2005 targets
Data not
available
Safe Community 2 4 1 4
Responsive Government 3 4 1
Diversity*2 4 1
Community Connections*1 3 4 1
Housing 1 2 1
Business 5
Lifelong Learning*1 1 4 1
Children First 3 3
* Data for some Indicators not yet available
Data colleted through the residential survey is projectionable within five percentage points.
Therefore, survey measurements with a change <5% are considered statistically unchanged.
Indicators showing improvement
Safe Community 2a & 4a & 4d: There has been a significant increase in the percentage of
community members who participate in informational programs and forums as well as activities
that promote community safety (up 7%.) There has also been a substantial reduction in calls
reporting child abuse and neglect (down 46%), and behavior crimes (down 15%.)
Responsive Government 1a & 2a & 3a: Community members continue to feel that they are being
heard when dealing with local government bodies and that community needs are appropriately and
effectively addressed. There has been an increase in the percentage of community members who
felt they have been treated in a professional, respectful, effective and timely manner (up 7%).
Housing 2b: A 64% increase in the value of improvements to existing residential properties which
substantially exceeded the 2005 target.
Business 1a-c & 2a-b: Substantial increases in every one of the indicators, significantly exceeding
the 2005 targets. There is clearly a positive relationship between the city and the business
community including the active involvement in the community by business.
Lifelong Learning 1a-c & 3b: There is significant increased satisfaction by community members
with the kinds of learning opportunities available to them (up 7-8 %.) Also, there continues to be a
high percentage of students who pursue post-secondary educational or training opportunities.
Children First 2a: The percentage of community members who are aware of the assets continues to
increase (up 6%.)
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 3 - Vision Outcomes Committee Report
Page 3
Indicators showing little progress or decline
Safe Community 4b-c: Two of the four areas where crime was measured went up significantly,
crimes against persons (up 15%) and property (up 7%.)
Responsive Government 1c & 2c & 3b: There has been a decline in the percentage of community
members who believe that local government bodies support and adhere to high ethical standards
(down 7%) or act in accordance with their plans or visions of the community’s future (down 9%.)
A smaller percentage also say they approve of the job performance of elected officials (down 6%.)
Diversity 1a & 2a-b: Positive feelings about diversity in the community have declined by 7%. In
reviewing the data more thoroughly, these feelings are held by a wide cross section of city
residents. A similar percentage of homeowners and renters, whites and minorities and men and
women do not think that growing diversity in the city is a good thing. Also, no progress has been
made in the last five years to improve the number of diverse staff employed at the School District
and City. The percentage of school district staff representing diverse populations declined by 2%
and the percentage of diverse city staff remained unchanged at 2.4%. Both numbers are well below
the goal of 9.1% which would represent the general population in our city.
Community Connections 3c & 3b: While the percentage of community members who know how
to get involved in the community if they wish to do so has significantly increased to 77%, the
percentage who are involved in volunteer activities two or more hours a week has significantly
decreased (down 8%.)
Housing 1b: There has been a 48% decline in the affordability. The data indicates that the
affordability issue is greater in the area of home ownership than rental living. Only 24 % of our
city’s single family homes and 44% of rental units are affordable to households with incomes at
80% or below the median area income.
Lifelong Learning 2a: There has been a significant drop in the percentage of community members
who voluntarily engage in formal and informal learning opportunities (down 15%.)
Other items to consider in the residential survey results:
In 2000, 87% of residents said St. Louis Park is generally headed in the right direction and 6% felt
the city was on the wrong track; in 2005, the percentage who felt the city is headed in the right
direction decreased to 78% and the percentage who think it’s headed on the wrong track has
increased to 14%.
Discussion with Council
It is important to note that the Outcomes Committee is charged with reporting progress and does
not offer any explanation as to why numbers have changed. In addition, the survey itself, as well
as the other data collected, does not give an explanation regarding changes.
The Committee also does not define priorities or work on effecting change. This is the
responsibility of the partnering bodies and the general community.
Given this, we would like to hear the council’s opinions and ideas on the 2005 outcomes document.
What was surprising? What are our community strengths and what are areas of concern/challenge?
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 3 - Vision Outcomes Committee Report
Page 4
Next Steps
The Outcomes Committee will also present the 2005 data to the School Board and the Business
Council. These partners supported the 2004 – 2005 visioning efforts and officially charged the
Outcomes committee with their task of defining indicators and monitoring progress on the vision.
After this the Outcomes Committee will need to re-evaluate the indicators to determine if there are
any which should be eliminated or replaced, as well as considering whether the Targets for 2010
should be adjusted.
Attachments: Outcomes, Indicators, and Targets
2005 Residential Survey Results Executive Summary
2005 Residential Survey Results
Prepared by: Outcomes Committee members, Mark Schwartz, Roger Isreal and Linda
Saveraid
Reviewed by: Staff Liaison, Martha McDonell
Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 4 - Human Rights Commission Work Plan
Page 1
4. Human Rights Work Plan and Ordinance Information
2006-2007
Council Policy Discussion
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
Commissioners wish to present their two-year work plan and provide information about a
potential Equal Access / City Separation Ordinance.
Background:
The Human Rights Commission has prepared a two-year work plan for 2006-2007 (see
attached). The plan focuses on working to connect with and support minority communities and
provide diversity education to all city residents. The focus of the work plan developed in
response to information gathered from the 2004 Human Rights community study and the 2005
vision residential survey. Commission members were concerned that one out of ten city
residents felt our community’s growing population diversity is a bad thing. The commission
defined in the work plan several actions which may contribute to improving the welcome
atmosphere in our community. One of the measures includes studying the benefits of an Equal
Access / City Separation Ordinance.
What is an Equal Access / City Separation Ordinance?
A city separation ordinance would ensure equal access of city services to all residents regardless
of race, religion, or national origin. It would also serve to clarify the relationship between the
city and federal agencies that enforce immigration laws.
An ordinance would:
Provide that city employees do not solicit immigration information from any person if such
solicitation is outside the scope of their regular duties. Asking for adequate identification
documentation, such as a driver’s license or passport, would be allowed.
Provide that information about immigration status known to city employees would not be
maintained or recorded.
Prohibit the city from using resources solely for the purpose of detecting persons whose
only violation of law is or may be a violation of the Immigration Law.
Provide exemptions for inquiries required by law such as the verification of eligibility for
employment or eligibility for public housing assistance.
Provide exemptions for public safety procedures which police officers and fire officials
need to carry out essential duties including identifying persons suspected or charged with a
crime and cooperating with federal officers or neighboring police departments in the
investigation of criminal activity.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 4 - Human Rights Commission Work Plan
Page 2
What has the Commission done to educate themselves about an ordinance?
The Human Rights Commission has taken several steps in order to research the viability of an
Equal Access / City Separation Ordinance. Education efforts began in 2005 with an initial
meeting with staff from Jewish Community Action who were invited to come to the commission
to provide general background and education on issues facing immigrant populations.
The commission then held meetings with city directors and managers from departments which
have significant public contact. These meetings provided a chance to educate staff about a
possible ordinance and listen to concerns about how it might benefit or negatively effect city
functions and public service. While staff had many questions about the idea of an ordinance,
they did not oppose the efforts of the Commission to propose the ordinance. Staff reported that
asking about documentation status was not part of their regular duties (except in public housing
and Human Resources.) None reported that it would limit their ability to provide quality city
services.
Why Does St. Louis Park Need an Ordinance Establishing Procedures for City Employees
Relative to the Immigration Status of Residents?
St. Louis Park is a welcoming community which celebrates the ways in which a diverse and
multi-cultural community enriches and strengthens our city. The objective of any ordinance
would be to assure equal access to city health and safety services to all residents regardless of
race, religion or national origin. An ordinance is needed to bolster equal access to city services
for immigrant residents. Currently in St. Louis Park, some crime victims and/or crime witnesses
who live or work in our city may be unwilling to come forward to police because they fear they
will be turned over to federal immigration authorities. Some may be unwilling to contact
housing inspectors or to sign up for city services due to the same fear and lack of trust. If city
staff inquire about immigration status during the course of their normal health and safety duties,
some immigrant citizens may refuse to report crimes and stop seeking city services. A culture of
fear and mistrust may be present between immigrant communities and city officials.
Understanding Terms
The term “illegal immigrant” is often times misleading. It suggests criminal activity on the part
of people who have never been convicted of any border-crossing crime. Many called “illegal”
are actually asylum seekers or those whose visas have expired. They may be working on
obtaining documentation, which can often be a long and complicated process. It would be
unreasonable to expect a city worker or police officer to verify the exact immigration status of
each immigrant resident, given the various requirements of documentation and the complicated
nature of federal immigration laws.
Undocumented aliens refers to people who either enter a country without being inspected at the
border or point of entry, or people who enter with permission but subsequently violate the terms
of their visa status, permanent resident status refugee status, or other immigration status. The
status, rights, and value of such individuals are currently being hotly debated, focusing variously
on the economic vitality, job availability, perceived costs of illegal immigration, nationalism,
racism, and moral concerns.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 4 - Human Rights Commission Work Plan
Page 3
Common Questions and Concerns:
Why should we be welcoming for illegal or undocumented immigrants?
Saint Louis Park’s vision statement charges us with providing a safe, welcoming, and vital
community for all residents of St. Louis Park.
Why should we pass this ordinance if it will only be superseded by Governor Pawlenty’s
pending legislation?
It is true that Governor Pawlenty has sponsored legislation that would override city ordinances in
Minneapolis and St. Paul that prohibit police officers from taking action against illegal
undocumented immigrants unless they are arrested for a separate crime. Governor Pawlenty has
not had universal support for this proposal, however. The Mayors and Police Chiefs of
Minneapolis and St. Paul have jointly issues statements in opposition to Pawlenty’s proposal.
Additionally the League of Minnesota Cities has also expressed concerns about the proposed
state legislation and defended the fact that local law enforcement agencies are indeed seeking
immigration documentation from individuals involved in criminal activity.
The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission supports doing what is right for our community
with respect to current law without concern for pending legislation that may or may not be
passed. In any event, any ordinance that might be proposed in St. Louis Park would unlikely be
considered before the Governor’s initiative is considered.
Why bother with this ordinance when we don’t even know how many undocumented
residents live or work in St. Louis Park?
Undocumented citizens are just that, “undocumented.” There is no way to know the exact
number of such citizens. Regardless how small a percentage they represent of either the 40
thousand people that live in Saint Louis Park, or the 40 thousand people that work in Saint Louis
Park, they are part of our community. Furthermore, undocumented residents live and work side
by side with “documented” residents, and any ordinance would have an affect on such
documented residents.
What is the city’s liability if this ordinance is passed?
There exists no law mandating that all government service employees gather information about a
citizen’s immigration status. Laws do govern public housing access and employment. This
ordinance simply clarifies what is currently common practice and allows for enforcement of a
culturally competent government.
Interestingly, since many policies and procedures regarding immigrants can be motivated by
issues of discrimination and racism, the city would arguably be at a higher risk for liability
without an ordinance.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 4 - Human Rights Commission Work Plan
Page 4
Possible Next Steps
The Commission would like direction from council on how to proceed with exploring an
ordinance and other work plan items.
The commission feels that additional public input would be beneficial in this process. Since the
ordinance does not appear to be in conflict with city staff operations, a next step may include
seeking additional community understanding and support. The Commission would like to
continue in partnership with local non-profits to sponsor an education forum for the general
public on this topic and listen to public comment.
Prepared By: Human Rights Commissioners, Karmit Bulman, Shelley Taylor
and Matt Armbrecht.
Reviewed by: Commission Staff Liaison, Martha McDonell
Reviewed for Format by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 4 - Human Rights Commission Work Plan
Page 5
Human Rights Commission
2006 – 2007 Proposed Work Plan
Mission: The Human Rights Commission advises the City Council about promoting equal
opportunity, thwarting discrimination and encouraging an appreciation for the city’s diverse
ethnic and cultural populations among residents, workers and visitors to St. Louis Park. The
Commission helps individuals and institutions cultivate a community that embraces principles of
equality, mutual respect, fair treatment and social equity for all of its citizens.
Priorities
Connecting and supporting minority communities
Work on proposing an Equal Access / City Separation Ordinance for St. Louis Park.
Identify and meet with groups representing or serving minority populations within the
city.
Listen and gather information about perceptions of bias.
Partner with adult ELL programs and other groups to support the work of the
commission.
Community & Youth Education
Promote cultural competency and human rights education in the community including
promoting the curriculum and video “This Is My Home” for use in groups and
classrooms for discussion. (www.thisismyhome.org)
Work together with schools to conduct anti-bullying and anti-teasing education.
Increase diverse programming on public cable TV by engaging youth to develop and
select programs.
Host a panel where people speak about different cultures.
Ongoing Commission Work
Respond to bias crimes as they occur in partnership with the Police Department
Sponsor a Human Rights Essay Contest winner for the state competition each year
Select annual Human Rights Award winners for St. Louis Park
Other Ideas (If time allows)
Develop new neighborhood programs so that minorities feel welcome in single family
areas and associations & crime watch programs are organized in multifamily housing
areas.
Host a picnic or house party for specific minority populations as a means to foster
connection and welcome feelings.
Invite the Ambassador programs to attend a Mosque
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 5 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 1
5. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next Study Session agenda.
Background:
At each study session, approximately 15 minutes is set aside to discuss the next study
session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed
discussion items for a study session prior to the April 3, 2006 Council meeting and the
regularly scheduled April 10, 2006 study session.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 032706 - 5 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Monday, April 3
7 p.m. Discussion Item
A. Duke Master Plan – Community Development (15 minutes)
Introduction to the Duke Realty Company’s development team, who is preparing
a master plan for a 35+ acre site in the southwest corner of I-394 and Hwy. 100.
Monday, April 10
7 p.m. Discussion Items
A. 36th Street Streetscape Plan – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff to present preliminary ideas for the West 36th Street streetscape.
B. Community Arts Grant Process – Administrative Services (30 minutes)
To receive feedback from the Council on the community arts grant program that
staff and Friends of the Arts have developed.
C. Communications Focus Group Discussion – Administrative Services (45 minutes)
In preparation of the city’s communication plan, City Image (City’s consultant) to
lead a focus group with Council about communications and future needs.
D. 2005-2006 Visioning Update - Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Staff to provide an update to Council about the 2005-06 Visioning summit and
subsequent action steps.
E. Council Workshop – Administrative Services (15 minutes)
Review proposed agenda for the Council workshop being held April 28 and 29.
F. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (10 minutes)
10:00 p.m. End of Meeting
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 6 - 2006 Preliminary Board Of Appeals
Page 1
6. Valuation Notices and City Board of Appeals Procedures
Finance
Purpose of Report:
To notify the City Council about the citywide mailing of valuation notices (statutory), inform
Council of 2006 changes in residential/commercial property valuations, and outline dates and
procedures for the 2006 City Board of Appeals and Equalization.
Background:
Real Estate Valuation Notices and Neighborhood Changes
The Assessing Division mailed the annual real estate valuation notices to all property owners on
March 15, 2006. Residential property valuations for thirty-five neighborhoods increased an
average of 6.3% throughout the City for property taxes payable in 2007. The average increase for
2004 was 10% and 2005 was 9%. A ‘limited valuation’ classification limits all residential
taxable market valuation increases to 15.0%.
Listed below are two histories of valuations and real estate taxes (total) for two residential
properties with different valuations:
85XX Westmoreland Lane 34XX Rhode Island Avenue
Year Valuation* R.E. Taxes Year Valuation* R.E. Taxes
2006 $600,100 $6,600 2006 $278,200 $3,044
2005 519,500 6,228 2005 259,800 2,733
2004 472,300 6,311 2004 224,200 2,467
2003 461,200 5,767 2003 206,600 2,244
2002 373,400 5,346 2002 189,600 2,088
2001 372,200 6,409 2001 160,000 2,181
2000 310,000 6,312 2000 149,700 2,048
1999 300,100 5,882 1999 121,000 1,857
1998 292,500 6,119 1998 118,400 1,989
1997 278,600 6,114 1997 115,000 2,112
• Estimated market values not ‘Limited Market Values’
Purpose of the City board of Equalization
The purpose of the City Board of Appeals and Equalization is to review the property values
established by the City Assessor that are being contested by taxpayers. The review of individual
appeals is by appointment only. Each taxpayer who appealed a valuation completes an
application form that outlines his/her complaint and states his/her estimate of the property’s
market value. As the Board members review these appeals, they concern themselves specifically
with property values. Judgments about whether or not an individual taxpayer’s property taxes are
too high are not questions to be addressed by the Board.
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 6 - 2006 Preliminary Board Of Appeals
Page 2
Each taxpayer that appears at the City Board of Appeals and Equalization can also appear at the
County Board of Appeals and Equalization hearings, which will begin on June 19, 2006. The
County Board of Appeal and Equalization meets for 10 days. If the taxpayer still wishes to
appeal beyond the County Board, the taxpayer can then appeal to the Small Claims Court if real
estate taxes are less than $5,000 or to the State Board of Equalization if real estate taxes are over
$5,000. The property owner must appear before the City and County Boards of Appeal and
Equalization to reserve the right to appeal the valuation before the Small Claims Court.
In 2005 the initial Board meeting was held on April 18, 2005 for the purpose of organizing and
scheduling subsequent meetings; the next meeting was held on Monday, April 25, 2005 at 6:00
PM and 2 cases were heard. Each taxpayer was scheduled for a 10-minute hearing.
Board of Appeals and Equalization
The first meeting of the 2006 City Board of Appeal and Equalization is scheduled for April 17,
2006 at 7:15 PM, before the regular City Council meeting. For 2006, it is suggested the Board
reconvene before May 12, 2006 for 2-3 hours (early evening) to hear property appeals. Decisions
by the Board can be completed on the same night that the cases are heard. The Board must
conclude its business within 20 days of the initial hearing.
Attached are the 2006 Guidelines for Conduct of the Board of Equalization and a sample of the
minutes from 2005’s initial Board meeting. The Assessor will provide a list of property owners
who wish to appear before the Board –as soon as it is available.
The City is required by State statute to conduct a City Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting
to hear real estate valuation appeals. After mailing valuation notices to all property owners in the
City and reviewing the case for each caller, the Assessor’s Office compiles a list of cases to be
heard and each property owner is given 10 minutes to present their valuation case.
Recommended Action for the First meeting of the Board of Appeal and Equalization:
Call the 2006 City Board of Equalization to order,
Take Roll Call
Appoint a Chairperson
Decide the time and date of the next meeting (depends on number of cases, normally held the
following Monday)
Recess until next meeting
Attachments: Minutes of the 2005 Board of Equalization (first meeting)
Guidelines to Conduct the Board of Appeals and Equalization
St. Louis Park neighborhood map of 2006 valuation changes
Prepared By: Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor
Through: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 6 - 2006 Preliminary Board Of Appeals
Page 3
MINUTES
BOARD OF APPEALS AND EQUALIZATION
APRIL 18, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Board of Equalization was called to order by Mayor Jeff Jacobs at 7:16 PM.
2. ROLL CALL
The following Council members were present at Roll Call: John Basill, Sue Santa
Sally Velick, Mayor Jeff Jacobs, and Phillip Finkelstein.
3. CHAIRMAN
It was moved by Councilmember Santa and seconded by Councilmember Velick to appoint Jeff
Jacobs as Chairman of the 2005 Board of Appeals. The motion carried 4-0.
4. SCHEDULE MEETING
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein and seconded by Councilmember Basil to set 6:00
P.M., April 25, 2005 as the time and date for the next meeting of the Board of Appeals. The
motion carried 4-0.
5. RECESS
It was moved by Councilmember Santa and seconded by Councilmember Velick to recess the
Board until April 25, 2005. Motion carried 4-0.
_________________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Chairman
Attest:
Bruce Stepnick, City Assessor
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 6 - 2006 Preliminary Board Of Appeals
Page 4
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
(MINNESOTA STATUTES: SECTION 274.01)
1. The Board may reduce the market value of any property within the City.
2. The Board may increase the market value of any property within the City, provided the
property owner is notified of the Board’s intentions and provides the opportunity for
hearing to the property owner.
3. The Board may exempt property from taxation and may add exempt property to the tax
rolls, provided the owners are notified of the Board’s intentions.
4. The Board may reclassify homestead and non-homestead property.
5. The Board may examine appellants under oath.
6. The Board may examine any property records on file in the assessor’s offices.
7. The Board of Appeal and Equalization must complete its work and adjourn within 20
days from the time of the convening, unless a longer period is approved by the
Commissioner of Revenue (April 17 to May 12, 2006).
(NONSTATUTORY)
Members of the Board of Equalization listen to the testimony of the property owner and can ask
questions relative to the property and comparable properties. In most instances Board members
state to the property owner that the appeal will be taken under advisement, and the property
owner will be notified of the Board’s decision with sufficient time allowed for the owner to
appeal the Board’s decision to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. The assessor will
be available to answer questions from the Board at each meeting and will supply data and
information prior to each meeting. It is permissible for either the property owner or the Board
members to direct questions to the City Assessor or appraisers.
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 6 - 2006 Preliminary Board Of Appeals
Page 5
St. Louis Park Neighborhoods 2006 pay 2007
Neighborhoods Average Percent Increase
For Single Family Homes
2006 pay 2007 05 Pay 06 04 Pay 05 03 Pay 04 02 Pay 03
1 Shelard Park No Sgl Family "R's"
2 Kilmer 10 Reval 12.6 5 21
3 Crestview Reval 1.9 3.3 15 12
4 Westwood Hills Reval 10.1 5.8 11.5 11
5 Cedar Manor Reval 10.4 10.9 6.5 17
6 North Side Reval 11.3. 10 7 12
7 Pennsylvania Park Reval 9.9 12.9 3 19
8 Eliot Reval 10.1 8.1 15 10
9 Blackstone Reval 19.8 7.3 1.5 24
10 Cedarhurst Reval 19.7 9.8 15 4
11 Eliot View Reval 6.5 11.4 9 17
12 Cobblecrest 3 Reval 13.4 7 17
13 Minnehaha 3 Reval 11.4 6 13
14 Amhurst No Sgl Family "R's"
15 Aquila 8 Reval 9 11.5 10
16 Oak Hill 6 5.4 Reval 10.5 11
17 Texa Tonka 5 3.3 Reval 9 18
18 Bronx Park 6.5 7.2 11.1 6 Reval
19 Lenox 6.5 8.4 8.7 11 Reval
20 Sorenson 5 7.7 9.1 15 Reval
21 Birchwood 8 6.9 12.9 9 Reval
22 Lake Forest 6 9.1 8.2 18 12
23 Fern Hill 4 10.9 7.9 Reval 14
24 Triangle 1.5 14.9 12.8 Reval 21
25 Wolfe Park 10 10 18.3 Reval 17
26 Minikahda Oaks 3 16.6 7.2 Reval 20
27 Minikahda Vista 5 11.6 8.2 11 13
28 Browndale 5 6.6 8.2 9 14
29 Brookside 10 10.4 Reval 14.5 11
30 Brooklawns 10 9.9 Reval 6 15
31 Elmwood 16.5 5.8 Reval 3 18
32 Meadowbrook No Sgl Family "R's"
33 South Oak Hill 6.5 6.8 Reval 4 19
34 Westdale Reval 3.1 2.9 15 17
35 Creekside 20 6.6 Reval 9.5 22
9% Average 10% Average
10%
Average
15%
Average
City-Wide Average
Increase 9% Increase 6.5%
Homes with improvements are excluded from
average
Reval Neighborhoods have a wide range of
adjustments
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 7 - CSAH 25 Ped. Crossing Project Update
Page 1
7. CSAH 25 Pedestrian Crossing Project Update
City Project No. 2005-2100
Public Works
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council an update and further information with
regards to the proposed CSAH 25 Pedestrian Crossing Project. This report is essentially a
progress update from the January 23, 2006 Council Discussion and subsequent direction given to
staff at that meeting. It is staff’s suggestion that a public information meeting be scheduled for
later this spring, and after that final plans and specifications be prepared to allow for commencing
construction of the bridge in 2006.
PREVIOUS DISCUSSION AND BACKGROUND:
Since 2001, the City of St. Louis Park has worked with Hennepin County, Mn/DOT, and Three
Rivers Park District for a trail connection between two regional trails, the Southwest LRT Trail
and the Cedar Lake Regional Trail. Essentially, the City and agencies have worked together to
establish a trail connection or link along TH 100 as part of improvements to T.H. 100. As part of
the regional trail link, a crossing of CSAH 25 is necessary. The need for the crossing and link
were expressed during a public process several years ago as the City developed its city-wide plan
for sidewalks and trails. In November of 2001, the City Council approved a resolution requesting
state bonding bill funding for the construction of a grade separated trail crossing at CSAH 25.
Despite at least two efforts to receive a bonding bill appropriation from the State legislature for the
cost of part of the project, no funding was approved.
Since that time, the City has worked with the three agencies mentioned above to secure funding,
and determine an appropriate design location for the proposed pedestrian crossing. As a result of
those efforts, staff presented an update to the City Council on January 9, 2006 that provided
crossing design alternatives. Discussions arose with regards to the location of the proposed
crossing, and the following factors were all considered: 1) a location that serves local and regional
needs, 2) a location that fully considers user safety, and 3) cost. As a result of the discussion,
Council directed staff to provide additional information with regards to the crossing location
options, particularly with regards to inter-agency requirements (local vs. regional needs) and cost
participation.
As a result, staff worked with Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District to explore options
further, and presented these findings and options to the Council at its January 23, 2006 Study
Session. The City Council reacted favorably to a proposed location between Raleigh Avenue and
Ottawa Avenue adjacent to Carpenter Park. The Council also expressed its preference that a
bridge rather than underground crossing be constructed. As a result, the City’s consulting
engineer for this project (TKDA) has prepared a feasibility report for constructing a bridge at this
location (attached Exhibit A).
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 7 - CSAH 25 Ped. Crossing Project Update
Page 2
FEASIBILITY REPORT SUMMARY:
Key points of the TKDA Feasibility Study can be summarized as follows:
1. The bridge width is proposed to be 12 feet, connected by a 10-foot multi-use trail
connection.
2. The bridge would be supported with pile foundations.
3. The bridge and ramp construction would require the removal of trees along north side of
frontage road bordering Carpenter Park. Staff is working with the Parks and Recreation
Department to assess impacts and provide tree replacements and appropriate landscaping
as needed as part of final plans.
4. CSAH 25 traffic would remain open to traffic at all times during construction.
5. Three types of spans are available for consideration: Precast concrete thru beams,
prestressed concrete deck beams, and prefabricated steel truss (photo samples attached –
Exhibits C1, C2, and C3).
6. The bridge approaches would be ramps as shown; possible stair locations are provided on
the TKDA plan sheet of the Study.
7. Estimated Construction cost (including connecting trails), 1.16M to 1.3M depending on the
type of structure utilized (estimated cost does not include engineering or administrative
costs).
FINANCING AND COSTS:
As mentioned in the previous report and discussion, the City has received at least verbal
commitments for funding of the project from Hennepin County, MnDot, and the Three Rivers
Park District.
Pending final adoption of a Cooperative Agreement by all agencies, the expected cost
participation can generally be summarized as follows: The City of St. Louis Park would be
responsible for developing and constructing the crossing over CSAH 25. Obligations of the Park
District and Hennepin County would be financing a portion of the CSAH 25 crossing as agreed.
At this time, Hennepin County has verbally committed an amount of $200,000 while Three Rivers
Park District has verbally committed up to a maximum of $500,000. MnDot has committed to
designing and constructing the portion of trail located within the construction limits of the T.H.
100 Interim Project, or from Minnetonka Boulevard south to approximately Salem Avenue. The
City would be responsible for constructing the trail from Salem Avenue to the north end of the
bridge, and from the south end of the bridge to the SWLRT Regional Trail at Beltline Boulevard
(see attached Exhibit B).
The City’s preliminary estimated cost for the trail connections as described is $80,000 to
$100,000, and has been factored into TKDA’s construction estimate. However, there are potential
additional costs due to unforeseen utility relocation or right of way costs that are not known at this
time. With engineering and administrative costs included, the total project cost is estimated to
range from 1.5 to 1.7M. At this time, additional costs for utility relocations or additional right of
way are not anticipated, but would add to the cost if required. Therefore, total City costs could be
$800,000 to $1,000,000. So far, $500,000 in HRA funds have been designated towards this
project.
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 7 - CSAH 25 Ped. Crossing Project Update
Page 3
In addition to the proposed bridge and connecting trails, upgrading of the existing pedestrian
crossing of CSAH 25 at Beltline/Ottawa was also expressed as desirable by the Council. As
previously mentioned, any cost to upgrade the existing pedestrian crossing at Beltline/
Ottawa/CSAH 25 would likely be incurred by the City. It is expected that such an improvement
would include signal upgrades, sidewalk links to the intersection, and upgrades to the intersection
and median area. It is estimated that that such improvement costs could range anywhere from
$150,000 to $250,000.
It is expected that all maintenance associated with the above described trail segments and the
bridge crossing at CSAH 25 would be the responsibility of the City.
COMPREHENSIVE SIDEWALK AND TRAIL PLAN: The City Council adopted a Sidewalk,
Trail, and Bicycle Plan in October of 2003. As part of the discussion of determining an
appropriate location for the CSAH 25 crossing, the overall trail plan was considered, particularly
with regards to local and regional needs. As a result of the proposed location, the 2003 Plan will
require some minor revisions and adjustments.
PUBLIC PROCESS AND SCHEDULE: As part of the adoption of the Sidewalk, Trail, and
Bicycle Plan, an extensive public process was followed prior to adoption of the Plan. As a result,
much of the normal public process for the crossing has essentially been done. Therefore, staff
feels an informational meeting for public information purposes will be adequate public
involvement for this project.
Construction of the bridge in 2006 has been expressed as a desire by the Council. As a result, the
following schedule is proposed:
Public Information Meeting April or May 2006
Subsequent Update Report to Council May 2006
Present Final Plans and Specifications to City Council July 2006
And Authorize Advertisement for Bids
Bid Opening August 2006
Award Contract and Commence Construction September 2006
This proposed schedule should allow for the bridge to be completed in 2006 with final restoration
in the spring of 2007. However, the nature of this type of construction would generally allow for
winter work if necessary. However, it is staff’s desire to complete as much of the project as
possible during the 2006 construction season. As previously mentioned, any unforeseen utility or
easement issues could also push the schedule back.
NEXT STEPS: TKDA has been directed to proceed with the preliminary design of this project.
As mentioned in the Feasibility Report, essentially three types of bridges are possible: a steel truss
or two different beam or concrete beam spans. Attached to this report are photographs of the three
different styles. Because costs are significantly exceeding the project budget, staff has directed
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 7 - CSAH 25 Ped. Crossing Project Update
Page 4
TKDA to prepare plans for the lowest cost structure (pre-stressed concrete thru beam bridge at
$1,159,200). This will not include lighting or special aesthetics, all of which can be added later.
A public information meeting will be scheduled for sometime within the next 1-2 months to obtain
comments/input on the preliminary plans.
Supplements: Exhibit A (TKDA Report)
Exhibit B (Project Location)
Exhibit C1 (Prestressed Concrete Thru Beam Alt.)
Exhibit C2 (Prestressed Concrete Deck Beam Alt.)
Exhibit C3 (Prefabricated Steel Truss)
Prepared By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 8 - Aquatic Park Group Update
Page 1
8. Aquatic Park Update Parks and Recreation Department
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To update the Council on policy and procedure changes to be
initiated in 2006 at the Aquatic Park and minor pool upgrades which will be made.
Background
On January 23, 2006, staff discussed with Council several items related to the Aquatic Park. The
majority of the conversation centered on the number and types of groups we allow during the
summer and behavior issues. Staff indicated to Council it would evaluate and make changes to
our policy and procedures to address the concerns which were raised.
2006 Group Strategies
From the comments heard from Council, staff has made the following changes relative to taking
group reservations this summer:
• Total group attendance will be reduced from 500 to 400 people daily.
• Staff will ask the community season pass groups (primarily Community Education and
other day care organizations) to let us know in advance which days they are planning to
attend.
• Groups will be required to bring additional chaperones and meet of 10:1 ratio.
• An additional lifeguard, who roams the three and four feet areas, will be added on days
when group attendance numbers exceed 300. In previous years, the roaming guard was
added when group numbers exceeded 400.
• Staff worked with the police department to find an alternative location for bus parking.
While groups are using the pool, buses will park along the southeast side of Raleigh
Avenue instead of in the Rec Center parking lot.
• If any of our customers witness any inappropriate behavior they will be instructed to go
immediately to the guard office and speak to the lead guard or the pool manager who will
promptly deal with the situation.
2006 Upgrades
Given the large numbers of requests received for additional shade areas at the pool, staff will be
installing large umbrella type structures in three different areas this summer. Staff will also be
replacing signage, trimming and replacing some landscape, and providing new chairs. With these
changes, the Aquatic Park will have a fresher look until staff and the community explore other
“community center” types of amenities to be potentially included in the Aquatic Park.
Please feel free to contact myself, Rick Birno, or Craig Panning with any comments or
compliments you hear throughout the pool season. Hearing comments immediately allows us to
deal with things on a timely basis.
Attachments: None
Prepared By: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 9 - Wellhead Protection
Page 1
9. Wellhead Protection Plan Update Public Works
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To provide an update to the City Council on the State required Wellhead Protection Plan which
was started in late 2002.
BACKGROUND:
A written report was submitted to Council on August 12, 2002 informing Council of the
Wellhead Protection regulations. An update memo was sent to the City Manager on February
17, 2004.
Wellhead Protection is mandated by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and detailed in
Minnesota Rule-Chapter 4720. As a result, municipalities are required to develop Wellhead
Protection Plans (WHPP). The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is the local
enforcement agency. A WHPP is a means of protecting our wells by preventing contaminants
from entering the areas that contribute water to the city’s municipal wells over a period of time.
Wellhead protection areas are determined by using geologic and hydrologic criteria, such as the
physical characteristics of the aquifer and the effects which pumping has on the rate and
direction of groundwater movement. A management plan is developed for each wellhead
protection area that includes inventorying potential and managing existing and future land and
water uses that pose a threat to groundwater quality.
The Wellhead Protection Plan is divided into two parts. Part 1 requires the City to delineate
Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA), Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMA),
and perform vulnerability assessments of the wells and the DWSMA. Part 2 of the WHPP is
intended to contain the management strategies and protection measures for the DWSMA
delineated in Part 1 of the plan. Part 2 will include:
• Reviewing and assessing the required data elements;
• Performing a potential contaminant source inventory; and,
• Identifying community-specific management strategies for the DWSMA.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
On December 23, 2005 the draft WHPP has been completed and submitted to the neighboring
local government units for comments and no comments were received during the sixty (60) day
comment period. The plan identifies areas of St. Louis Park where contaminants were once
generated or could be generated. The plan addresses how to regulate the handling and storage of
potential contaminants and control land use if any of these sites are ever redeveloped. It also
presents a contingency plan that outlines how to provide an alternate water supply in case
contaminants are ever released. Wellhead protection plans are required by Federal law because
it is more cost effective for water suppliers to prevent contamination than treat groundwater
contamination. Attached is the Executive Summary of the WHPP (Attachment “A”). The
WHPP is 200+ pages in length and is located on the City’s network for your reference at:
O:/Citywide/Share/WellheadProtection/PartIIWellheadProtPlan.
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 9 - Wellhead Protection
Page 2
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE:
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Minnesota Rule-Chapter 4720 require a public hearing
be held to solicit public comments on the WHPP. Staff is arranging for this public hearing to be
held by the Council in late April. Based on public comments, a revised final plan will be
submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health by June 1, 2006.
April 2006
Hold a Public Hearing at a City Council Meeting to consider public comments.
May 2006
Submit revised plan to the Minnesota Department of Health prior to by June 1, 2006 for
approval.
NEXT STEPS:
Implementation of the Wellhead Protection Plan will occur following plan approval from the
Minnesota Department of Health.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment “A” – Wellhead Protection Plan Executive Summary
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Reviewed By: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Attachment “A”
City of St. Louis Park
Wellhead Protection Plan
Executive Summary
This portion of the wellhead and source water protection (Wellhead Protection) plan for the City
of St. Louis Park, Minnesota includes:
• an assessment of applicable data elements,
• the results of the potential contaminant source inventory,
• management strategies for the higher risk potential contaminant sources
• the City’s Water Supply Contingency Plan, and
• an Evaluation Plan for the City’s Wellhead Protection Program.
Part I of the Wellhead Protection Plan presented the delineation of the wellhead protection areas
(WHPAs) and the drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) and included the
vulnerability assessments for the City’s wells and source water aquifers within the DWSMA.
Part I of the Wellhead Protection Plan was submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) and was approved on April 12, 2004. The boundaries of the WHPAs and DWSMA are
shown in Figure 1 (attached) and the vulnerability of the source water aquifers are presented in
Figure 2 (attached). A copy of Part I of the St. Louis Park Wellhead Protection Plan is provided
as Appendix A.
The vulnerability assessment for the source water aquifers within the DWSMA was performed
using available information and indicates that some of the bedrock aquifers used by the City are
considered vulnerable, to varying degrees, to contamination because several municipal wells and
the St. Peter Sandstone and Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifers have already been significantly
impacted by groundwater contamination. The deeper Franconia-Ironton-Galesville and Mount
Simon-Hinckley bedrock aquifers are not considered vulnerable to contamination from land
surface activities and uses due to significantly-thick and laterally expansive shale deposits
overlying them. These geologic formations hydraulically separate the two deeper aquifers from
the shallower, contaminated aquifers. Consequently, the potential sources of contamination to the
source water aquifers are all land uses and other wells that reach or penetrate the aquifers. This
information was presented to the Wellhead Protection Manager during the Second Scoping
Meeting held with MDH staff on May 13, 2004, when the necessary requirements for the content
of Part II were outlined and discussed in detail.
The vulnerability assessment for the St. Louis Park municipal wells that utilize the Mount
Simon-Hinckley bedrock aquifer indicates that these wells (Wells 11, 12, 13, and 17) are not
vulnerable to contamination based on the information that documents the construction of each
well. However, the other eight municipal wells (Wells 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 16), utilizing the
St. Peter and Prairie du Chien-Jordan source water aquifers, are vulnerable to contamination.
The information and data contained in Sections 1.0 – 4.0 of this portion of the Wellhead
Protection Plan (hereafter referred to as Part II of the Plan) support the approaches taken to
Attachment “A”
Wellhead Protection Plan
Executive Summary
Page 2
address potential contamination sources that have been identified as potentially affecting the
aquifer used by the public water supply. The reader is encouraged to concentrate attention on
Sections 1.0 – 4.0 in order to better understand why the particular management strategies are
included in Section 5.0.
In Section 1.0, the required data elements indicated by the MDH in the Scoping 2 Decision
Notice are addressed, as well as the data’s degree of reliability. Pertinent data elements include
information about the geology, water quality, and water quantity. The data elements and
information supplied in Part I of the Plan are the basis for the assessment that the aquifer
providing drinking water for St. Louis Park has the potential to become vulnerable due to certain
land uses and activities, and other wells that penetrate the same aquifers. Section 2.0 addresses
the possible impacts that changes in the physical environment, land use, and water resources
have on the public water supply. No significant changes are anticipated in the City within the
next ten-year period.
The problems and opportunities concerning land use issues relating to the aquifers, well water,
and the DWSMA, and those issues identified at public meetings, are addressed in Section 3.0.
The vulnerability status of the aquifer and wells, and the quality of water currently produced by
the municipal wells result in the following major concerns: 1) preventing new or additional
groundwater contamination to the source water aquifers; 2)other wells located within the
DWSMA that could become pathways for contamination to enter the aquifer; and 3) the pumping
effects of high-capacity wells that may alter the boundaries of the delineated WHPAs, reduce the
hydraulic head in the aquifer, or cause the movement of contamination toward public water
supply wells.
The drinking water protection goals that the City would like to achieve with this Plan are listed
in Section 4.0. In essence, the City would like to 1) maintain or improve the current drinking
water quality, 2) increase public awareness of groundwater protection issues, 3) protect the
aquifers, and 4) collect data to support future efforts in Wellhead Protection Planning.
The objectives and action plans for managing the potential sources of contamination are
contained in Section 5.0. Actions aimed toward educating the general public about groundwater
issues, gathering information about other wells, and collecting data relevant to Wellhead
Protection Planning are the general focus.
Section 6.0 contains a guide to evaluate the implementation of the identified management
strategies of Section 5.0. The wellhead protection program for City of St. Louis Park will be
evaluated on an annual basis prior to its budgeting process.
An emergency/contingency water plan is included to address the possibility that the water supply
system is interrupted due to either emergency situations or drought. Section 7.0 references the
City’s Water Contingency and Conservation Plan approved by the Department of Natural
Resources.
Attachment “A”
Attachment “A”
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 10 - Proposed Street Name Change
Page 1
10. Proposed Street Name Change – Stephens Drive Community Development
Purposed of Report:
To update the City Council on a request which has been made to rename Stephens Drive to
Westside Drive.
Background:
Attached is a letter from Luther Westside Volkswagen (Luther) asking for Stephens Drive to be
renamed to Westside Drive. Luther owns and occupies two of the three properties that have
frontage on Stephens Drive. The third is the Novartis property, but while Novartis has frontage
on Stephens Drive, its address is actually on 23rd Street West.
In September of 1992, the City Council approved an ordinance renaming 24th Street West to
Stephens Drive. This was done at the request of Win Stephens Companies who occupied the
same properties currently occupied by Luther. Win Stephens asked for the name change after the
Highway 100 improvements closed streets providing access to the west side of Highway 100 and
re-routed traffic.
Since 1992, the Win Stephens dealership closed, and was replaced by Luther Westside
Volkswagen in 2003. Now, Luther is asking that the street be renamed to Westside citing the
same reasons for the original name change from 24th Street West to Stephens Drive. Westside is
willing to pay for the new city and MNDOT street signs required as a result of this change.
Process:
Attached for your review is a policy that outlines the street name change process. The first step
of the process is to inform the City Council of a request received for a street name change.
Unless the City Council has objections to this change staff will process an ordinance authorizing
the change, with the first reading on April 17th.
Attachments: Letter from Luther Westside
Street name change policy
Aerial photo showing Stephens Drive and Highway 100
Prepared By: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed By: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 11 - February 2006 Financial Statements
Page 1
11. February 2006 Financial Statements Finance
PURPOSE: REPORT
Attached are the February 2006 financial statements for the General Fund and the Park and
Recreation fund. The list below summarizes what is included in this packet.
1. Monthly financial statements for the overall general fund and park and recreation fund by
account summary level comparing the annual budget figures to the second month of 2006
actual figures.
2. Monthly financial statements for expenditures of the general fund by each department
and for expenditures of the park and recreation fund by each division that compares the
annual budget figures to the second month of 2006 actual figures.
Please note that a negative sign in front of a revenue figure indicates a positive number or rather
actual revenue received. In addition, when comparing the “Monthly Financial Report” to the
“Departmental Expenditure report”, the “Departmental Expenditure Report” does not include
budgeted or actual transfers nor miscellaneous expenses that are included as “other expense”.
In reviewing the February financial statements, it is important to note a couple of key factors that
had an impact this month to the monthly statements provided:
GENERAL FUND
In comparison from January’s to February’s monthly financial report, there were significant
increases in the February report in Intergovernmental Revenue, Charges for Services, Supplies
Expenditures, Services and Other Charges and Miscellaneous Expenditures. Personal Services
Expenditures experienced a significant decrease.
• Intergovernmental Revenue increased by approximately $234,000 which is attributed to
D.O.T. State aid for approximately $220,000 and Election cost allocation of $14,000.
• Charges for Services Revenue increased by approximately $41,000 which is attributed to
receiving a month of Housing Authority salary reimbursement.
• Supplies Expenditures increased by approximately $36,000, which is attributed to several
factors: Public Works – Coarse Road salt and operational supplies purchases for $30,000
and $1,000 respectively. Police – uniform purchases for approximately $5,000.
• Services and Other Charges Expenditures increased by approximately $116,000 due to
the following areas: Technology and Support Services – payments to LOGIS for
application and network support for approximately $42,000 and system replacement for
$30,000. Administration – Legal fees for approximately $20,000. Public Works –
electric service for $22,000 and signal controls for $2,000.
• Miscellaneous Expense increased by over $8,400 which resulted from the Fire Station
building analysis.
City Council Study Session
Written Item: 032706 - 11 - February 2006 Financial Statements
Page 2
• Personal Services Expenditures decreased by approximately $171,000 which is a result of
three days less of payroll due to the short month.
PARKS AND RECREATION
In reviewing the Park and Recreation fund, the monthly financial report shows increases in
Intergovernmental revenue and Services and Other Charges expenditures. Charges for Services
Expenditures and Personal Services experienced decreases.
• The increase in Intergovernmental Revenue of $40,500 is attributable to a ReLeaf and a
Recycling grant in the amount of $26,500 and $14,000, respectively.
• The increase in Services and Other Charges of approximately $206,000 is attributable to
the annual contribution to Community Ed. for approximately $187,000 and tree pruning
for about $19,000.
• Miscellaneous Revenue decreased by approximately $45,000 which is entirely attributed
to reduced ice rental fees.
• Personal Services Expenditures decreased by approximately $29,000 which is attributed
to three days less of payroll due to a short month.
Additional reminders from previous reports:
• Since the City budgets on an annual basis, the budget numbers that appear on the monthly
financial reports are annual figures. However, the actual revenues and expenditures are
monthly figures. Therefore, you will see much fluctuation in the month to month
comparison.
• The interest revenue allocation is not yet reflected in the Year-to date actual numbers.
Therefore, interest revenue is showing as a negative number. This number will be offset
with the interest earnings once the allocation is completed.
• Due to the fact that overall revenues are low during the beginning months of each year,
the city keeps a reserve of approximately four months of expenditures for cash flow
purposes.
• The numbers for the year are not final until all year end adjustments are made to
accurately reflect the year’s activity and the fiscal year subsequently closed. This will
take place after the auditors’ complete their fieldwork.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Statements
Prepared By: Brian Swanson, Accounting Manager
Reviewed By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager