HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/08/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
August 28, 2006
7:00 PM
Council Chambers
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 7:00 p.m. Park Property Sale Procedure (Ordinance)
2. 7:30 p.m. Update on Park Zoning District
3. 8:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda
Written Items
4. St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grants
5. Water Service Line Replacement Policy
6. General Government Budget Changes 2006-2007
7. July Financial Statements
8:05 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD
(952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 1 - Park Property Sale Procedure
Page 1
1. Park Property Sale Procedure Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to review the proposed park property sale ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Over the past few weeks the City Manager, City Attorney and Community Development
Director have been working with residents on a possible ordinance which would lay out a
specific process the City would be required to follow if it desired to sell any park zoned land.
The result of those efforts is the attached draft ordinance
The ordinance is proposed in recognition of the importance of the City’s parks and open space to
the community. Parks and open space are vital to the overall success of the City and the well
being of our residents.
The importance of parks and open space to the community means that any decision to sell park
or open space land should only take place after input from the public, the Planning Commission;
and, the Parks and Recreation Commission. Any potential sale of park land deserves the utmost
in careful consideration and comprehensive review. It should only occur when it is clearly in the
best interests of the community.
Summary of Proposed Ordinance
To achieve these goals the proposed park property sale ordinance requires a lengthy and
comprehensive review process; and, super-majority City Council approval of any proposal to sell
park land. The review process requires
1. a public information meeting with published and mailed notice to residents within 1320
feet of the property in question, well in advance (21 days) of the meeting;
2. A public hearing at the Planning Commission with published and mailed notice; and,
3. Review by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
All three of these opportunities for public input and advisory commission review would occur
prior to Council action on any proposed park land sale.
The City Council itself will be required to approve both a first and second reading of the
resolution of approval of a proposed park land sale. The readings will need to be at meetings
separated by a minimum of 14 days; and, both readings will require a super majority (5
affirmative votes) for approval. A separate notice of the time, date, and place of the City
Council’s first reading of the resolution of approval will also be required to be mailed to each
property owner and the neighborhood president (if any exist) within 1,320 feet of the park
property being considered for sale, at least 10 days in advance of the meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 1 - Park Property Sale Procedure
Page 2
Connection with Proposed New Park Zoning District
The proposed ordinance is designed to work in conjunction with the creation of a new park
zoning district. The park property sales ordinance would only apply to city land that is zoned
park and/or open space. It would not apply to other city owned property. The final language in
the park property sale ordinance will need to reflect the final park land zoning district language.
Currently the Planning Commission is proposing that two new zoning districts are created. One
called Park, for active recreation lands; and, a second district called Open Space, for more
passive environmental areas. Whatever the final zoning districts are, the park property sales
ordinance needs to reference the correct districts.
Next Steps
If the City Council supports the concept of a park property sales ordinance, staff will prepare a
final draft version for City Council consideration at a future meeting. Because of the connection
between the new park zoning districts and the park property sale ordinance, the park property
sale ordinance will be timed to coincide with consideration of the new park zoning districts. It is
anticipated that the park zoning districts will be before the City Council for action in October or
November.
Attachments: Draft Park Property Sale Ordinance
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 1 - Park Property Sale Procedure
Page 3
ORDINANCE _________-06
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA AND
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
MUST MEET BEFORE CONSIDERING THE SALE OF ANY
CITY PARK PROPERTY, AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 20 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to “Parks and
Recreation” is amended by adding the following section:
Sec. 20-6 Sale of Park Property
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to recognize that public parks and open
space are essential for the well-being of the city and that their protection and enhancement is
a City priority.
(b) Definition. For purposes of this section, the term “park property” shall refer to
any city-owned land that is zoned “Park and Open Space.”
(c) Procedure. In addition to any procedural requirements under state statute and city
code relating to comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, before the City Council can
consider selling any park property, the following procedures must be followed:
(1) Public Information Meeting
a. A Public Information Meeting shall be conducted by City Staff.
The process shall be initiated by the City Manager or its designee
at the direction of the City Council. The purpose of the meeting is
to inform and receive feedback from the community on the
proposed land sale.
b. The notice of the meeting shall be given in the same manner as the
notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission,
except that the published and mailed notice shall be given twenty-
one (21) days before the meeting.
(2) Planning Commission hearing.
a. After the Public Information Meeting, a public hearing shall be
conducted by the Planning Commission.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 1 - Park Property Sale Procedure
Page 4
b. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City and posted on the
city web site at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
c. A notice of the hearing shall also be mailed at least two weeks
before the date of the hearing to each owner of record of property
located wholly or partly within 1,320 feet of the park property
being considered for sale. A notice shall also be mailed to the
chair person (if any) of the neighborhood association within which
the park property is located.
d. The notice shall use the records of the County Auditor’s office or
other appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of
owners entitled to written notice. A copy of the notice and a list of
the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be
attested to by the person giving the notice and shall be made a part
of the record of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice
to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not
invalidate the proceedings provided a bona fide attempt has been
made to comply with this section.
e. A sign shall be posted by the City on the property clearly visible
from the street advising the public that the property is being
considered for sale and appropriate contact information. This sign
shall be posted at least two weeks prior to the hearing.
f. The hearing under this section shall be conducted concurrently
with the public hearing required for a comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning of the park property being considered for
sale.
g. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall
make its recommendations to the City Council. The matter shall
then be referred to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
for its review.
h. In making its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall
consider the information and comments expressed at the public
hearing, the criteria relating to comprehensive plan and rezoning
amendments and all other factors the Commission deems relevant
based upon the specific proposal being considered.
(3) Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Review.
a. After the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, the
Parks and Recreation Advisory commission shall review the matter
and provide its comments and recommendation to the City
Council.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 1 - Park Property Sale Procedure
Page 5
b. The Commission shall consider the impact of the proposed sale on
the current and long range parks and recreation plans for the City.
(4) City Council consideration:
a. Except as provided for in Subsection 4(f) herein, the City Council
may consider the sale of park property only after the Planning
Commission has completed the public hearing and made its
recommendation and the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission has completed its review.
b. A notice of the time, date, and place of the City Council’s first
reading of a resolution considering the sale of park property shall
be mailed at least ten (10) days in advance of the meeting to each
owner of record of property located wholly or partially within
1,320 feet of the park property being considered for sale and the
neighborhood president (if any).
c. Consideration of the sale of park property may occur concurrently
with the Council’s consideration of a comprehensive plan and
rezoning amendments.
d. The Council’s action shall be by resolution requiring a first and
second reading separated by a minimum of fourteen (14) days.
e. An affirmative vote of at least five (5) council members at both the
first and second reading of the resolution is required to approve the
sale of park property.
f. If the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission
have not made their recommendations and comments within 75
days of the date of the public hearing, the City Council at its
discretion may act on the proposed sale without such
recommendations and comments.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 28, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 2 - Update On Park Zoning District
Page 1
2. Update on Park Zoning District Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
Staff will update the City Council on the development of a Parks and Open Space Zoning
District. The purpose of this item is to provide the City Council an opportunity to ask questions
and provide comments/direction to staff on both the new zoning districts and the parcels
proposed to be rezoned.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council asked staff to create a new Park zoning district classification to identify and
protect City-controlled park properties.
Staff has reviewed City park properties and uses, the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, other
cities’ ordinances, and resolutions relating to the Excess Land process. Based upon our research,
staff initially proposed a single Parks and Open Space District based on the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal would rezone City-controlled parks and open space, but not State, County, School
District, Minneapolis Park Board, or private recreation and open space land. Staff’s reasoning
for having only one district was to provide as much flexibility for management of these
properties as possible. For example, if the City wished to use an area that is currently shown as
open space (see attached map) for an off-leash dog park or other recreational facility in the
future, a rezoning would not be needed. Parks and Recreation Department staff is sensitive to
the issue of “managing expectations” regarding the types of maintenance activity that will occur
on open space areas versus active recreation parks, but staff feels this can continue to be done
without zoning regulation.
The Planning Commission discussed the Park zoning district map and zoning text at two study
sessions. The Commission strongly recommended creating two separate zoning classifications: a
Parks District and an Open Space District. A Parks District would include areas of active
outdoor recreation activities such as baseball diamonds, tennis courts, basketball courts,
playfields, playgrounds, outdoor swimming pools, fitness courses, etc. An Open Space District
would include passive recreation including hiking trails, natural areas, wild life areas,
arboretums, open grass areas and tot lots.
The Planning Commission articulated two goals. First, to manage expectations of residents as to
the type of facilities and maintenance the City would provide to Open Space properties versus
Park properties. The Commissioners believe that zoning a property Park will cause residents to
demand additional services, facilities, uses and maintenance on Open Space properties. Second,
to provide additional protection of Open Space areas by further limiting the types of uses
allowed in the Open Space District.
Zoning Text
The proposed text was written to be as clear and straight forward as possible. It is designed for
City-owned parks and open space. The proposed text maintains the City’s existing ability to site
public service structures and similar facilities on park and open space properties. Minor changes
and references in other sections of the City Code may also be needed to reflect the new zoning
district(s). Staff will research this further before publishing the public hearing notice.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 2 - Update On Park Zoning District
Page 2
Zoning Map
The attached map identifies the parcels that are proposed to be rezoned Park and Open Space.
The map reflects staff research as well as the Planning Commission’s recommendations to date.
The basis for the proposed zoning amendments is the existing Comprehensive Plan. For the
most part, it is clear which parcels should be zoned park or open space. There are four parcels
where special attention is needed.
One of the special parcels is Carpenter Park, which is clearly a park, but unlike all the other
parcels proposed to be rezoned it is not designated Park in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It is
designated Civic use because it is on the same parcel as City Hall and the Police Station.
The other three special parcels are parcels addressed in the City Council’s excess land resolution
of December 2005. The City Council provided specific direction to staff for 1608 Utah Avenue,
9258 Club Road and 2600 Natchez Avenue in December 2005. The direction for these parcels
ranged from further planning to pursue sale of a portion of the parcel. Guidance is needed from
the City Council as to whether one or more; or, a portion of these parcels should be rezoned Park
or Open Space.
The four parcels and their special circumstances are described below and highlighted in blue on
the attached Parks and Open Space Parcel Map.
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
o It is guided Civic in the Comprehensive Plan
o The parcel includes City Hall, Police Station and Carpenter Park
o The Planning Commission and staff recommend that Carpenter Park should be zoned
park and the rest of the parcel left as is
o The appropriate dividing line between the Park and the rest of the parcel needs to be
determined; and, the Carpenter Park portion of the parcel should be reguided in the
Comprehensive Plan as Park.
1608 Utah Avenue
o Guided Park in the Comprehensive Plan
o While it was concluded that this is not suitable for a new “ move up home”, the City
Council did adopt a resolution directing City staff to take the necessary steps to sell all or
a portion of the parcel to the abutting owners or group of neighbors, and to retain an
easement for pond access for storm water purposes
o Staff recommends rezoning the property to park/open space even though it might not be
all in public ownership permanently
o The Planning Commission suggested leaving the parcel zoned residential
9258 Club Road (next to Cedar Manor Park)
o Guided Park in the Comprehensive Plan
o City Council adopted a resolution directing City staff to initiate a planning process with
the Cedar Manor Neighborhood to establish the future use of this site, recognizing that
lack of access to the site currently restricts building and park use
o There is no timeline set for planning the future use of this site
o Staff recommends rezoning the property to park/open space
o The Planning Commission suggested leaving the parcel zoned residential until a planning
study establishing its future use is completed.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 2 - Update On Park Zoning District
Page 3
2600 Natchez Avenue
o Guided Park in the Comprehensive Plan
o City Council adopted a resolution to sell the Northeast upland portion of the parcel for
the construction of one single family home, and to retain the entire wetland area.
o The current comprehensive plan designation is inconsistent with the December 2005
resolution.
o Assuming that the City Council still wants to sell the corner of this parcel, staff and the
Planning Commission recommend the parcel be zoned open space, except the upland area
intended to be sold.
o The process of reguiding the corner of this parcel should begin now to bring the
Comprehensive Plan, the zoning map and the City Council directions to staff into
conformance with one another. Ideally, the reguiding would be prior to the establishment
of the new zoning district to avoid confusion.
Parks and Open Space District(s) Tentative Schedule:
The next steps regarding the new zoning districts and rezoning of City park land and open space
is outlined below.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will discuss the item on September 20, 2006
Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission will meet jointly on
October 4, 2006, to discuss this and other issues
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 18, 2006
The City Council will have the first reading of the ordinance on November 6, 2006
The City Council will have the Second Reading of the ordinance on November 20, 2006
The ordinance would be effective December 15, 2006
Attachments: Draft Zoning Ordinance Text
Parks and Open Space Parcel Map (supplement)
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (supplement)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 2 - Update On Park Zoning District
Page 4
PARKS OPEN SPACE
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses are
permitted in the parks district:
(1) Parks and open space.
(2) Parks and recreation.
(3) Golf course.
(4) Community center.
(5) Country Club.
(6) Park buildings.
(7) Other uses customary to parks, open
space and recreation.
(c) Conditional uses. The following uses shall be
conditional uses in a parks district:
(1) Police/fire stations.
(d) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be
permitted accessory uses in a P-R district:
(1) Public service structure.
(2) Utility substation.
(3) Communication tower.
(4) Signs.
(5) Parking.
(6) Offices.
(7) Gardening and other horticultural uses.
(8) Decorative landscape features.
(9) Other uses incidental to parks, open
space and recreation.
(e) Dimensional standards/densities.
(1) The principal structure shall be located at
least 25 feet from a lot in an R district.
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses
are permitted in the open space district:
(1) Parks and open space.
(2) Other uses customary to parks
and open space.
(c) Conditional uses. The following uses
shall be conditional uses in a parks district:
(1) Police/fire stations.
(d) Accessory uses. The following uses
shall be permitted accessory uses in an open
space district:
(1) Public service structure.
(2) Utility substation.
(3) Communication tower.
(4) Signs.
(5) Gardening and other horticultural
uses.
(6) Decorative landscape features.
(7) Other uses incidental to parks
and open space.
(d) Dimensional standards/densities.
(1) The principal structure shall be
located at least 25 feet from a lot
in an R district.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 3 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 1
3. 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 five 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 the study session on September 11, 2006. City Manager Tom Harmening will be at the
ICMA Conference on the 11th; Deputy City Manager/HR Director Nancy Gohman will take his
place at the meeting.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 082806 - 3 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Monday, September 11, 2006
7:00 p.m. Study Session starts
Discussion Items
A. Duke Concept Plan – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss/introduce the preliminary site plan for Duke’s proposed “West End”
project (I-394 & Hwy 100) for Council’s initial reaction to the plan.
B. Flame Metals – Inspections (45 minutes)
Update on Flame Metal processing.
C. Fire Station Preliminary Analysis – Inspections/Fire (60 minutes)
Update on the feasibility and associated costs of updating Fire Stations 1 & 2 and a
preliminary space assessment.
D. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
9:20 p.m. End of Meeting
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 4 - St. Louis Park Arts And Culture Grants
Page 1
4. St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grant Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To update Council on the St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants process and provide a
recommended list of projects for funding consideration.
BACKGROUND:
Council and staff discussed the concept of an arts grant program at study sessions on November
28, 2005 and April 10, 2006. Incorporated into the program are the items that were discussed at
the previous study session, including the change in focus from neighborhoods to community-
wide grants, the emphasis on art in parks and public places, and the criteria for evaluative
purposes.
The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grant program offered a total of $20,000 to fund art projects
and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engage people in
creative learning, and promote artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park.
The response to our solicitation was overwhelmingly positive, with 17 applications received by
the July 31 deadline.
The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grants review committee, comprised of Friends of the Arts,
city staff, and community members, met during the summer months to develop review
guidelines, meet with prospective applicants and identify applicants whose proposals best met
the objectives of the program.
It was a tough decision because of the high quality of the ideas and proposals submitted for
consideration. Of the 17 applications received, the committee is pleased to recommend eight arts
related projects for Council’s consideration. The following is a short summary of each project
with their budgeted request:
Asian Media Access - $3,500 to stage a traditional Chinese Opera, “A Dragon Odyssey”,
written by St. Louis Park residents Ange Hwang, Steve Lu and Qiang Yang. Their critically
acclaimed musical style opera will be performed in St. Louis Park, at no charge to residents. This
production was performed at the Fringe Festival/RedEye Theater in August 2006 and received
high praise. Following the performance in November, a discussion will be held to discuss the
creation process.
Bad Attitude Productions - $2,000 to produce William Shakespeare’s, “Love’s Labour Lost.”
Chris McGahon, a St. Louis Park Resident, will use a combination of actors from Bad Attitude
Productions (based in St. Louis Park) and St. Louis Park high school students to mount this play.
More than just the production, Mr. McGahon will help students grow as artists and introduce
them to the world of Shakespeare.
Forecast Public Artworks - $5,500 to coordinate and implement ONLY CONNECT…, which
will result in a temporary visual art installation on the chain link fence on West 36th Street,
bridging Highway 100. Project participants include artists and teens from St. Louis Park, and
successful completion of the project will culminate in a celebratory event. Artwork will be
installed for approximately 3-4 months.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 4 - St. Louis Park Arts And Culture Grants
Page 2
Harmony Theatre Company and School - $3,120 to stage a bi-lingual theater production of the
traditional Russian New Year Show, “Yolka”, planned for December 28, 2006 at the Groves
Academy in St. Louis Park. The review committee asked Harmony to consider a small
adjustment to their proposed budget, and dedicate the $390 requested for audience favors for
tickets instead. Harmony agreed to this change and now, approximately 35-40 tickets will be
made available to low-to-moderate income residents free of charge.
Julia Caston - $1,300 to paint a mural on the Perspectives building. Ms. Caston is a high school
student and will be working with a mentor, artist Denise Tennen, to implement her project.
Students at Perspectives and the High School will assist with the design and painting of the
mural, which will face the Perspectives’ playground.
Meadowbrook Collaborative - $1,534 to fund an 8-week multi-cultural drumming workshop
sponsored by Kenne Thomas for children at the Collaborative. Youth participants will hold
performances for the public at Meadowbrook, Lenox Senior Center and other locations after
completing the workshop series. Meadowbrook would like to videotape these performances for
rebroadcast.
St. Louis Park Schools - $1,800 to fund a partnership between the school district and dance
instructor/performer/choreographer Ann-Marie Draeger to engage 30-35 St. Louis Park students,
ages 8-14, in a dance project. Participants will learn improvisational and modern dance skills
and will perform at a free community event in December 2006. The theme of the dance centers
on the railroad and the development of St. Louis Park.
The Lenox Little Theatre, proposed by Bill Kenzie, originally submitted a request for $7,600 to
fund seven performances of “The Last Train to Nibroc” at the Lenox Little Theatre in November
2006. The review committee is proposing to use the remaining grant dollars, ($1,246 after
subtracting out requests for the above-mentioned proposals) to purchase tickets for distribution to
low-to-moderate income residents. Mr. Kenzie is supportive of the proposed budget and will be
able to move forward with the production without additional grant dollars. There will be seven
performances, and with only 48 seats in the theater and an approximate ticket price of $10-12, at
least 100 tickets can be made available for residents who would perhaps not be able to attend.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council support the recommendations of the St. Louis Park Arts &
Culture Review Committee and formally award the grant dollars at the September 5, 2006 City
Council Meeting.
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 5 - Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy
Page 1
5. Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy
Public Works
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To provide the City Council with an update on the policy development for replacing private
water service connections in conjunction with certain city street reconstruction projects and to
provide answers to questions asked by Council at their June 26th Study Session about this
proposed policy.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 26, 2006 City Council Study Session, staff presented information to the Council with
regards to developing a policy requiring the replacement of privately owned water service
connections beneath the street right-of-way in conjunction with street reconstruction projects. In
addition, information was provided on different funding mechanisms available to pay for those
water service line replacement costs. The attached June 26th Study Session Report provides
additional details about the need to proactively replace aging water service connections.
DISCUSSION:
Nearly every road in St. Louis Park has a watermain beneath it with private water service
connections attached to the main. As the service connections age there is an increasing tendency
for them to break and fail. When this occurs the property owner is responsible for making the
repairs or replacing the service line. This oftentimes requires the city street to be excavated to
make the necessary repairs. When this work occurs on a busy road, it can have a significant
impact on the traffic and safety of the community. Because of this, staff feels it may at times be
in the best interest of the community to require the replacement of aging service connections
while the city performs street reconstruction work. The benefits of this would be reduced
replacement costs for the property owner and less future traffic and infrastructure disruptions for
the community. Council agreed and thought it was important to move forward in developing a
formal practice requiring the replacement of water service connections on certain significant
streets. However, on local residential streets where traffic volumes are low and there are only
minor infrastructure investments, there does not appear to be a significant community interest or
need to require the replacement of water service connections in conjunction with street
reconstruction. It was felt that property owners on local residential streets should be allowed to
either proactively replace their water service connections in conjunction with the city’s street
reconstruction project and receive related cost saving benefits or choose to wait and repair /
replace the water service connection later at a higher personal expense should it fail.
FINANCIAL:
Three funding options were discussed at the Study Session - special assessments, voluntary
wavier of a special assessment, and a surcharge that would be added to the property owner’s
water utility bill. Council posed questions to staff about the different funding mechanisms and
directed staff to determine the best preferred method to insure successful collection of funds to
pay for required water service line replacement costs. Since the Study Session discussion, staff
from Engineering, Utilities, Finance and Assessing met with the City Attorney to discuss funding
options to determine a preferred method. The group unanimously agreed that the surcharge
method would be the best method to collect funds. The surcharge method eliminates the
potential for assessment appeals that could otherwise take place and it insures 100 percent
collection from the impacted properties. There would be no exemptions to any property that
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 5 - Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy
Page 2
would receive a new water service connection. The group agreed that the surcharge should be
spread over a 10 year period, similar to special assessment requests and the surcharge payments
would be equal over the period and would have the proper interest built into the charge.
State Statue 444 allows for reasonable charges to pay for maintenance, repair, construction,
reconstruction or other improvements of the utilities; this includes the addition of surcharges as
described above. However, the City Ordinance must be amended to include the proper language
to allow for this. Our City Attorney will draft the appropriate language for the amendment later
this year.
PROPOSED PRACTICE:
During the development of street reconstruction projects, staff thoroughly scopes the need for
replacing any aging underground utility that the city owns. With adoption of this policy, staff,
during its scoping process, would also identify the need to replace any aging water service
connection lines beneath the city right-of-way. The Utility Division’s asset management system
has a history of all water service connections attached to the city’s water main. If staff identifies
a need to replace water service connections on a particular proposed reconstruction project, this
would be identified early in the plan development process. Council and affected property
owners would be notified and allowed to comment as during the public involvement process. If
Council agrees with the need for water service line replacements, then staff will incorporate them
into the plans and the Project Report to Council. Council can then chose to approve the plans
and order the project including this work or ask staff to remove the work from the plans.
The proposed water service replacement practice would be only for replacing the service
connection from the watermain up to and including the water shut off valve which typically
resides on the edge of the right-of-way line. During the project development, it is likely that
property owners will ask about replacing their service connection all the way into their home or
building. City practice is not to work on private property. Staff will work with those interested
residents to provide contact information on contractors who perform this type of work so
property owners may solicit their own contractors. Property owners remain responsible for
hiring the contractor of their choosing and handling their financial obligations for the work
performed on their property.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has identified the next general steps needed to further develop this practice:
Fall 2006 – develop draft ordinance amendment
Winter 2007 – amend ordinance
Spring 2007 – ordinance amendment becomes effective
Attachments: June 26, 2006 Study Session Report
Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 5 - Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy
Page 3
STAFF REPORT OF JUNE 26, 2006 STUDY SESSION
3. Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy
Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To provide the City Council with information on the possible need to replace private water
service connections to the city’s watermain in conjunction with city street reconstruction projects
and to discuss funding mechanisms available to pay for the water service replacement costs.
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park delivers over 2 billion gallons of water yearly through an integrated
distribution system consisting of ~140 miles of underground watermain. There are over 13,000
service connections to the system. All service connections, from the main to the building, are
owned and maintained by the property owner. The majority of the water main is cast iron pipe,
installed in the 1950’s and 60’s to meet the growing demand for new home construction at that
time. Along with the installation of the watermain, most of the service connections where
installed at that time as well. The water system experiences an average of 30 watermain breaks
per year. A replacement program has been established that provides for the replacement of
watermains in coordination with the pavement management program.
On every street reconstruction or rehabilitation project, staff analyzes the condition of the
underground city utilities to determine if they should be replaced in conjunction with the street
work. Staff examines the frequency of watermain breaks, soil conditions, the volume of traffic
on the road and other relevant aspects to make the determination. Coordinating utility
replacements with street reconstruction/rehabilitation saves the city money.
A water service line consists of two segments, the segment beneath the city right-of way and the
segment beneath a property owner’s yard. Both segments are owned and maintained by the
property owner. Typically, a 3/4” copper line connects to the watermain in the center of the
street and runs to a shut-off valve located at the property line at the edge of the street right-of-
way. A 3/4” line from the valve then runs beneath the yard into the home and connects to the
water meter. The expected life of a service line is varied based on a variety of factors; however
after fifty years of service the probability of line failure increases significantly. A fifty year life
expectancy for water service lines is assumed for utility planning purposes.
When a water service line breaks, it is the property owner’s responsibility to either repair or
replace the service line. The cost to replace most service lines ranges from $2,000 to $5,000.
This unexpected expense can at times create a financial hardship for an owner. However, the
City’s special assessment policy allows a property owner to petition the City to have the expense
assessed over a period of ten years (several of these have just been recently approved by the
Council).
DISCUSSION:
When watermains are replaced, staff feels consideration should be given to replacing the private
water service line beneath the street right-of-way. It is likely the services have deteriorated along
with the watermain and have probably also reached the end of their service life. The cost of
replacing a service line during a street reconstruction project is significantly less than it would be
for a normal replacement. The typical cost to replace a service line during street construction is
$1,500 to $1,700 (about half) as compared to $2,000 to $5,000 for a normal replacement. It
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 5 - Water Utility Service Line Replacement Policy
Page 4
should be noted that the cost to replace a broken service line below a new street would be even
more costly due to the more stringent street restoration requirements.
Currently there is no City policy or practice to require replacement of water service connections
beneath the street right -of-way other than if the line breaks. Based on the age of our City and
infrastructure, staff feels it is appropriate to take a proactive approach in managing service line
replacements. Staff feels there are now circumstances that dictate the need to replace service
lines when street reconstruction occurs. For example, on higher volume traffic roads (e.g.
Excelsior Blvd west of TH 100) it is important to replace all of the aging utilities and service
connections susceptible to failure, thereby reducing future traffic disruptions, surface
restorations, and safety concerns that occur while performing utility repairs. On lower volume
residential streets (e.g. Kilmer neighborhood) it may be less important from a community
perspective to replace service lines during street reconstruction. However, the opportunity exists
to replace water service lines at a much reduced cost to property owners; it is also important to
preserve a new street surface for as long as reasonably possible thereby increasing the life of the
street.
Staff, with assistance from the City Attorney, has determined three possible funding options
available to cover water service replacement costs:
1. Special Assessment process (Statute 429). – This process involves some risk on appeals.
2. Obtain assessment waivers from 100% of the property owners to order improvement
without public hearings. – Without 100% approval, a full assessment process is required.
3. Add a surcharge to the water utility bill (Statute 444). This statute allows for reasonable
charges to pay for the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement,
maintenance, operation and use of the utility – Some additional administrative work
would be required of utility billing.
Because there are now circumstances which may dictate the need to require service line
replacements, with different funding options available for replacing water service connections,
Council may wish to direct staff to develop a policy for adoption.
QUESTIONS:
1. Does the City Council support a proactive approach in managing water service line
replacements in conjunction with City watermain replacements; or does Council prefer to
continue to allow property owners to repair/replace service lines to meet their needs?
2. If Council supports a proactive approach to replacing service lines, funding option #3
above ensures this work can be accomplished; does Council have a preference on a
particular funding option?
3. Should staff develop a water service line replacement policy for adoption?
Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 6 - General Government Budget Changes 2006-2007
Page 1
6. General Government Budget Changes 2006-2007 Finance
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
This report has been prepared to inform the City Council about the details making up the
significant changes shown in the 2007 proposed budget as requested during the discussion on
August 14.
BACKGROUND:
Council requested additional information on major budget changes. The attached list outlines the
major items that have impacted each of the general government budgets that showed significant
increases. The other expenditure changes, which are not detailed in this memo, are either salary
and benefit increases or relatively minor changes to operating expenditures (such as supplies).
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Significant Budget Changes
Attachment 2 – General Fund and Park and Recreation Expenditures
Prepared by: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 6 - General Government Budget Changes 2006-2007
Page 2
Attachment 1
Significant Budget Changes for Administrative Departments from 2006 to 2007
Administration/Legislative:
• $52,000 increase in legal prosecutor expenditures due to an hourly rate increase.
• $5,000 increase in recording secretary costs for all boards and commissions.
• $5,000 added for training and city council team building.
• $4,000 added for overtime.
Communications:
• In reviewing this budget, some items related to the marketing plan and changes in
staffing were recorded twice in error. This budget has dropped $37,780 from the
$257,011 originally presented.
Human Resources:
• $12,400 to increase the Office Assistant from .75 to 1.0 Full Time Equivalent (FTE).
• $4,400 increase to Medical Pre-Employment Testing expense.
• $5,000 increase in Organizational Development Consulting for classes.
Technology & Support Services:
• $15,000 added for temporary help in Tech Support.
• $25,000 increase in software maintenance for new programs
(Square Rigger, Pictometry, LandLogic, etc.)
• $25,000 increase in Other Contractual Services.
• $11,000 increase in LOGIS Computer Services expense.
• $11,000 increase in wireless costs.
Finance/Assessing:
• $10,000 added for an Assessing intern.
• $3,500 increase in audit fee expenses for a federal single audit.
Community Development:
• $29,000 for a .75 FTE benefit earning planner position has been added for 2007. This
position will be half funded from the General Fund and Economic Development Fund.
Facilities Maintenance:
• $160,000 was added to this budget for the building costs associated with the MSC.
• $14,000 increase in equipment maintenance costs.
• $3,500 was added for vehicle replacement to the budget.
Other:
Other budget increases are due to the projected 3% wage increase including steps and general
adjustments.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 6 - General Government Budget Changes 2006-2007
Page 3
General Fund and Parks & Recreation Expenditures
Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures By Department and Division
2006 2007
Department, Division 2005
and Activity Actual Adopted CM's Proposed
%
change
General Government:
Administration/Legislative $739,278
$907,399 $994,414 9.6%
Communications & Marketing 172,693 219,262 219,231 0.0%
Community Outreach 112,128 122,451 124,293 1.5%
Human Resources 505,270 531,287 569,212 7.1%
Technology and Support Services 1,322,796 1,384,839 1,506,837 8.8%
Finance 954,945 1,041,138 1,062,107 2.0%
Community Development 899,065 982,831 1,027,771 4.6%
Facilities Maintenance 809,422 913,624 1,120,726 22.7%
Total General Government 5,515,597 6,102,830 6,624,591 8.5%
Public Safety:
Police 5,824,347 6,695,044 6,687,106 -0.1%
Fire Protection 2,580,779 2,693,964 2,758,322 2.4%
Inspectional Services 1,613,036 1,735,299 1,791,444 3.2%
Total Public Safety
10,018,162
11,124,307 11,236,873 1.0%
Department of Public Works:
Public Works Administration 733,413 828,648 801,387 -3.3%
Engineering 647,230 724,824 747,102 3.1%
Operations 2,392,011 2,505,968 2,297,378 -8.3%
Total Public Works 3,772,654 4,059,440 3,845,866 -5.3%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,123,739 1,193,136 1,223,654 2.6%
Recreation Center 1,283,891 1,306,850 1,320,800 1.1%
Park Maintenance 1,532,978 1,527,675 1,369,089 -10.4%
Westwood 411,451 445,457 452,235 1.5%
Environment 826,793 273,618 277,112 1.3%
Vehicle Maintenance - - 1,004,234 100.0%
Total Park & Recreation 5,178,852 4,746,736 5,647,123 19.0%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency - 191,962 180,000 -6.2%
Transfer Out 1,331,323 -
Total Non-Departmental 1,331,323 191,962 180,000 -6.2%
Total General & Park Funds $25,816,588 $26,225,275 $ 27,534,452 5.0%
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 7 - July Financial Statements
Page 1
7. July 2006 Financial Statements Finance
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Attached are the July 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 seventh 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 seventh 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 July 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:
Revenue:
• Each year, the city receives property tax revenue in July and December. You will notice
the first part of the property tax settlement was received this month from the county and
is reflected under the general property tax revenue line item under the general fund.
• Overall, license and permit revenue experienced a reduction of approximately $73,000 in
July. While license revenue increased slightly by $5,000 for liquor licenses, permit
revenue experienced reduced revenue by $44,000 in building permits, $24,000 in
electrical permits, $8,000 in food/beverage permits and $2,000 in various miscellaneous
permits. In comparison to previous years, overall license and permit revenue have
increased significantly. This reduction only reflects that we are coming to the end of the
construction season and we should see a continual reduction of revenue within this area
over the next several months.
• Intergovernmental revenue decreased from June in the amount of approximately
$760,000. In July, the city received $22,000 for PERA and $220,000 for Highway user
tax aid. In addition, state grant revenue increased by $5,000 due to two months of E-911
grant funds received. However, these increases in comparison from June to July were
offset by the reclassification of market value homestead funds as noted in the June report.
• The increase of $16,000 in charges for services is due to $73,000 for two months of
Housing Authority wage reimbursement reflected in July and offset by a reduction of
$57,000 in project reimbursement of engineering services.
• The increase in miscellaneous revenue is primarily due to rent reimbursement not
reflected in June at the time of the report.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 7 - July Financial Statements
Page 2
Expenses:
• Personal Services expenditures increased from June due to an extra day reflected in July.
• Supplies increased by approximately $41,000. The majority of this increase, $37,000, is
for the purchase of asphalt in Public Works. The remaining $4,000 is for various
departmental purchases.
• The Fire department purchases of fitness equipment and defibrillators contributed to the
majority of the $10,000 increase in non-capital equipment.
• There were several increases in charges for services. The following departments
contributed to the majority of the overall increase: Communications & Marketing
increased by $12,000 for City Image Consulting Services, Community Outreach incurred
an additional $33,000 for the city and school volunteer program, $29,000 in Public
Works for engineering service and general infrastructure maintenance.
• An increase of $217,485 in Transfers is due to the recurring general fund transfers that
were not previously reflected in prior months. The YTD number reflects the accurate
YTD transfer amounts through July that was not recognized in prior month’s monthly
reports.
• Miscellaneous expense reflects an increase in July of $25,921.00 which is entirely
attributable to PCL Construction Services for the Fire Station floor repairs. This
expenditure will be reclassed from the general fund per the amended project list that
council approved for use of funds of the 2005 bond issue.
PARKS AND RECREATION:
Revenue:
• As mentioned above for the General Fund, each year, the city receives property tax
revenue in July and December. You will notice the first part of the property tax
settlement was received this month from the county and is reflected under the general
property tax revenue and special assessment revenue line items.
• Charges for Services revenue increased by approximately $49,000 which is attributable to
increased pool and concession revenue and program registrations.
Expenses:
• Personal Services expenditures increased from June due to an extra day reflected in July
as well as an increase in temporary summer help.
• The decrease of approximately $12,000 in supplies is primarily due to reduced pool
chemical purchases and miscellaneous general supplies.
• Capital Outlay decreased since there were no expenditures this month within this area.
The $8,021 which was noted last month for a compressor rebuild at the Recreation Center
will be reclassed out of the Park & Recreation fund per the amended project list that
council approved for use of funds of the 2005 bond issue.
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.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 082806 - 7 - July Financial Statements
Page 3
• 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.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Statements
Prepared By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager