HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/11/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
November 27, 2006
6:30 PM
Fire Station No. 1
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 6:30 p.m. SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline and Wooddale
2. 7:15 p.m. Sanitary Sewer Back-Up Policy
3. 7:45 p.m. Utilities Budget
4. 8:30 p.m. Fire Station Tour
5. 8:45 p.m. Facilities Planning Study Fire Station Phase
6. 9:45 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Written Items
7. Park Center TIF District Amendment
8. Interim Financial Report
9. City Hall Re-Roof
10. Parktacular Street Dance Update
11. Vision Timeline
9:50 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: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 1
1. SW LRT Trail Street Crossings Beltline and Wooddale Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To provide the City Council an opportunity to discuss options and recommendations provided in
the recently completed report by SRF Consulting Engineers and to provide staff with direction
with regards to further action as may be desired for the Regional Trail crossings at Beltline
Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 12, 2006 Study Session, the City Council received and reviewed a report from staff
that provided relevant background information and possible changes which could be considered
for the SWLRT Regional Trail crossings on Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue. At that
time staff implemented “immediate” actions at both crossings (removed the white crosswalk
pavement markings and increased size of trail signs so all trail users must now stop and yield to
vehicles). In addition, staff made arrangements for a traffic consultant to evaluate these two (2)
crossings to evaluate other possible options that may be available.
At the Study Session, Council discussed possible street crossing options, safety, and long term
improvements at these crossing locations and provided input to staff. Staff was directed to
prepare an action item for Council consideration based on this input for the June 19, 2006 City
Council meeting. A summary of the items directed for further investigation were as follows:
1. Beltline Boulevard
a. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings (previously completed).
b. Narrow the traffic lanes and add a median (safe haven) with appropriate warning
signs and markings.
c. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing.
d. Support the Park District trail/street grade separation project funded for 2010.
2. Wooddale Avenue
a. Remove the white crosswalk pavement markings (previously completed).
b. Close the existing trail crossing and relocate it south to the pedestrian crossing on
the north side of W36th Street.
c. Study the feasibility of converting the trail crossing to a pedestrian crossing.
d. Develop a future project to grade separate the Regional Trail from Wooddale
Avenue.
Staff was also directed to increase public education efforts aimed at improving trail crossing
safety.
Because the trail itself is owned by Three Rivers Park District (Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale
Avenue are City streets), the City and Park District have worked together cooperatively on this
issue. Three Rivers Park District has provided additional assistance as follows:
1. Continuing use of a District public safety presence aimed at public education and trail
stop sign enforcement as resources have allowed.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 2
2. Monitoring of trail crossings at Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue (as
resources allow) to assess the effectiveness of the recent crossing changes made by
the City.
ANALYSIS:
SRF Consulting Engineers has completed a report that reviews and evaluates several measures
for consideration at the Beltline and Wooddale crossings. The measures vary extensively in both
the size and type, and the length of time and cost they may take to implement. Among the
factors considered were as follows:
1. Overall safety and traffic flow for both trail users and roadway users.
2. Anticipated time in which a particular solution can be implemented.
3. Short term “immediate” fixes vs. long-term improvements.
4. Possible changes to both roadways and trail configurations to improve safety.
5. Safety, traffic, and construction impacts to neighboring properties, including adjacent
railroad and street intersections.
6. Roadway vs. trail user right of way along with reducing or eliminating confusion
amongst users.
7. Estimated costs.
8. Other factors as discussed in the report.
Report Summary
A full copy of the SRF report is attached for reference and review. Although there are several
options to evaluate and consider, the following general summary and recommendation is
provided as follows:
1. A grade-separated crossing is the best permanent solution for both crossings. Currently,
Three Rivers Park District has secured funding to provide for a crossing at Beltline in
2010. The cost of a separated grade crossing is approximately $1.0 -$1.5 M.
2. A more immediate “interim” solution would be the construction of a median with a
refuge area for both the Beltline and Wooddale crossings. Other interim measures for
consideration would be a signalized crossing at Beltline and relocation of the trail and
crossing on Wooddale. A temporary median was more recently installed this summer on
Beltline and has received positive feedback. However, an improved and more permanent
type of raised median may be desired.
Discussion
A draft of the SRF Report was recently discussed among staff of Three Rivers Park District, the
City and the Consultant. In addition to discussing possible safety implications, the alternatives in
the SRF report were also viewed in terms of long-term vs. short-term solutions, high cost vs.
low-cost solutions, and implementation times. More specifically, the following alternatives were
identified by the group for Council consideration and can be generally summarized as follows:
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 3
Beltline
Long Term Options:
1. Grade separated crossing (funded for 2010)
Interim Options:
1. High Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with widened 4-lane road without a
designated crosswalk ($75,000 - $150,000). Possibly available late 2007 to mid
2008.
2. High Cost Solution: Signalized crosswalk on the existing 4-lane road ($50,000 -
$100,000). Possibly available late 2007 to mid 2008.
3. Mid Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with narrowed 2-lane road without a
designated crosswalk ($50,000). Possibly available mid 2007. May also require
signalization of the Park Glen Rd / Beltline Blvd intersection ($200,000).
4. Low Cost Solution: Construct a raised median on the existing 4-lane road without
a designated crosswalk (less than $25,000). Possibly available spring of 2007.
5. Other: Do nothing (leave as is).
Wooddale
Long Term Options:
1. Grade separated crossing (currently not funded)
Interim Options:
1. High Cost Solution: Center median (refuge) with widened 4-lane road without a
designated crosswalk ($75,000 - $150,000). Possibly available late 2007 to mid
2008.
2. Mid Cost Solution: Re-align trail and relocate crossing to the Hwy 7 intersection
($40,000 - $50,000). Possibly available spring of 2007.
3. Low Cost Solution: Construct a raised median on the existing 4-lane road without
a designated crosswalk ($25,000). Possibly available spring of 2007.
4. Other: Do nothing (leave as is).
All of the above solution alternatives are described further in the SRF report. This includes
further details (including pros and cons) of each alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that staff be directed as follows:
1. Work with Three Rivers Park District to secure funding for a separated grade crossing at
Wooddale Avenue in coordination with the proposed 2009 Hwy 7 / Wooddale Ave
interchange project.
2. Continue to work with Three Rivers Park District on public education and monitoring
activities at the crossings.
3. Proceed with implementation of any interim improvement measures at these crossings as
directed by Council.
Attachments: SRF Report, dated November 10, 2006
Prepared by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 4
SRF No. 0065791
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Brink, PE, City Engineer
City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Patrick Corkle, PE, PTOE, Senior Associate
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
DATE: November 10, 2006
SUBJECT: SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRAIL CROSSING ALTERNATIVES –
WOODDALE AVENUE AND BELTLINE BOULEVARD
INTRODUCTION
We have completed a study to assess trail crossing alternatives for the Southwest Regional Trail
crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard in the City of St. Louis Park. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate options to improve the operation and safety for both roadway
and trail users at the crossing of Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. Both crossings
experience a high volume of pedestrian/bicycle traffic and moderate vehicular traffic. Previously,
there were marked crosswalks for the Southwest Regional Trail as it crossed Wooddale Avenue
and Beltline Avenue. With the marked crosswalks, there was confusion with the crosswalk law
by motorists and trail users, which requires motorists to stop for pedestrians, not bicyclists, in the
crosswalk. Due to the confusion and safety concerns associated with the marked crosswalks,
they were recently removed. The existing trail stops signs were replaced with larger signs and
supplemented with an “All Trail Users Must Stop” sign. This situation requires all trail users to
stop for traffic on Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard.
Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard are currently four-lane roadways with a posted speed
limit of 30 mph at the trail crossings. Daily vehicular volumes range from 10,000 to 15,000 on
both roadways. The combination of high trail use, crossing four lanes of traffic, moderate
roadway volumes, an adjacent railroad and a crosswalk law not understood by all users, creates
an unsafe condition for all modes of travel.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 5
SUMMARY
Crossing options were developed and evaluated at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard.
These alternatives can be summarized into two groups. One group is based on the type of
crossing (crosswalk, traffic control devise, installation of medians, relocation or separation of
crossing) and the other is based on the type of roadway cross-section (four-lane undivided, four-
lane divided and two-lane divided). To organize the crossing options, we listed the following
trail-crossing options based on the roadway cross-section.
At Beltline Boulevard, all three types of roadway cross-sections could be considered, although
only certain crossing options should be used for each cross-section.
Four-lane undivided roadway
A traffic control device should be used with this roadway cross-section. The device could either
be warning flashers, traffic signal or “hawk” pedestrian flasher/signal. The striped crosswalk
would be re-installed with these devices (Options 4 and 5). The traffic signal device would
require coordination with the railroad.
The other option would be to remove the at-grade crossing by relocating it or to provide a grade
separation. Re-alignment of the trail would require the crossing of a free-right island at CSAH
25, which is not desirable. The grade separation has received federal funding and should be
constructed in 2010. (Options 2 and 3)
Four-lane divided roadway
A median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. An important detail would
be the width of the median, to provide refuge for trail users (pedestrians, bicyclists and bicyclists
with buggies). The crosswalk could be re-installed, since it will significantly reduce the
complications of a trail user crossing the roadway if a refuge area is provided. (Options 9 and
10).
Two-lane divided roadway
A wide median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. Roadway traffic would
not be requested to stop, therefore a crosswalk should not be striped. The shorter crossing
distance would make the crossing easier for trail users. The roadway transition from two lanes to
one lane south of the CSAH 25 intersection could be difficult. Additionally, a traffic signal at
Beltline Boulevard/Park Glen Road may be needed for the cross-street traffic (Options 11 and
12).
The other three devices (Options 6, 7 and 8) are variations of re-installing the striped crosswalk
without enough enhancements to provide additional safety.
Our review of the feasible trail crossing alternatives at Beltline Boulevard is summarized in the
following table:
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 6
Table 1
Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives – Beltline Boulevard
No. Crossing Option
Traffic Flow Safety Construction
Cost Roadway Trail Roadway Trail
1 No Crosswalk
(current condition)
Good Poor Fair Fair to
Poor
$0
2 Grade-Separated
Crossing
Good Good Good Good $1,000,000
3 Relocation of Crossing Good Poor Good to
Fair
Fair $25,000
4 Traffic Signal with
Crosswalk
Fair Fair Fair Good to
Fair
$100,000
5 Pedestrian Warning
Devices with Crosswalk
Poor Good to
Fair
Fair to
Poor
Fair $50,000
6 Striped Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
7 Speed Advisory with
Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
8 Relocation of Stop Bars
with Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
9 Center Median without
Refuge (no widening)
Good to
Fair
Poor Fair Fair to
Poor
$25,000
10 Center Median with
Refuge (widen road)
Good Fair to
Poor
Good to
Fair
Fair $50,000-
$150,000 (1)
11 Center Median with
Refuge (lose a lane)
Fair Fair Fair Fair $50,000
12 Center Median with
Bump-outs (lose a lane)
Fair to
Poor
Fair Fair to
Poor
Fair $30,000
Note (1): Cost varies greatly depending on the impacts to the railroad crossing and equipment.
At Wooddale Avenue, the feasible options are limited. The traffic congestion and traffic signal
spacing between 36th Street and TH 7 does not allow for a traffic control device, striped
crosswalk, or reduction in the number of lanes (Options 4-8, 11 and 12).
Four-lane undivided roadway
The only options which would improve the crossing condition are a re-alignment of the trail to
the TH 7 or 36th Street traffic signal, or a grade separation. Since re-alignment to 36th Street
requires crossing the railroad tracks, TH 7 may be the better choice. In addition, the re-
alignment of the trail to TH 7 would occur on city property (Options 2 and 3).
Four-lane divided roadway
A median would be constructed in the roadway at the trail crossing. An important detail would
be the width of the median, to provide a refuge for trail users (pedestrians, bicyclists and
bicyclists with buggies). The crosswalk should not be re-installed (Options 9 and 10).
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 7
Two-lane divided roadway
This roadway configuration is not feasible at this location. The negative impact on roadway and
adjacent intersections operations could be significant.
Our review of the feasible trail crossing alternatives at Wooddale Avenue is summarized in the
following table:
Table 2
Summary of Trail Crossing Alternatives – Wooddale Avenue
No. Crossing Option
Traffic Flow Safety Construction
Cost Roadway Trail Roadway Trail
1 No Crosswalk
(current condition)
Good Poor Good to
Fair
Fair to
Poor
$0
2 Grade-Separated
Crossing
Good Good Good Good $1,000,000
3 Relocation of Crossing
Realignment of Trail
Good Fair to Poor Good to
Fair
Good to
Fair
$40,000
4 Traffic Signal --- --- --- --- ---
5 Pedestrian Warning
Devices with Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
6 Striped Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
7 Speed Advisory with
Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
8 Relocation of Stop Bars
with Crosswalk --- --- --- --- ---
9 Center Median without
Refuge (no widening)
Good to
Fair
Poor Fair Fair to
Poor
$25,000
10 Center Median with
Refuge (widen road)
Good Fair to Poor Good to
Fair
Fair $75,000-
$150,000 (1)
11 Center Median with
Refuge (lose a lane) --- --- --- --- ---
12 Center Median with
Bump-outs (lose a lane) --- --- --- --- ---
Note (1): Cost varies greatly depending on the impacts to the railroad crossing and equipment.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
We do not recommend re-installing a striped crosswalk without other improvements. An
additional treatment is needed to enhance the crossing (median, warning flasher, etc.), or a
different strategy is needed altogether (traffic signal, crossing relocation, etc.).
Based on our review and analysis of the trail crossing alternatives, we recommend grade-
separated crossings at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard. As an interim solution, a
median with a refuge area (as feasible) should be installed at the Beltline Boulevard and
Wooddale Avenue crossings. Within the past few weeks, a temporary six-foot marked median
was installed on Beltline Boulevard at the trail crossing. It is our understanding that the
feedback has been positive and the temporary measure is operating safely. Therefore, if the
temporary median at the Beltline Boulevard crossing continues to receive positive feedback and
is observed to be operating safely, a “permanent” raised curb median should be installed and no
other devices would be required for the interim condition.
Another interim solution for the Beltline Boulevard crossing is a fully-actuated traffic signal (or
“Hawk” pedestrian flasher/signal). Another interim solution for the Wooddale Avenue crossing
is re-alignment of the trail to the TH 7 intersection.
DISSCUSSION
Further discussion of each alternative is summarized below:
1. No Crosswalk (Current Condition)
The current crossing control requires all trail users yield to the roadway users. The trail
users must wait for a gap in traffic to cross. Peak hour roadway traffic will reduce the
number of crossing opportunities and increase waiting times. Many studies show that
unmarked crossings are safer (particular for roadways with ADT over 10,000, similar to
Beltline Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue); we attribute this result to pedestrians assuming
vehicles will stop for them just because they are in a crosswalk.
2. Grade-Separated Crossing
The grade-separated crossing would be the only trail/roadway crossing alternative that
would provide a high level of flow and be safe for both drivers and trail users. An
underpass is recommended at these locations to capture the highest number of bicycle and
pedestrians to use the trail crossing. Many times overpass crossings are not used by
pedestrians/bicyclists due to the stairs/ramps that are required on each side.
The main benefit of a grade-separated crossing is the elimination of conflicts between trail
and roadway users. This option also eliminates the confusion of the crosswalk law. In
addition, a grade-separated crossing provides the highest level of safety where trail users
can enjoy the experience of the trail and drivers can use the roadway without impedance
from crossing trail users.
The downside to a grade-separated crossing is its high cost ranging from $800,000 to
$1,200,000.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 9
For Beltline Boulevard, federal funding has been designated for a grade-separated crossing
in the year 2010. Since future funding is identified for a grade-separated crossing at this
location, all other options should be considered temporary. Further evaluation of funding
alternatives should also be considered to determine whether a joint effort to advance the
construction of a grade-separation is possible.
Federal funding or other financing mechanisms should be evaluated for a grade-separated
crossing at Wooddale Avenue. All other options should be consider an interim solution,
with the ultimate goal of providing a grade-separation.
3. Relocation of Trail Crossing
Under this alternative, trail users would be routed to a safer crossing location than the
existing mid-block crossing. To cross Beltline Boulevard, trails users would be directed to
the CSAH 25 traffic signal. The additional travel distance would be 1,100 feet. A new
trail segment would need to be constructed on the westside of Beltline Boulevard from
CSAH 25 to the existing trail. To cross Wooddale Avenue, the trail could be re-aligned to
either the TH 7 or 36th Street signalized intersection. The re-alignment would occur on
city owned property.
At the Beltline Boulevard crossing, many trail users would likely continue to cross at the
existing location because of the additional distance. They would also have to cross the free
right-turn movement from TH 7.
At the Wooddale Avenue crossing, the trail re-alignment to the TH 7 intersection would be
relatively easy.
The cost of providing addition trail is a medium-cost option estimated at $10,000 to
$40,000.
4. Traffic Signal with Crosswalk
Another option is the installation of a traffic signal. Although many different types of
traffic signals could be used, a fully-actuated signal with push buttons for trail users and
loop detectors for vehicles, at a minimum, should be considered. The device would operate
with vehicles seeing a green indication and trail users seeing a steady “don’t walk” symbol.
The trail user presses the pushbutton to identify the need to service the trail. The signal for
the vehicles would change from green to yellow to red, and the trail user would receive a
walk indication. The flashing don’t walk (we would recommend the use of a pedestrian
countdown timers) would follow and then the return to the vehicles receiving a green
indication. This operation would be the same as the traffic signal at Northwest Boulevard
(CSAH 61) at the Bass Lake Playfields. In addition, the signal would need to be
interconnected with the railroad crossing equipment.
Alternatively a “Hawk” pedestrian flasher/signal could be installed. The operation of the
device is described in the following by the City of Tucson, Arizona. The unit is normally
off until activated by a pedestrian. When a pedestrian wishes to cross the street, they press
a button and the signal begins with a FLASHING YELLOW indication to warn the
approaching drivers, just like a school bus signal. The FLASHING YELLOW is then
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 10
followed by a SOLID YELLOW indication, advising the drivers to prepare to stop. The
signal is then changed to a SOLID RED indication at which time the pedestrian is shown a
WALK indication. The beacon signal then converts to an ALTERNATING FLASHING
RED, allowing the drivers to proceed when safe, after stopping at the crosswalk. This
operation and signal sequence does not follow the current MUTCD (although should be
included in the 2008 version), therefore an exemption would be needed. The cost of this
device would be around $100,000 per system. Additional investigation should be
completed to determine if the “Hawk” system has railroad pre-emption capabilities. We do
not want a device stopping vehicles on the railroad tracks when a train is approaching.
The installation of a traffic signal would dramatically improve overall safety for a trail user
at these crossings by providing a controlled location, that would require all vehicles to stop
when a trail user activates the pedestrian push button at the crossing. Comparing the traffic
signal to the existing condition, a traffic signal would cause more disruption to the traffic
flow and additional delays to motorists by requiring drivers to stop for crossing trail users.
A traffic signal requires vehicles to stop, increasing the opportunities for rear-crashes.
However, changing the traffic signal indication is more predictable to a motorist than a trail
user using a striped crosswalk. Trail users would be more satisfied with this option than no
crossing or having to wait for a gap in traffic.
A traffic signal at either location would require coordination with the railroad. The traffic
and railroad signals would need to be interconnected. Some type of vehicle detection
would be required to prevent vehicles from being trapped in the dilemma zone and
stopping on the railroad tracks. The detection will require an underground crossing of the
railroad tracks.
The installation of a new traffic signal on Wooddale Avenue between the current signals at
36th Street and TH 7 would create three very close spaced signalized intersections. Based
on past studies, congestion and delay on Wooddale Avenue and 36th Street is significant
during the peak periods. Current peak hour conditions include heavy queues from TH 7
already extending into the trail crossing area. Based on these factors, we would not
recommend the installation of a traffic signal at the Wooddale Avenue trail crossing. A
traffic signal installed at the Beltline Boulevard crossing should have no impact on adjacent
intersections.
A traffic signal is a moderate-cost option ranging from $80,000 to $120,000 per system. At
this cost, consideration should be given to preserving these funds to construct a grade-
separated crossing. This option should not be combined with the center median options
(discussed in the following sections).
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 11
5. Pedestrian Warning Devices with Crosswalk
Traffic control devices such as pedestrian warning flashers and/or in-pavement warning
lights could be installed at the trail crossings. If warning flashers are installed, they would
be activated by the trail user pushing a button. The lights would immediately start flashing
and remain active for a pre-set amount of time. If warning lights are considered, they
should not continuously flash. It is recommended that the device be pedestrian-actuated
with a push button, instead of being actuated by another type of sensor.
Pedestrian-actuated flashing lights would alert drivers when a pedestrian/bicyclist is
entering the crossing, since the use of the trail occurs at varying times throughout the day
and not all trail users wish to cross at this location. An overhead flashing beacon would be
recommended based on the number of lanes and roadway and trail user volumes. The
crosswalk striping would also be reinstalled. This option does not control the trail
crossing, since roadway users would yield to trail users. Many of these devices were
installed five to eight years ago. A cursory review of these systems show a positive
response from city staff; however, not as the only solution. Median options maybe a better
option, or they could be used in conjunction with warning flashers. Median options allow
trail users to cross the roadway in simpler stages (observation of traffic in one direction,
shorter crossing distance and more adequate gaps to cross), while not providing a false
sense of safety when using a striped crosswalk or significant impact to vehicles.
The cost of pedestrian warning devices is estimated at $40,000 to $50,000.
6. Striped Crosswalk
A striped crosswalk was originally installed with construction of the trail. Re-installing the
crosswalk and advanced warning signs could be an option, but not recommended.
The crosswalks were removed because of trail user and vehicle confusion. Pedestrians
have a false sense of safety when using a striped crosswalk, as they may assume vehicles
will stop for them. The law requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. The
roadway is four-lanes wide at the crossing. The four-lanes create a “multiple threat”
situation. A vehicle in one lane stops for the pedestrian to cross and another vehicle
traveling in the same direction (in the other lane) fail to see the pedestrian, or just fail to
stop, and strikes the pedestrian
The cost of a re-installing the crosswalk and signing is a low-cost option at $2,000. We do
not recommend just re-installing the striped crosswalk and warning signs. An additional
treatment is needed to enhance the crossing (median, warning flasher, etc.), or a different
strategy is needed altogether (traffic signal, crossing relocation, etc.).
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 12
7. Speed Advisory Warning Sign with Crosswalk
This alternative would install a speed advisory sign to warn drivers of approaching trail.
The sign would be located in advance of the trail crossing and could be attached to the
pedestrian crossing ahead sign posts, if the crosswalk striping were re-installed. The sign
could also be a stand alone sign stating "High Use Trail Ahead” with a supplemental speed
plaque “25 mph". The advisory speed would not be enforceable, but would at least warn
drivers of the approaching trail.
If the crosswalk striping were not re-installed, this option may lead to driver confusion on
whether they are required to yield for trail users. Therefore, a striped crosswalk would be
installed with this option. Previously, warning signs were installed warning of the trail
crossing. Changing the warning sign type would not have a significant improvement on
safety, therefore we would not recommend this option by itself.
The cost to install a new sign is a low-cost option of $1,000 to 2,000.
8. Relocation of Stop Bars with Crosswalk
Since Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard are currently four lanes, there is the
potential that motorists in the outside lane do not have sufficient sight distance to see a
bicyclist/pedestrian due to a car in the adjacent lane blocking their line of sight. The
crosswalk would be re-installed, stop/yield lines would be painted in advance of the
crossing (approximately 100 feet) to open the line of sight for drivers in all lanes of traffic
to be able to see the pedestrian/bicyclist entering the crossing.
The relocation of the stop bars would improve the sight and stopping distance at the trail
crossings at a minimal cost. One challenge with this type of treatment at these locations is
the close proximity to the railroad crossings. Drivers would need advance warning prior to
the railroad crossing to stop prior to the tracks. Other challenges include driver
compliance, re-installation of the crosswalk striping, and the driver’s ability to view trail
users at the crossing.
This option is not recommended for these crossings due to the proximity of the railroad
tracks and adjacent intersections. However, it could be an option at other crossing
locations.
The cost to relocate the stop bars is a low-cost option of $1,000 to $2,000.
9. Center Median without Refuge Area
A center median without a refuge area includes the construction of a narrow center median
(temporary or permanent) in the roadway. The median would be approximately four feet in
width and would not be intended for trail user storage. This still creates a situation with
drivers and trail users to make decisions at the crossing. Installation of median delineator
markers (temporary) would provide minimal safety benefits for pedestrians, due to the lack
of a physical barrier (curb) between the pedestrian and moving vehicles.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 13
The review of this option does not include a striped crosswalk, although it could be
included at Beltline Boulevard but not at the Wooddale Avenue crossing. Installing the
center median without widening the roadway requires narrowing the roadway travel lanes
and likely cause a reduction in vehicle speed. The median would identify the crossing
location by providing a raised element in the roadway. If the driving lanes are narrowed,
the potential of vehicle/vehicle sideswipe crashes may increase. Consideration should be
given to providing a solid white line, instead of broken, between lanes in the area of the
median to reduce lane changing maneuvers.
Trail users will receive improvements in safety due to the reduction in vehicle speed and
identification of the crossing. The trail users still will need to yield to vehicular traffic.
The cost of a permanent center median without widening the roadway is a low-cost option
ranging from $15,000 to $25,000.
10. Center Median with Refuge (widen roadway)
A center median with a large enough area to provide a pedestrian refuge would require
widening of the roadway. The widening will require modification of the roadway at the
train tracks, which could include the need to relocate the gate arms. For these reasons, this
alternative would also require coordination with the railroad.
The review of this option does not include a striped crosswalk, although it could be
included. This option provides operational and safety benefits for both roadway and trail
users. Roadway users would not need to stop for trail users, the number of lanes would be
maintained and lane width could be slightly narrowed. The roadway would probably need
to be widened at the railroad crossing. If roadway widening is needed, consideration
should be given to upgrading the crossing and median to meet Whistle Quiet Zone
requirements.
Trail users would see a benefit in operation and safety over the existing condition. A
refuge area allows trail users to make the crossing maneuver in a two step process. A trail
user only needs to watch for gaps in traffic for one direction and the crossing distance is cut
in half.
The cost of a permanent center median with widening the roadway is a medium-cost option
ranging from $50,000 to $150,000.
11. Center Median with Refuge Area (remove a roadway lane)
A center median with a refuge area created by the removal of a roadway lane is feasible for
the Beltline Boulevard crossing, but not at Wooddale Avenue. Wooddale Avenue between
TH 7 and 36th Street has capacity and operational issues, so reducing the number of lanes
should not be an option.
This option should not include a striped crosswalk. The center median with a large enough
area to provide a pedestrian refuge would require the removal of a roadway lane in each
direction at the crossing to maintain the existing roadway width. The lane removal could
be done near the crossing, requiring traffic to merge into one lane or develop a three-lane
section between CSAH 25 and 36th Street.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 1 - SW LRT Street Crossings Beltline And Wooddale
Page 14
The roadway operation and safety would be negatively impacted due to the merging of the
through lanes. Although, merging traffic would have minimal impact to adjacent
intersections. The exception would be Beltline Boulevard/Park Glen Road intersection, a
traffic signal may be needed to allow vehicles onto Beltline Boulevard during peak periods
of traffic.
On Beltline Boulevard, the roadway could be modified to two-lane section with left-turn
lanes between CSAH 25 and 36th Street. The roadway safety and operation of a two-lane
section with left-turn lanes at the intersections would be better than merging traffic to a
single lane near the crossing. The only difficulty would be the transition south of the TH 7
intersection, currently a lane adds southbound from the eastbound TH 7 free right.
Trail users would see a benefit in operation and safety over the existing condition. A
refuge area allows trail users to make the crossing maneuver in a two step process. A trail
user only need to watch for gaps in one direction and the crossing distance is cut by one-
fourth. The number of gaps will be reduced because the roadway traffic is concentrated
into one lane. Although, the benefit of the shorter crossing distance and refuge area are
more beneficial.
The cost of a permanent center median with removing a through lane in each direction is a
medium-cost option ranging from $50,000 to $75,000.
12. Center Median with Bump-outs
On Beltline Boulevard, the installation of curb extensions or bump-outs could be
considered by reducing the number of traffic lanes from four to two at the trail crossing
location. This would reduce the distance of the roadway that pedestrians are required to
cross. With the reduction of traffic lanes, a center median area could be installed wide
enough to provide a pedestrian/bike refuge area. This is not an option at the Wooddale
Avenue crossing.
A striped crosswalk should not be included with this option. This option would increase
the visibility for pedestrians waiting to cross. In addition, the pedestrian crossing signs
could be placed near the nose of the bump-out to be more visible to motorists on Beltline
Boulevard. One disadvantage of curb extensions is the potential for drivers to run into
them during darkness or poor weather conditions. If the installation is of a temporary
nature (i.e. delineator markers), the buffer provides no physical protection from vehicles.
Also, the reduction in the number of lanes would require vehicles to merge prior to the
crossing, creating a conflict point and potential for an increase in vehicle crashes.
The cost of this improvement is low, ranging from $20,000 to $30,000.
H:\Traffic\5791\FinalMemo110806 slp.doc
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 2 - Sanitary Sewer Backup Policy
Page 1
2. Sanitary Sewer Backup Policy Public Works
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To provide Council with follow up information and to request further direction in revising the
City’s policy in responding to resident costs associated with sanitary sewer backups.
BACKGROUND:
At the September 25th Council Study Session, staff provided Council with information about
insurance coverage and policy options available for dealing with residents when they are harmed
by sewer backups through no fault of their own. Council provided direction to staff on policy
options they felt appropriate. Staff committed to preparing a draft policy / program description
along with a cost / rate analysis. Staff was also to develop an implementation strategy and a
public education plan.
DRAFT POLICY / PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
Based on past known backups (about 12 per year estimated to currently cause on average about
$50,000 per year in various property damages), the following policy has been developed by the
City to address damages to residential properties associated with sewer backups in City sewer
lines:
1. Damages associated with backups occurring in City sewer lines should be considered for
cost reimbursement by the City. Backups occurring in privately owned sewer lines (i.e.,
Townhome Associations, etc) and property owner service lines will not be considered.
2. Additionally, only dwelling units or dwellings (as defined by the State Building Code)
served with an individual service will be considered for cost reimbursement by the City
(i.e., essentially single family homes or duplexes).
3. Owner out of pocket costs in the following areas will be eligible for reimbursement by
the City:
Clean up (includes removal and disposal of all damaged property)
Building restoration (to original condition)
Damages to the following furnishings - furnace, water heater, clothes washer and
dryer, freezer, computers, televisions, stereos, furniture, and dehumidifier
4. City reimbursement will only be considered once to an owner and will be limited to:
A maximum of $10,000 (beyond any insurance available to the insured) if the owner
has either backflow insurance and/or a properly installed backflow prevention device;
or
A maximum of $5,000 if an owner has neither insurance nor a properly installed
backflow prevention device
5. This reimbursement program will be administered by LMCIT in conjunction with the
City’s liability insurance.
6. The Council reserves the right to revise this policy or discontinue it at any time.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 2 - Sanitary Sewer Backup Policy
Page 2
ISSUES:
While preparing the draft policy / program description and the cost / rate analysis directed by
Council, staff identified a concern with item #4 above - reimbursement amounts and limitations.
The draft policy provides for reimbursements in lower cost damage situations (most frequent
occurrence), whether an owner has insurance or not, and limits reimbursement amounts in high
damage situations (very infrequent) when private property insurance coverage may not be
available to residents. The insurance market generally provides coverage for sewer backups in
the $5,000 to $10,000 range; however, coverage beyond $10,000 is not readily available so for
our purposes it should probably be assumed that most residents will have sewer backup coverage
of no more than $10,000.
There is essentially no incentive or reason (if you play the odds) for owners to carry sewer
backup insurance as the draft reimbursement policy is currently proposed since a City
reimbursement of up to $5,000 will cover over 90% or more of all backup situations; from a
practical perspective, the current reimbursement proposal essentially holds most residents
harmless from most backups with no real need for them to even obtain backup insurance. It is
likely our annual cost associated with this reimbursement practice would be in excess of $40,000
per year. Yet when damages are high and insurance coverage is not available, the proposed
reimbursement policy leaves residents exposed to large costs through no fault of their own. Staff
is concerned the City will expend more funds paying for damage costs when insurance is readily
available to residents than when insurance is not available to them. It appears if property owners
carry insurance and the City reimbursement practice is aimed at resident costs incurred beyond
insurance availability, City costs can be reduced and all owners can generally be protected from
the cost of damages associated with sewer backups.
What do we want to accomplish with a reimbursement policy?
Reimburse out of pocket costs to most owners damaged in low cost claims?
• No incentive for owners to update or maintain their plumbing system
• No incentive for owners to obtain backup insurance
• City reimbursement costs estimated to exceed $40,000 per year
• Owners in high property damage situations suffer significant out of pocket costs
Reimburse out of pocket costs to owners when insurance is not available?
• Provides an incentive for owners to update or maintain their plumbing system
• Provides an incentive for owners to obtain backup insurance
• City reimbursement costs estimated at less than $40,000 per year
• Owners in high property damage situations do not suffer significant out of pocket
costs
Staff feels it makes sense to incent owners to carry insurance, maintain their plumbing, and then
hold them harmless during high damage backups (very infrequent). This can be done by revising
option #4 above to:
4. City reimbursement will only be considered once to an owner and will be limited to out
of pocket expenses over $5,000, but not to exceed $50,000.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 2 - Sanitary Sewer Backup Policy
Page 3
This practice will limit City liability and yet cover very infrequent high-end non-insured costs. It
also means most owners should really carry a minimum of $5,000 sewer backup insurance
coverage for their own protection.
SUMMARY:
Once Council provides direction on concern identified above, staff will finalize preparation of
the draft policy and program description, an implementation strategy, and a public education
plan. It is expected that implementing the above measure will cost the City less money than the
previously directed policy and will not require a corresponding utility rate increase at this time.
Prepared By: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Reviewed By: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 1
3. 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget Discussion Finance
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to review the proposed budgets and utility rates for each of the
enterprise funds that St. Louis Park operates. There are four business-type activities that the city
runs – the Water, Sewer, Storm Water, and Solid Waste funds. These businesses need to cover
the cost of their operations on an annual basis and provide sufficient cash flow to pay for capital
expenditures.
This year, there are two funds which required significant analysis in setting the rates. We asked
Ehlers & Associates to help us in understanding the numbers for the water and storm water
funds. We approached this analysis with two goals in mind – we want to aim for a fund balance
of 50% of operating revenues to buffer any major fluctuations in usage and we want to be able to
finance all of the capital projects that are contemplated in the CIP. An analysis of the proposed
changes is attached to this report.
The sewer and solid waste funds are essentially unchanged from the projections made last year.
BACKGROUND:
Water Fund
The water system revenue has covered its operating costs for many years. However, a very
aggressive capital improvement plan has drawn down the available cash. We have worked to
balance the amount of cash on hand and water rates to pay for both parts of the operation. The
good news is that St. Louis Park takes its water quality very seriously. This comes with a cost –
staff is recommending an increase in water rates by fourteen cents per unit (100 cubic feet or 750
gallons) for 2007.
We have evaluated the possibility of changing the structure of our rate system to provide
incentives for water conservation. Starting in 2008, we have included a system for residential
usage that includes rate tiers that will trigger higher fees for higher consumption. This is an
increasing trend as people recognize what a valuable commodity water represents.
While the amount of difference between the tiers is open for debate, we wanted to create a
charging method that holds the rates down for those who use the least. We have to overbuild our
infrastructure in order to serve peak demand days. Those days cause us to pump at least twice as
much water in the summer as we do in the winter during our base usage. It only seems fair to
charge the people who create that demand with the cost of providing that service. Our
commercial and industrial users do not generate the same type of demand for additional water
usage in the summer. This analysis assumes they will keep their rates at the residential base
unless they have a separate sprinkler account which will be charged at the highest tier. This
methodology allows us to maintain the affordability of the system for low volume users.
These increased rates are not sufficient by themselves to adequately finance all the anticipated
improvements. We will need to borrow funds to keep from going into a cash deficit for 2007
and 2008. The anticipated amount necessary is about $2.5 million for this two year cycle. These
funds could come from internal borrowing or public bond issue. We will have to analyze bond
interest rates versus investments that are available to make a recommendation in 2007.
Additional borrowing is anticipated in the course of the next five years, but is dependent on the
CIP schedule.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 2
Storm Water Fund
The storm water system also contains a very aggressive capital improvement plan that has drawn
down the available cash. We have anticipated that state grants are available for many of our
current projects, but we are unsure of their availability in the out years of our CIP. Ehlers
worked with us to balance the amount of cash on hand and storm water charges to pay for both
parts of the operation.
Staff is recommending an increase in fees of $2.00 per quarter to help cover needed
improvements to the system. We will also need to complete one borrowing of just under $2
million in bond proceeds in this fund to cover the capital costs. The rates will allow us to make
future capital improvements and cover maintenance costs without any additional debt.
Sewer Fund
The sewer system is much more stable than water system. This budget consists primarily of the
cost to clean and inspect sewer mains, operate lift stations, and pay disposal charges from the
Metropolitan Council Environment Services (MCES) division. We do have a reasonable capital
improvement plan that is coordinated with our street maintenance plans to minimize the amount
of disruption that residents face when we have to repair or replace underground utilities.
Staff recommends an increase of nine cents per unit in the sewer utility. This will allow the city
to cover operating and capital costs without bonding into the foreseeable future.
Solid Waste Fund
Solid Waste is essentially a pass-through system. The city pays for the services provided by
Waste Management through charges based on service container usage at each residence. The
proposed increase of $2.50 per quarter compares to $2.00 per quarter that was implemented last
year. While the service has not broken even for the last several years, there is a healthy fund
balance to offset any minor losses. This cash balance is also maintained to buffer any rate
increases when the contract is renegotiated or the cost of new container purchases.
SUMMARY:
Even with the changes recommended in this report, St. Louis Park’s utility rates are comfortably
in the middle range of comparable cities. These rates will allow us to keep our aging
infrastructure up to date while still maintaining the affordability that keeps St. Louis Park
competitive in attracting residents and businesses.
Attachments: Chart comparing total quarterly costs from 2006 and 2007
Ehlers Report # 1
Ehlers Report # 2
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 3
Chart comparing total quarterly costs from 2006 and 2007
Family of 4 - (2 adults and 2 children)
Avg. Consumption During Winter Months of 18,000g/qtr.
Water bill 28.40$ 31.76$
rate 0.9000$ 1.0400$
Sewer bill 51.50$ 53.55$
rate 1.702$ 1.787$
Total Water & Sewer 79.90$ 85.31$
Storm Water 9.50$ 11.50$
Total Bill 89.40$ 96.81$
2006 2007
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 4
The City requested that Ehlers & Associates undertake a water rate study. The study
incorporates the City engineer’s estimate of future capital improvements for the water utility
system through 2020. The City has been investing in the replacement of water mains and
upgrading its filtration system, and expects to continue rebuilding and improving the water
system over the next few years. The purpose of the rate study is to ensure that:
1. Rates are sufficient to pay for the ongoing operations and capital improvements; and
2. The rate structure distributes the costs of the system across users consistent with the
policy objectives of the Council.
Assumptions
Following is a chart that summarizes the significant assumptions in the rate study.
Assumptions in 2006 Water Rate Study
Growth Residential – 250 units over the next three years from redevelopment projects
that have already been initiated. No growth beyond 2009.
Commercial – no new commercial users.
Capital
Improvements
Over the next 10 years, the City expects to make an average of $800,000 of
capital improvements per year (in today’s dollars). The improvements include
watermain replacement in street reconstruction projects, upgrading the
filtration systems at four treatment plants, recoating water reservoirs, and
moving to an automated meter reading system.
Costs are inflated 4% annually.
Operating Operating expenses increase 3% annually.
To: Honorable Mayor and Council members
From: Jessica Cook and Elizabeth Diaz
Subject: Water Rate Study Executive Summary
Date: November 20, 2006
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 5
Expenses
Water Fees
There are two components to the City’s water fee:
Meter Charges are a fixed quarterly fee based on the size of meter in the home or business. The
meter charge is established to recover certain fixed administrative expenses, such as the billing
system, that the City must incur for a customer regardless of the amount of water consumed.
Usage Fees are based on the metered use of water. Currently, the City has a flat usage fee of
$0.90 per 100 cubic feet of water consumed.
In 2006, the usage fee is expected to generate 83% of the total water revenues. Over time, the
rate study adjusts fees so that by 2015 the usage fee will generate almost 90% of water revenues.
The shift from fixed meter charges to usage fees reflects the fact that non-administrative costs,
namely capital improvements, are increasing faster than administrative costs. In addition, it is
the result of the proposed change to the rate structure discussed below.
Proposed Rate Increases
We are recommending no increase to the meter charges for 2007 through 2012. Beginning in
2013, we are recommending a 3% annual increase to the meter charge to keep pace with
increases in administrative costs.
The proposed rate increase to the usage fee for 2007 is 15% for residential and commercial users.
Tiered Rate System
Beginning in 2008, we are recommending that the City consider a tiered usage fee. With a tiered
rate system, the typical resident will pay more for water used for sprinkling than they will for
water used in daily activities. Most metro area suburbs have adopted a tiered rate system for the
following reasons:
1. To promote conservation efforts.
2. To allocate costs appropriately to those who are generating them. Cities construct water
systems to meet the capacity of peak watering days in the heat of the summer. In St.
Louis Park, the peak demand in the summer is approximately twice the average daily
winter demand. A tiered rate system charges more per gallon for peak use, thereby
allocating the cost of “oversizing” the system for peak days to the peak users.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 6
Assuming the City adopts a tiered rate system in 2008, projected rate increases are shown in the
following chart.
Usage Proposed User Charges
Gallons 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Rate
Increase 15.0% 6.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
up to 15,000 $1.04 $1.10 $1.15 $1.21 $1.27 $1.33
Rate
Increase 15.0% 26.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
15,001-
30,000 $1.04 $1.30 $1.37 $1.44 $1.51 $1.59
Rate
Increase 15.0% 50.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
30,001 + $1.04 $1.55 $1.63 $1.71 $1.80 $1.89
Based on the proposed rates above, the water utility bill will vary depending on usage. Four
sample users are illustrated in the chart below.
St. Louis Park has historically had very low water rates. A comparison of the average water bill
in St. Louis Park with other communities is attached as Exhibit A.
Connection Fees
Most cities charge a water connection for new users to “buy-in” to the system. Connection fees
are paid at the time a builder or homeowner pulls a building permit. For growing communities
connection fees often exceed $5,000 per single family home. In fully developed cities,
Average Quarterly Bill 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Low Water User
(Snowbird) $ 20.00 $ 22.16 $ 23.15 $ 24.03 $ 24.95 $ 25.92 $ 26.94
(6,000 gal/mo. for 8 mos; meter for 12
mos.)
Average User
(9,500 gallons per month) $ 41.00 $ 46.13 $ 48.49 $ 50.57 $ 52.76 $ 55.06 $ 57.47
High User
(20,000 gallons per month) $ 78.80 $ 89.60 $ 98.71 $103.30 $108.13
$113.19
$118.51
Irrigation Connection
(45,000 gallons per month) $162.00 $186.30
$279.45 $293.42 $308.09
$323.50
$339.67
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 7
connection fees are usually $2,500 or less. The City of Edina charges $1,000 per unit. Currently,
St. Louis Park does not charge a connection fee.
We are recommending that the City establish a connection fee beginning in 2008 of $1,000 per
unit.
Cash Balances
The water fund should have a minimum cash balance of $2,000,000 for a City the size of St.
Louis Park. Cash balances are available to accommodate fluctuations in revenue depending on
the weather, and to fund capital improvements.
At $2 million, the City will have funded approximately 25% of accumulated depreciation. In
addition, staff has set a goal of keeping a cash balance equal to 50% of operating revenue, which
will be achieved in 2010 but not maintained thereafter. The graph below shows the cash
balances, including the collection of connection fees beginning in 2008.
Exhibit A
Ending Cash Balances in Water Fund
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ending Cash
Balance
Target Cash
Balance: 50% of
operating revenues
Next Steps
1. Establish the 2007 water rate. Based on the completed rate study, we would recommend
that:
a. the 2007 usage rate be increased $.14 per cubit foot to $1.04 per 100 cubic feet;
and
b. the 2007 meter charges be maintained at the 2006 rates.
2. Over the course of the next year, consider whether to move to a tiered rate system for the
user charges, and whether to establish a connection fee.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 8
Exhibit A
City of St. Louis Park
Water Rate Comparison
Based on Residential Service - 2006 Rates
Assumed Quarterly use of 27,000
gallons
Quarterly
City Water
St. Louis Park - 2006 39.20
Edina 40.12
St. Louis Park - Proposed 2007 42.80
Moundsview 43.50
Minnetonka 43.60
Richfield 53.73
Robbinsdale 58.41
Bloomington 58.46
Roseville 71.15
Edina - Morningside 93.96
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 9
The City has requested that Ehlers & Associates undertake a storm water rate study. The study
accomplishes the following goals:
1. Establishes target levels for cash balances in the storm water fund.
2. Makes recommendations for storm water utility rates to ensure adequate revenue to pay
for constructing, improving, and maintaining the storm water system.
3. Compares St. Louis Park’s fee structures with other fully developed cities.
The City’s storm water system is funded by storm water utility fees that appear on the quarterly
utility bills. These storm water fees are collected in a separate storm water fund, and used to
operate, maintain, and upgrade the City’s storm water system.
Assumptions
Below is a chart that summarizes the significant assumptions used in the study.
Growth No new residential or commercial connections.
Capital
Improvements
The study used the City’s capital improvement plan for 2007-2011,
including the Flood Area #24 project.
Beginning in 2012, improvements average $125,000 per year (in today’s
dollars) for storm water replacement in street reconstruction projects.
Costs are inflated 4% annually.
Operating
Expenses
Expenses increase 3% annually.
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: Jessica Cook and Elizabeth Diaz
Subject: Storm Water Rate Study
Date: November 20, 2006
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 10
Findings
Rates
Due to capital projects, the City’s storm water fund had negative cashflow in 2004 and 2005.
Over the next five years, the City anticipates another $3.9 million in capital costs to address
flooding issues and replace its aging storm water system. Storm water rates will need to be
increased to fund the capital projects and maintain minimum cash reserves.
The City’s current quarterly storm water rate is $9.50 per quarter. The proposed rate increases in
the chart below will allow the City to maintain and improve its storm water infrastructure, and
maintain adequate cash reserves. These projected rates will ensure that the storm water fund is
financially self-sufficient.
Proposed Storm Water Rates
$15.00$15.00$15.00$15.00
$14.25$13.50$12.75$12.25$11.50
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
$16.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
The 2006 North Central Utility Rate Survey indicates that the quarterly fees for the metro area
suburbs range from $3.00 in Eden Prairie to $18.00 in Prior Lake, and the median quarterly fee is
$10.50. Golden Valley, which did not participate in the survey, has a quarterly fee of $21.00 for
a regular residential unit. On the following page is a chart that shows the storm water fees for
other fully developed communities in the metro area. The proposed 2007 increase to $11.50 per
quarter will still be competitive with other cities, but will be above the median 2006 storm water
fee.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 3 - 2007 Enterprise Fund Budget
Page 11
Quarterly 2006 Storm Water Utility Rates for Comparable Cities
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Golden ValleyNew BrightonBloomingtonEdinaRichfieldSt Louis ParkWest St Pau;Mounds ViewFalcon Heights
Cash Balances
The purpose of the cash balance is to allow the City to fund improvements on a “pay-as-you-go” basis,
reserving the use of debt for major improvements. In addition, the Clean Water Act, the Legacy Act,
and other efforts to improve water quality throughout the state may result in future mandates for
Minnesota cities to upgrade storm water systems. Given the uncertainty, it is our
recommendation that the system be operated to maintain a minimum cash balance is $1,000,000.
The projected cash balances, assuming the proposed rates above, are shown in the following graph.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Storm Water Ending Cash Balance
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 4 - Fire Station Tour
Page 1
4. Fire Station No. 1 Tour Fire Department and
Inspections
PURPOSE:
15 minute tour of Fire Station No. 1 with Fire Chief Stemmer and Brian Hoffman, Director of
Inspections.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 5 - Facilities Planning Study - Consultants Report & Presentation
Page 1
5. Fire Stations Needs Assessment – Consultants Report and Presentation Fire and
Inspections
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To update the Council on the Facilities Planning Study, receive the consultant’s
report/presentation specifically regarding Fire Stations 1 and 2, and discuss recommended next
steps.
BACKGROUND:
Fire Stations #1 and #2 had been identified by staff as having several significant physical and
operational deficiencies within the buildings. The most immediate need was the recently
completed reinforcement of the apparatus floors.
Both fire stations were constructed in the 1960’s and are not in full compliance with the Federal
ADA requirements for public facilities or designed to accommodate the current multi-gender Fire
Department staffing. Other concerns have related to the aging mechanical systems, limited
ventilation ability, the lack of apparatus storage space, and the inability to accommodate all
firefighters simultaneously for meetings. Although these have been the general areas of concern,
staff determined that a detailed analysis would need to be completed for an accurate evaluation.
The fire stations are potentially the most significant city building investment needed in years. To
help us make sound decisions and plan accordingly, the City issued an RFP to architectural firms
who were capable of providing assessment services. BKV Group was selected based on the
extent of their experience, proposed process and a total study cost of $14,000.
BKV has been meeting with staff in completing questionnaires, performing a detailed facility
assessment, and collecting operational needs information.
Council was presented with an overview of the existing conditions of Fire Stations 1 and 2 in July
2006. At that time, staff was directed to proceed with a formal evaluation of the existing status
and a needs assessment of the Fire Service. Council also received a status report from the
consultant at the September 11, 2006 study session. Tonight Council is receiving the completed
report and presentation by the consultants, BKV Group.
CONSULTANTS REPORT AND PRESENTATION:
Key points of the BKV assessment are:
1. Methodology used to prepare the study.
2. Outcomes of the facility condition assessment.
3. Outcomes of the fire service needs assessment.
4. Options/feasibility of renovating existing stations.
5. Options for new construction.
6. Option of one fire station versus two fire stations.
7. Comparative cost analysis of the various options.
The consultant’s report verified both Fire Stations have extensive building and operational
deficiencies. From a long term facilities planning perspective, it appears at this time the most
efficient use of public funds would be to construct new facilities rather than renovating existing
structures through extensive remodeling and additions.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 5 - Facilities Planning Study - Consultants Report & Presentation
Page 2
NEXT STEPS:
Staff supports the consultant’s findings and the need to explore the options for construction of new
facilities and explore the option of a single-central station.
If Council agrees with the findings, listed below are the next steps to be taken:
1. Execute a detailed Site Study to include: • Identify potential sites (working with SLP Community Development staff)
based on currently owned City property, long-range comprehensive plan, etc • Map City-wide fire risk • Evaluate depth of coverage and response time of station site scenarios and
create direct comparisons for single station vs. two station fire service model • Recommend preferred Fire Station site scenario(s) • Establish potential site acquisition and development costs associated with
recommended site scenario(s).
2. Study to Evaluate Funding Options: • Refine potential project cost ranges, including site acquisition and potential site
development costs. • Assess project costs with long-range City bonding, taxation and payment
scenarios.
3. Staff will return to Council in spring 2007 to review its findings and present options
for Council consideration on how to proceed with the selection of fire station site(s)
and levels of service.
Attachments: Fire Station Needs Assessment Study–Final Draft–BKV Group (Supplement)
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 112706 - 6 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 1
6. 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 December 11, 2006.
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: 112706 - 6 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Monday, December 11, 2006
6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion
A. 2007 Legislative Initiatives – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Council to have a conversation with Representative-elect Winkler, Senator-elect Latz,
Representative Simon and Commissioner Dorfman about the 2007 Minnesota Legislative
Session and St. Louis Park.
B. Highway 100 – Public Works (60 minutes)
Mn/DOT will present the cost implications to Council for the previously discussed
Highway 100 options.
C. Duke Concept Plan – Community Development (60 minutes)
Council to provide feedback to staff about the Duke Concept Plan.
D. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Report
9:35 p.m. End of Meeting
City Council Session
Written Report: 112706 – 7 – Park Center TIF District Amendment
Page 3
7. Proposed Modification to the Park Center Blvd TIF District Plan
to assist Louisiana Court.
Community
Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Staff wishes to report on the need for a proposed Modification to the Park Center Blvd TIF
District.
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to stabilize Louisiana Court, PPL developed a comprehensive stabilization plan that
frames the long-term improvement and viability of the development. The Stabilization Plan
incorporated several components including: additional capital improvements, efforts to retain
current residents and reduce operating expenses, and the introduction of a limited number of rent
subsidies.
The capital improvement component of the Stabilization Plan proposes to initiate an estimated
$2,507,000 in improvements, including soft costs. The improvements will enhance the
marketability of the property, lower maintenance costs and lower utility expenses. PPL
requested $400,000 from the City to assist in funding the proposed capital improvements.
Additional funding commitments were secured from Hennepin County, Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency (MHFA) and the Limited Partner, ESIC.
On December 19, 2005, the City Council adopted a resolution directing staff to undertake the
steps necessary and prepare documents to provide a $400,000 deferred loan to The Louisiana
Court Limited Partnership to assist with the improvements at Louisiana Court. The funding
source for the deferred loan will be a combination of $268,900 in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $131,100 from the EDA’s Development Fund that will be
replenished with tax increment from the Park Center Boulevard TIF District. On May 16, 2006,
the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Loan Agreement with PPL and a resolution
approving the internal loan.
The deferred loan will come due in 30 years or at the time of sale of the property, or at the time
of refinancing, whichever occurs first. The loan will be secured by a mortgage that will be
subordinate to all the existing loans, but first in line of the new funding being invested at this
time.
The Park Center Boulevard TIF District is a Housing District originally certified as of May 19,
1997 by Hennepin County and later modified September 21, 1999. Typically, TIF districts are
subject to the “five-year rule” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763 which requires any
expenditure from within a TIF district be made within five years of certification. Since more
than 5 years have passed from the last modification, no further expenditures would typically be
allowed from the Park Center Boulevard TIF District. However, in last spring’s legislative
session an amendment was passed to the “five-year rule” that allows authorities with existing
housing districts, to amend their TIF plans to authorize expenditures for additional “housing
projects” anywhere within the city’s redevelopment project area. Louisiana Court meets this
locational requirement. “Housing projects” are housing developments that meet the income set-
asides for a housing TIF district (whether rental or owner-occupied). After expiration of the
five-year period from certification of the district, the authority may make new expenditures,
enter new contractual obligations and issue new bonds related to housing projects. Thus, it is
City Council Session
Written Report: 112706 – 7 – Park Center TIF District Amendment
Page 3
recommended that the TIF Plan for the Park Center Boulevard TIF District be modified to
authorize the $131,100 deferred loan to PPL for the qualified improvements to Louisiana Court.
In order amend the Park Center TIF Plan a formal modification process must occur. Attached is
the Schedule of Events related to the approval of the proposed Modification to the Park Center
Blvd. TIF District. It should be noted that the first actions related to this proposed modification
are for the EDA to request the City Council to call for a public hearing and the City Council
agreeing to hold the public hearing. These actions are scheduled for consideration at the
upcoming December 4th EDA/Council meetings.
Attachment: Schedule of Events
Prepared By: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, EDA Executive Deputy Director
City Council Session
Written Report: 112706 – 7 – Park Center TIF District Amendment
Page 3
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE MODIFICATION OF THE PARK CENTER BOULEVARD HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a housing district) November 27, 2006 City Council Study Session. December 4, 2006 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing. December 4, 2006 City Council calls for a public hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. December 5, 2006 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of potential modification (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice). [Ehlers will fax and mail by December 1, 2006] December 15, 2006 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will fax & mail by December 13, 2006] December 29, 2006 Ehlers & Associates conducts internal review of the Modifications. January 3, 2007 Planning Commission reviews Modifications to determine if they are in compliance with City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution approving the Modifications. January 4, 2007 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will e-mail notice & map to the Sun Sailor by December27, 2006] January 16, 2007 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Modifications. January 16, 2007 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving the Modifications. [Ehlers & Associates will email Council packet information to the City by January 9, 2007] ____________ Ehlers & Associates files Modifications with the MN Department of Revenue, OSA and Hennepin County.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175, subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of: (1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or (2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 8 - October 2006 Financial Statements
Page 1
8. October 2006 Financial Statements Finance
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Attached are the October 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 tenth 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 tenth 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 October 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:
• Licenses and Permits revenue decreased by approximately $17,000 due to the seasonality
of the construction season.
• Intergovernmental revenue increased by approximately $101,000 which is attributable to
the receipt of the Fitness Grant for the Fire Dept. of $77,000. In addition, the first half
installment for the Market Value Homestead Credit of $39,000 was received. In
comparison to September, there were $15,000 less in receipts from the Liaison Services
of $10,000 and E-911 funds of approximately $5,000. As you will note from September
to October, the Year-to-Date Actual column has increased significantly. This increase is
for the Police and Fire State Aid of $646,147 that was posted after the September
Financial report was submitted.
• Charges for Services increased by approximately $22,000 which is attributed to an
additional pay period to be reimbursed by the Housing Authority for approximately
$17,500. Administration experienced an increase of revenue of $2,500 for the seminar
“Creating Optimism in the Workplace”. Police had additional revenue for Patrol Officer
Services for about $2,000.
• Contributions/Donations increased by $4,640 which goes toward the purchases of
A.E.D.’s within the City.
Expenditures:
• Personal Services expenditures increased by approximately $128,000 which is attributed
to two days more of payroll in October when compared to September.
• Supplies expenditures decreased by approximately $33,000 which is attributable to
decreased asphalt and crack sealing material purchases in Public Works for $16,000 and
$6,000 respectively. In the Police Department, mock t-shirts were purchased in
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 8 - October 2006 Financial Statements
Page 2
September for approximately $7,000 and less ammunition was bought in October
resulting in decreased expenditures of $4,000.
• Services and Other Charges expenditures decreased by approximately $31,000 due to the
following items: Administrative Services - $17,000 – Election Judge pay; Public Works -
$10,000 – pavement condition analysis contract; Fire - $4,000 for physicals related to the
Fitness Grant administered at Park Nicollet before the firefighters are allowed to use the
new equipment.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Revenues:
• Charges for Services revenue increased by approximately $29,000 which is attributable to
decreases in D.E.D. tree removal and injections for $16,000 and $13,000 respectively.
• Miscellaneous revenue increased by approximately $49,000 which is entirely attributable
to an increase in ice rentals at the Recreation Center.
Expenditures:
• Personal Services expenditures increased by approximately $13,000 which is attributed to
two days more of payroll in October when compared to September.
• Supplies expenditures decreased by approximately $6,000 due to reduced purchases of
clothing in Organized Recreation for $3,000 and $3,000 less in concession supplies at the
Aquatic Park.
• Services and Other Charges Expenditures decreased by approximately $53,000 which is
attributed to the following items; tree removal - $17,000, electrical service - $12,000,
heating gas - $10,000, on-site sanitation - $8,000 and officiating - $6,000.
• Contribution/Donations decreased by approximately $7,000 which is a result of
contributions from the Minnesota Community Foundation to the Westwood Nature
Center in September.
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.
Attachments: Monthly Financial Statements
Prepared By: Brian Swanson, Accounting Manager
Reviewed By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 9 - Facilities Superintendents Written Report-Options For Green
Roof On City Hall
Page 1
9. Facilities Superintendent’s Report: Options for Green Roof on City
Hall
Inspections
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
This report considers the options and feasibility for utilizing a “green” roof on the City Hall
building. The roof system is scheduled for replacement in 2007 and is included in the 2007
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
BACKGROUND:
The existing roof on City Hall is original to the building (circa 1963). In 2004 INSPEC, a
consulting firm specializing in roof systems, did a condition survey on the existing roof. They
stated that the present roof system had exceeded its lifecycle and we should plan on replacement in
2 – 4 years.
ANALYSIS:
Staff entered into a professional services agreement with INSPEC in August 2006 for the
design/engineering of a new roof system to be installed in the summer of 2007. We requested
INSPEC to include “green” roof options and the feasibility of utilizing one on City Hall. The
following is a quick tutorial on “green roof systems” and the outcomes as applied to City Hall.
Green Vegetative Roof Systems
A) The first type is termed in the roofing industry as “intensive”. This system involves
putting down a water proof membrane over the whole roof deck and covering it with 10-12
inches of soil and vegetation.
B) The second option is referred to as a “container” system. It involves placing heavy plastic
containers, usually 4’ x 4’ x 10-12”deep, on the roof surface and filling them with soil and
vegetation.
Feasibility of Retrofitting a Green Roof to an Existing Building
The following questions summarize the process used in determining the feasibility of installing a
green roof on City Hall:
Question: Can the existing roof deck carry the load level of the proposed green roof
system?
Answer: The concrete roof deck structure should have sufficient capacity; however, a
full structural engineer’s evaluation would be necessary.
Question: Is the current “built environment”(i.e. height of equipment curbs,
openings for doors ,vents, and drains etc.) on the existing roof deck compatible
with the proposed roof system and if not, what is the cost to modify?
Answer: To install an “intensive” system, the answer is no and no cost estimate was
prepared as the modifications necessary would be cost prohibitive. As to
utilizing a container system the answer is yes.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 9 - Facilities Superintendents Written Report-Options For Green
Roof On City Hall
Page 2
Question: To what extent is the roof deck used for other building systems?
Answer: In the case of City Hall, it is used extensively for the mechanical systems (A/C
units, etc.), antenna systems and air/environmental monitoring systems and
potentially for a solar power system. This utilization of the space requires
frequent foot traffic.
Cost information:
An important consideration in facilities planning is to consider not only the initial cost of the
improvement but the total lifecycle costs.
Initial approximate installation costs:
o Proposed standard multi-layer built-up roof system (w/R34 insulation) $200,000
o “Intensive” green system if feasible $400,000
o “Container” green system (standard roof cost of $200,000 plus an $250,000
additional $50,000 to cover 30% of the roof deck)
Estimated Lifecycle costs:
We used the low end of the industrial standard range provided by our consultant because our roof
is not a complex system.
o “Standard” - $260,000 (1.3-1.5 times initial cost )
o “Intensive” - $1.2 million (3-4 times the initial cost) -
o “Container”- $410,000 (standard roof plus 2.5–3 times the initial cost of the container
portion )
Advantages/Concerns
Advantages of green roofs-
o Environmentally sensitive
o Heat island reduction
o Slows storm-water run-off
o Plant growth produces oxygen.
o Energy efficiency
Concerns with green roof conversion-
o Difficult leak detection/location/repair
o High cost (initial & lifecycle)
o High maintenance
o One of the highest litigated segments of the roofing industry
o Either type of green roof must be irrigated 10-12 hours a day during the summer to
keep the soil cool enough to allow the vegetation to survive, which is in direct conflict
with the City’s water use policy.
o The “container system” originally touted as the answer to finding leaks in the roof
membrane should they occur is really a sales pitch. In reality, you can’t move a
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 9 - Facilities Superintendents Written Report-Options For Green
Roof On City Hall
Page 3
4’x4’12” container of earth without using heavy equipment and doing extensive
damage to the roof. Plus, the fact that when set on a multi-layer built-up roof, as we
will have, they literally weld themselves to the roof tar from the heat of the sun and if
you do try to move them, you tear up the roof.
Advantages of the standard multi-layer built up roof -
o Lower cost (initial & lifecycle)
o Less maintenance (important with limited staffing)
o Ability to increase the energy efficiency of the building by increasing insulation installed
on the deck to an overall average of R-34 thus reducing heating and cooling costs.
Previous City Experience
The City Hall garage has an intensive green roof with 12” of soil over a membrane. The garage
was constructed in 1980. Within five years, leaks developed. In 1990 we had two firms look at
repairing the problems. Both firms stated the only way to fix it was to replace the roof system.
The roof still has significant leakage which we can live with in the garage until a replacement roof
occurs, however, it would be very difficult in an office environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
After reviewing all the facts, staff believes it is in the City’s best interest to proceed with the
installation of a standard built-up roof system. There will be other opportunities to incorporate
“green” projects in the future whether it is solar panels or some other new technology that would
be a fiscally responsible use of public funds.
ACTION REQUIRED:
No action is required assuming Council concurs with the findings of this report. Staff will be
submitting a report for project approval at the December 7, 2006 City Council meeting.
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facility Superintendent
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 10 - Parktacular Street Dance Update
Page 1
10. Parktacular Street Dance Update Parks and Recreation
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the street dance that Parktacular is
planning to have in June, 2007.
BACKGROUND:
The Parktacular Committee and staff have had casual conversations concerning a street dance
that would take place as a Parktacular event on Friday, June 15, 2007. Based on the informal
feedback that staff has received from Council thus far, the Parktacular committee has moved
forward and secured sponsorship for the event.
STREET DANCE GENERAL CONCEPT:
The event will be sponsored by Park Tavern who will sell beer, soda, water and food. The event
will take place on the north section of Excelsior and Grand at the Town Green. The area north of
the statue will be fenced off for the event. The event will take place from 6-11 p.m. with the band
playing from 7-10.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The Parktacular committee and Park and Recreation staff will be meeting with the Excelsior and
Grand residents and businesses within the next couple months to discuss the event. The City is
also forming an internal task force made up of inspections, police, parks, clerk’s office and fire
staff to review all aspects of the event.
As Parktacular is in the process of booking a band and making a sizable deposit to do so, please
contact us at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or concerns.
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 11 - Vision Timeline
Page 1
11. Vision Timeline Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Staff wishes to report on the timeline and next steps for Vision St. Louis Park.
BACKGROUND:
We had a great celebration when we finalized the Vision St. Louis Park process on November 9.
A timeline has been drafted to inform council of the how we intend to move forward.
Staff is in the process of putting together all of the goals, action steps, suggested timelines, and
potential partner recommendations we’ve received from all the groups. We are working to get
this information into a consistent format. Goals/action steps/suggested/timelines/potential
partners will be typed as received from each group without editing or changes.
If formatting goes as planned, Council will receive these as the Vision Action Teams in the
December 4 packet of materials as a report. We plan to talk about this information in a future
study session as well as used in the February Council Work Session.
Attachment: Vision Timeline
Prepared By: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 112706 - 11 - Vision Timeline
Page 2
Vision St. Louis Park: Steps for 2006-07
November/
December/
January: Research Outcomes/Benchmarks processes used across the country to determine
how we should measure the success of Vision St. Louis Park.
November/
December: Review Vision Action Team work with department heads.
Review Vision Action Team work with City Council.
Review Vision Action Team work with the Partnership.
Have a work session with Department Heads to figure out in which department
the recommendations belong, where collaboration is needed, what we already do,
what we maybe cannot do etc.
After City Council Study Session and Department Head work sessions, review of
Goals and Action Steps for consistency, development of an internal vision
document to guide us as we move forward.
Broad article in Park Perspectives.
January: Formal report to City Council (meeting) and the other Vision Partners: School
District, TwinWest Chamber, Park Nicollet, and Children First. Ask for
acceptance from each partner.
February: Include Vision Action Data in City Council goal setting/workshop.
March: Meet with Partnership, share information, progress etc.
April: Check-point with department heads and other partners.
October: Check-point with department heads and other partners.
Begin to prepare the report to the community on Vision St. Louis Park (this is
consistent with timeline used in the first visioning process)
November/
December: Prepare an end of year-one report to the community as a part of Park Perspective.