HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/07/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JULY 25, 2016
5:30 p.m. DINNER & TOUR of Municipal Service Center
6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Municipal Service Center
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 18 & 25, 2016
2. 6:35 p.m. Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan
3. 7:35 p.m. Advancing Racial Equity: Moving Forward Together as a City
4. 8:35 p.m. Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance
5. 9:05 p.m. Update on Water Treatment Plant #4
9:35 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
Written Reports
6. June 2016 Monthly Financial Report
7. Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2016)
8. Central Park West & 4800 Excelsior Public Art Update
9. Utility Box Wrap Neighborhood Program
10. Update on City Hall Lobby Art Display
11. Bicycle Friendly Community Application
9:40 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 1 & August 8, 2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a
Special Study Session on August 1, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on August
8, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for a
Special Study Session on August 1, 2016 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on August
8, 2016.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – August 1 & 8, 2016
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 1 & August 8, 2016
AUGUST 1, 2016
6:15 p.m. – Special Study Session – Council Chambers
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Consultant Services for Vision/Comp Plan – Community Development (45 minutes)
A prospective consultant will be present to meet City Council to discuss their approach for
undertaking the community visioning process for St. Louis Park.
Written Reports
2. SWLRT Update
AUGUST 8, 2016
6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Council Chambers
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Public Process/Community Engagement – Continued Discussion – Information Resources
(30 minutes) An audit of current methods used by the city to engage the public will be
presented, along with a sample template for outlining and standardizing public participation
efforts across city departments.
3. Bridgewater – Excelsior & Monterey – Community Development (60 minutes)
The developer, Dominium, and property owner, Bridgewater Bank, applied for preliminary
plat and preliminary planned unit development to redevelop the site on the northeast corner
of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. The Planning Commission held a public hearing
on March 16, 2016. The City Council reviewed the proposal for the six-story, mixed-use
development on April 18, 2016. The City Council expressed a variety of concerns about the
proposal that the developer has been reviewing and trying to address. The developer would
like to present the revisions it has made to the proposal to again get feedback from City
Council before the City Council is asked to take formal action on the applications.
4. Pledge of Allegiance at Council Meetings – Administrative Services (20 minutes)
Council asked that this topic be place on a study session agenda.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
End of Meeting: 8:30 pm
Written Reports
5. Building Readiness Ordinances
6. Arlington Row Update
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss ideas with consulting firm Future iQ related to the next
Vision and Comprehensive Plan process.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: To provide feedback on the potential consultant and approach to
conducting our Vision process.
SUMMARY: In June the Council and Staff discussed the process for updating St. Louis Park’s
Vision and Comprehensive Plan. The first step was to investigate and identify a consultant or
consultants to help us with the Visioning process and preparing the Comprehensive Plan. The goal
is to have a consultant on board by the end of the summer and to begin the Visioning update
process this fall.
Two potential Visioning consultants have been identified. Each will present to the City Council
over the next two Council meetings. The first consultant, David Buerle of Future iQ, will present
ideas and a proposed approach to the Council Monday night. On August 1st at a special study
session, the second consultant, Rebecca Ryan of Next Generation Consulting, will present ideas
and a proposed approach. Information on the Future iQ consultant is attached.
The intent is to bring forward a recommended consultant for Council approval at the August 15th
Council meeting. A refined and much more detailed visioning process/scope of work will be
prepared once the consultant is chosen. The detailed process will build on the approach presented
to the Council and the feedback received. Discussion with the consultant at the study sessions may
surround such subjects as experience, methods, outcomes, community engagement techniques,
availability, and other Council expectations.
NEXT STEPS: Following the presentation at the August 1st Council Study Session, the Council
will have a chance for further discussion of the relative merits of the consultants for St. Louis Park.
A refined scope of work and contract will be written and brought back to the City Council for
approval. It is expected the consultant could begin in September.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Vision and Comprehensive Plan process
will require financial resources from the city. The amount of resources is yet to be determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Future iQ Firm Overview and Schematic
Future iQ Proposal
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan
DISCUSSION
VISION BACKGROUND: The City conducted major community visioning processes in 1995
and 2005. The outcomes of these processes provide a very strong basis for the community’s
direction – and these directions have provided a solid foundation of goals and policies that have
served the community (and the city government) very well for the past 20+ years.
Updating our Vision will build on the foundation created through the earlier Visioning efforts. The
directions chosen in past processes continue to be important and relevant. New initiatives and
directions will be identified in the update process. They will be incorporated into the Vision and
the City’s Plan for 2040.
NEXT STEPS:
The next steps for the Vision process will be:
Summer/Fall
Select consultant for Visioning
Develop detailed community engagement process
Develop branding and communications plan for the effort
Organize internal/interdepartmental teams
Begin informing the community about the influence the previous Vision processes have
had on the community and the progress toward the goals and priorities previously
identified.
Begin promoting Vision engagement process
Begin Vision engagement
Future iQ helps people plan for the future. Our unique processes and specialized methodology allow our clients to connect emerging macro
trends with local concerns in order to make the important strategic shifts.
Future iQ Overview – Bringing Global to Local
Founded in 2003, Future iQ is a management consulting firm specializing in future planning. Future iQ has
extensive experience in large and small scale multi-organizational visioning and planning projects and economic
development initiatives, many including scenario planning and stakeholder engagement. Much of this work
involves bringing various groups and organizations together to create collective and cohesive integrated
economic and workforce development plans and an aligned vision for the future. We take a practical, hands-on
approach to working with groups in both urban and rural areas and take great care to provide services that are
specific to the needs of each client. www.future-iq.com
Company Expertise
Future iQ’s work spans seven areas of expertise:
• Regional Planning
• Economic and Workforce Development
• City and Urban Planning
• Defense Sector Engagement
• Industry Planning and Analysis
• Organizational and Corporate Planning
• Tourism Destination Development
We have also developed specialized methodologies to enhance our planning work.
These include:
• Scenario-Based Strategic Planning
• Customized Foresight Research
• Stakeholder and Community Engagement
• Network and Supply Chain Mapping
• Data Visualization
• The Future Game
Recent Projects in the Midwest Geographic Area:
• Economic Development Plan, Edina MN (2016)
http://future-iq.com/project/economic-development-plan-edina-minnesota-usa-2016/
• Task Force Lima, Ohio (2015-2016) http://future-iq.com/project/task-force-lima/
• Griffith Foods, Chicago IL (2015-2016) http://future-iq.com/project/griffith-foods-chicago-usa-2016/
• Nebraska Views of the Future, Nebraska (2015-2016)
http://future-iq.com/project/nebraska-views-of-the-future-usa/
• Fox Valley, Wisconsin (2014-2015 http://future-iq.com/project/fox-valley-wisconsin/
• Vision Edina, Edina MN (2014-2015) http://future-iq.com/project/vision-edina/
Future iQ - Midwest Contact:
Heather Branigin
P.O. Box 24687, Minneapolis, MN 55424
Tel: 952-240-9727 Email: heather@future-iq.com
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 3
Future iQ - Schematic of the Scenario-based Planning Process
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 4
City of St. Louis Park
Minnesota
A Proposal For Visioning
Submitted by:
July 21, 2016
Future iQ Partners
P.O. Box 24687
Minneapolis, MN 55424
www.future‐iq.com
Contact:
David Beurle
david@future‐iq.com
715‐559‐5046
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 5
Future iQ Partners, Inc.
P.O. Box 24687
Minneapolis, MN 55424
US Federal Tax Number: EIN: 27‐1389416
July 21, 2016
Meg J. McMonigal
Principal Planner
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Proposal for the City of St. Louis Park Visioning Project
Dear Ms. McMonigal,
Future iQ Partners is pleased to submit this proposal to create a Vision 2040 plan for the
City of St. Louis Park. The visioning we are proposing is a rigorous process that relies
heavily on deep and wide community engagement with an eye to how the final vision
may be incorporated into future planning for the City. We look forward to providing the
City with a visioning experience that is educational and transformational in nature and
that will give the citizens of St. Louis Park an elevated awareness of the opportunities
and challenges that the future holds.
Future iQ Partners has a proven track record of designing and implementing large and
small‐scale community visioning and planning projects across urban and regional areas
in North America and Europe. We have completed over 50 large scale planning projects,
and worked with over 300 individual communities to develop visions. Throughout, we
have worked hard with local communities to help establish their priorities through
thoughtful visioning and planning processes. Some of the strengths we believe we bring
to this project include:
We specialize in visioning and stakeholder engagement. Engagement is one of
the cornerstones of Future iQ Partners’ visioning methodology. Our visioning
process specializes in applying innovative tools and approaches that bring
together stakeholders and community members to create collaborative and
cohesive community plans, and an aligned vision for the future. Importantly, our
visioning process provides a safe place for participants to share ideas, and to
openly consider and discuss various perspectives on issues of concern to their
community. We have accomplished facilitators who are well versed in steering
community discussions, and exploring local sensitivities and aspirations.
We understand the need for balanced redevelopment. We have worked with
many cities and regions at points‐in‐time when communities have reached
generational change, industry tipping points, and other scenarios that involve
significant redevelopment phases. For example, our work with the City of Edina
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 6
has involved extensive public engagement with businesses, neighborhood and
housing associations, community organizations and individual homeowners as
they deal with issues such of tear‐downs and rebuilds, re‐purposing commercial
properties, and higher density zoning issues. Balancing the need for
redevelopment as well as the need to maintain the essential character and
charm of the community was crucial in the visioning process and remains in their
vision and economic development planning framework.
We bring a future‐orientated perspective. Future iQ Partners specializes in
studying and understanding larger emergent trends and influences that are re‐
shaping communities and regions. We have published foresight research on
‘Cities of the Future’ (2015), ‘Economics of Collaboration’ (2015), the ‘Future of
Food’ (2016) and the ‘Future of Manufacturing’ (2016). We have hosted global
Think‐Tank forums at Windsor Castle (UK) on ‘Building Sustainable Regional
Communities’. This experience helps us shape truly future orientated and
visionary planning processes that anticipate the future and educate stakeholders
on the broader future challenges we all face.
We understand the power of good data. Future iQ Partners specializes in
sophisticated data collection and analysis. We believe that good stakeholder
process and data collection, presented in a transparent and interactive manner,
can help build rapid alignment around key points of consensus.
Future iQ Partners operates with a high level of integrity and prides itself on its ability to
develop and deliver innovative projects that make a lasting contribution. Our high‐level
engagement, hands‐on approach, as well as the effectiveness of our methodology, data
visualization graphics and published community‐specific reports will help the citizens of
St. Louis Park understand the visioning process and their role in making their own
future. This thorough understanding of visioning is critical, as it will lead to the creation
of a Community Vision that can be ‘owned’ by everyone, and will strategically position
the City for the future.
Our goal throughout this project is to provide a process that will both engage and
inspire the community members of St. Louis Park to create for themselves a future that
is visionary, sustainable, innovative and inclusive. It would be our privilege to work with
the City of St. Louis Park on this initiative. Please contact me for clarifications as needed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours sincerely,
David Beurle
CEO, Future iQ Partners, Inc.
Email: david@future‐iq.com
Tel: +1 715 559 5046
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 7
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 1
Table of Contents
1.0 Future iQ Partners ‐ Background ........................................................................ 3
2.0 Project Outcomes .............................................................................................. 4
3.0 Description of Proposed Methodology and Approach ....................................... 5
3.1 Statement of Work and Deliverables ....................................................................... 6
3.2 Phase 1: Initial Planning and Research .................................................................... 7
3.3 Phase 2: Developing Scenarios of the Future........................................................... 8
3.3.1 Pre‐Think Tank Surveys and Research ....................................................................... 9
3.3.2 St. Louis Park – Future Think Tank Workshop ........................................................... 9
3.3.3 ‘Scenarios for the Future’ Report ............................................................................ 12
3.3.4 Develop Communications Package and Train Local Facilitators ............................. 12
3.4 Phase 3: Broad Community Engagement .............................................................. 13
3.4.1 Broad Community Engagement and Community Surveys ...................................... 13
3.4.2 Data Visualization Platform ..................................................................................... 14
3.4.3 Data Analysis and the Production of a Community Engagement Report ................ 16
3.4.4 Reconvene Future Think Tank Group to validate Final Vision ................................. 17
3.5 Phase 4: Vision 2040 and its Incorporation into the Comp Plan Process ................ 17
3.5.1 Vision 2040 .............................................................................................................. 17
3.5.2 Incorporation of Vision 2040 into Comp Plan Process ............................................ 18
4.0 Future iQ – Qualifications and Experience ....................................................... 18
4.1 Specific Foresight Work and Research ................................................................... 19
4.2 Community Engagement Expertise ........................................................................ 19
4.3 Experience Leading a City Visioning Process .......................................................... 20
4.3.1 City of Edina, Minnesota (2014‐2015) ..................................................................... 20
4.3.2 Newton Transformation Council, Newton, Iowa (2007) ......................................... 21
4.4 Ability to create a public, engagement‐rich process to update and integrate
direction into the Comprehensive Plan .............................................................................. 22
4.4.1 Allen County, Ohio (2014‐16). ................................................................................. 22
4.4.2 Oshkosh Region, Wisconsin, USA (2014‐15). ........................................................... 22
4.4.3 Kewaunee Region, Wisconsin (2013‐14) ................................................................. 23
4.4.4 The Community Progress Initiative, Wisconsin (2003‐09) ...................................... 23
4.5 Related Planning Projects with Government Entities ............................................. 23
5.0 General Project Timeline ................................................................................. 25
6.0 Project Personnel ............................................................................................ 26
6.1 Primary Vision Consultant: David Beurle, CEO, Future iQ Partners ........................ 26
6.2 Supporting Personnel ............................................................................................ 27
6.2.1 Heather Branigin, Research and Development Specialist ....................................... 27
6.2.2 Dr. Jeffrey Sachse, Research and Development Specialist ...................................... 27
6.2.3 Heidi Beierle, Planning Specialist ............................................................................. 28
6.2.4 Marcus Grubbs, Planning Specialist ......................................................................... 28
6.2.5 Marc Rassel, Creative Director ................................................................................ 29
6.3 Personnel Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................................... 30
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 8
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 2
7.0 Project Budget Estimate ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
8.0 Project References and Contact Information ................................................... 31
8.1 Vision Edina, Minnesota (2014‐2015)..................................................................... 31
8.2 Task Force Lima, Ohio – Defense Initiative (2015‐2016) ......................................... 31
8.3 Oshkosh Regional Defense Industry Div. Initiative (2014‐2015) .............................. 32
8.4 Newton Transformation Council, Newton, Iowa (2007) ......................................... 32
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 9
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 3
1.0 Future iQ Partners ‐ Background
Future iQ Partners was founded in 2003, and specializes in the field of economic and
community development with a special focus on visioning and engagement,
organizational, industry, community and regional planning. Future iQ Partners operates
across three continents with team members located worldwide. In North America, the
company has worked in the Midwest since 2003, and is currently undertaking (or has
recently completed) a portfolio of projects in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Ohio,
Illinois, Nebraska and Texas.
Collaborative Community Planning – Future iQ has extensive experience in large and
small scale multi‐organizational visioning and planning projects and economic
development initiatives, many including scenario planning and stakeholder engagement.
Much of this work involves bringing various groups and organizations together to create
collective and cohesive integrated economic and workforce development plans and an
aligned vision for the future. We have completed numerous planning projects, some
involving large stakeholder participation and extensive data visualization. We take a
practical, hands‐on approach to working with groups in both urban and rural areas and
take great care to provide services that are specific to the needs of each client.
Future iQ specializes in the following functional and sector areas:
City and Urban Planning
Economic and Workforce Development
Organizational and Corporate Planning
Regional Planning
Defense Sector Engagement
Tourism Industry Planning and Analysis
Future iQ’s specialized methodology includes:
Scenario‐Based Strategic Planning and Visioning
Stakeholder and Community Engagement
Network and Supply Chain Mapping
Data Visualization
The Future Game
Customized Foresight Research
Please refer to www.future‐iq.com for more detail.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 10
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 4
2.0 Project Outcomes
Outcome
The primary outcome of the Vision process will be the production of a final St. Louis
Park Vision 2040 that will enable the City Council and staff to incorporate the vision into
long‐range planning as well as day‐to‐day decision making. The visioning process and
resulting deliverables described in the Project Process Plan of this proposal will ensure a
process that will be inclusive and future‐oriented for all community members of St.
Louis Park. The resulting Vision 2040 will provide a relevant set of strategies to apply to
future planning and decision‐making and will give St. Louis Park the competiveness and
resilience it will need to face the opportunities and challenges that will come its way.
Process
Future iQ Partners recognizes that the ‘process’ of the visioning work produces its own
significant outcome. We are proposing a visioning process that is both highly
educational and transformational and will produce a cadre of more informed and
engaged citizens in St. Louis Park. The process is educational in that it will serve as a
catalyst for in‐depth, forward‐looking conversation about the City and its future. The
process is transformational in that it will produce a broad elevated awareness of the
challenges the future holds. The depth and breadth of the visioning process will provide
deep strategic insight into the future while at the same time providing a transparent
understanding of community views and where points of consensus exist. It is our
anticipation that these overarching outcomes of the visioning process will provide the
citizens of St. Louis Park with the clarity and guidance that will serve their community
planning for years to come.
Outputs and Reports
In addition to the deliverables described in our Statement of Work and Deliverables,
the following practical outputs (reports and platforms) will be produced during this
project:
Public Engagement Plan ‐ developed with City team
Benchmark Analysis Report – providing comparative profile
Communications Plan – developed with City Team
Scenarios for the Future Report – derived from think‐tanks workshop
Community Surveys and Documented Results – including full data sets
Data Visualization Platform – interactive searchable data visualization
Community Engagement Report – outlining key finding and analysis
Strategic Vision Framework 2040
Recommendations for inclusion of Vision 2040 in the Comprehensive Plan
process
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 11
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 5
3.0 Description of Proposed Methodology and Approach
Future iQ Partners believes this project is an opportunity for the City of St. Louis Park to
create a comprehensive view of how it sees itself within the twin cities, the State of
Minnesota and the global community beyond. The challenges and opportunities that
will present themselves during the visioning process will help to identify strengths and
weaknesses within the community. What will be important is what the community
decides to do with that information and the resulting actions that will be taken in future
planning. St. Louis Park is a community of great assets – from its parks and trails, to its
active arts community, to its jump into accessible light rail transportation, to its superb
education system and West End shopping district – the City has the potential to both
keep what is great about the City and to continue to develop a city of the future for all
generations.
Drawing on previous experience, we believe that the best way to produce a successful
visioning project is by using a scenario‐based methodology. The informed bottom‐up
driven approach that we are proposing is inclusive and seeks to integrate quality of life
decisions that are intrinsic to community planning. There are several key criteria
needed:
Strong collaborative approach. The long‐term success of this project will be
dependent on building strong collaboration amongst St. Louis Park’s various
groups, committees and community members. The development of this type of
‘eco‐system’ needs to be built in upfront in the planning stages of the project
with a conscious effort to include underrepresented groups. St. Louis Park has a
wide variety of groups and concerns that need to coalesce around a common
vision. Some of these include environmental concerns, transportation issues,
sidewalks and trails, housing, among others. The Vision Consultant will work
with the City to engage as many groups and individuals as possible in the
visioning process.
Future oriented. Building a community‐wide shared vision of the future will be
critical for the City of St. Louis Park. Issues such as commercial development,
transportation, education, environment, population changes and livability,
among others, may all be key drivers in the visioning process for the City.
Data driven approach, including data visualization. Our experience suggests
that projects like this are most successful when built on transparent data‐driven
approaches, inclusive of as many community representatives as possible.
Project management and communication strategy. Building the systems and
communication methods to ensure compliance and timely delivery are
important features of our project management.
The work outlined below will extend well beyond the traditional SWOT analysis, and will
take a larger look at the City’s future and potential implications. The process will help to
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 12
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 6
define a broad community vision, objectives and directions, using a collaborative
process and multiple engagement techniques.
3.1 Statement of Work and Deliverables
Future iQ Partners anticipates the duration of this project to be approximately eleven
months, from August 2016 through June 2017. This timeframe is flexible depending on
the needs of City of St. Louis Park. The Vision Consultant will monitor the project’s
progress with City staff and make on‐site visits every 3‐4 weeks to attend meetings, host
all key workshops, and present a status report at work meetings of the City Council.
Local Future iQ Partners staff will assist with the project, particularly in the preparation
of reports and at public engagement sessions.
In addition to the Future iQ reports and visuals developed throughout the project
process, specific deliverables as requested by the City of St. Louis Park will be:
1. Identification of an overall process for developing a Vision for St. Louis Park.
This will be described in detail in Phases 1‐4 of this proposal.
2. Broad community engagement in the visioning process. Phase 2 and 3 detail
how community engagement will be carried out through Future iQ Partners’
visioning process.
3. Recorded input of community engagement; Community Surveys (both hard
copy and online). Community engagement will be recorded both in hard copy
surveys and online surveys in Phase 3.
4. Identification and synthesis of vision themes or areas of focus from the
community engagement process into strategic directions. Identification of
vision themes and drivers will be identified in the Scenarios of the Future Report
in Phase 2. A synthesis of community engagement results into vision themes or
strategic directions will occur in the data visualization as well as in the
Community Engagement Report of Phase 3.
5. Identification of ways Vision 2040 should be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition to the final production and presentation of
Vision 2040, Phase 4 gives a brief outline of possible ways that Vision 2040 may
be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Project Process Plan and production of deliverables are divided into four
phases illustrated in the diagram and described below:
Phase 1: Initial Planning and Background Research
Phase 2: Developing Scenarios of the Future
Phase 3: Broad Community Engagement
Phase 4: Final Vision 2040 and its Incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan process
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 13
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 7
3.2 Phase 1: Initial Planning and Research
This project will begin with meetings between Future iQ Partners team members and
City staff and other groups to establish a final work program and schedule (Public
Engagement Plan) specifying the number and type of planned meetings to occur
throughout the project. This would include a detailed program for the project, and a
review of the nature, quality and format of reports to be produced. It is also planned to
interview key stakeholders, organization heads and community liaison people, to build
rapport and a better understanding of the prevailing community dynamics, concerns,
issues and expectations.
Working closely with the City, our team will conduct relevant background research,
including the exploration of existing planning efforts in order to understand those
strategic directions already established for St. Louis Park, as well as to identify progress
made towards meeting these objectives.
Preliminary research components will include:
Benchmark Analysis Report including current demographics, workforce,
economic profile.
Review of existing St. Louis Park plans and other strategic documents on trends
and factors shaping the City and region.
Proposed City of St. Louis Park
Vision 2040 Project Process Plan
Phase 1:
Ini al Planning and Research
Phase 3:
Broad Community Engagement
Phase 4:
Vision 2040 and its Incorpora on into
Comp Plan Process
Ini al mee ngs & interviews
Develop project plan & schedule; Public Engagement Plan
Background research and Benchmark Analysis Report
Pre‐Think Tank surveys and research
St. Louis Park ‐ Future Think Tank Workshop
“Scenarios of the Future” Report
Broad community engagement & surveys
Data Visualiza on Pla orm
Data analysis; Community Engagement Report
Reconvene Think Tank Group to assist with final vision
Strategic vision framework & ac on plan finalized
Produc on of graphics and visuals
Presenta on of St. Louis Park Vision 2040
Work with staff & community to transi on Vision 2040
into Comprehensive Plan process
Phase 2:
Developing Scenarios of the Future
Develop communica ons pkg & train local facilitators
Create communica ons plan with the City
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 14
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 8
For a sample Benchmark analysis please see: http://future‐iq.com/project/vision‐edina/
Concurrently during phase one, Future iQ Partners team members will meet with City
staff to create a preliminary Communications Plan for the project. Team members will
work closely with City staff throughout the duration of the project to update and keep
current the project information distributed to community members. This is an
important aspect of the project as it adds to the transparency of the process and
encourages community participation.
Examples of preliminary communications would be:
The design and production of a logo for the Vision 2040 project.
The design and implementation of a webpage on the City’s website and social
media platforms to introduce the Vision 2040 project to the community and to
outline preliminary events and activities of the project.
The production of a Press Release to introduce the Vision 2040 project to the
broader Twin Cities community.
Outcomes of Phase 1 include:
Establishment of a detailed final work program and schedule (Public
Engagement Plan), including dates of key events and deliverables.
Establish final stakeholder participation program, expectations of number of
citizens and stakeholder groups involved, and overall outcomes.
Establish metrics, measures or indicators of progress by which the City could
evaluate ongoing implementation of the scenario‐based planning into the future.
Background research and analysis for relevant tasks identified.
Production of a Benchmark Analysis Report.
Creation of an initial Communications Plan with City staff
Throughout the project, the Future iQ team will provide content and material to support
future‐orientated stories and news to bring the future planning perspective to the local
‘news feed’ to the citizens.
3.3 Phase 2: Developing Scenarios of the Future
Phase 2 of the visioning process seeks to develop a “deep dive” into community
engagement. By the very nature of the Think Tank process and the production of
scenarios for the community, the St. Louis Park – Future Think Tank will provide for
community members an enhanced awareness of the issues and opportunities
confronting the community. This deep strategic insight into the future will serve to
elevate the depth of discussion about the future and provide guidance to the broader
community engagement in Phase 3.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 15
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 9
3.3.1 Pre‐Think Tank Surveys and Research
Our team will work closely with City staff prior to the St. Louis Park Future Think Tank
Workshop. This work would include:
Undertake background research exploring relevant local, regional and macro
trends. Examine comparable case studies. This research will help ‘front load’ the
scenario planning process.
Develop an online survey for the think tank participants. This survey will explore
perceptions about the future, perceived areas of opportunity and threat, views
about changes occurring on the island and future risk.
Conduct surveys with key local stakeholders, and prepare a summary report.
It is proposed to use the network of participants to begin the outreach to the broader
community, prior to the workshop. They will be tasked to engage with fellow citizens to
explore perceptions and perspectives of a series of key issues. This work will begin to
spread the engagement and conversation across the community.
3.3.2 St. Louis Park – Future Think Tank Workshop
Future iQ Partners’ unique approach to public engagement and visioning focuses on
scenario‐based strategic planning and stresses the role of future‐thinking to identify
shared interests and common concerns. Scenario Planning is a method that is used to
develop plausible scenarios for the future. Scenarios are not predictions, but are a way
of exploring plausible futures. The method expands on traditional strategic planning in
that it allows the exploration of many factors, or drivers of the future at the same time.
This is done by using local knowledge and expectations about the drivers to produce a
framework that defines and explores a range of plausible futures. This enables people
to explore the impacts and consequences of a range of different future paths as they
seek a preferred future.
The key aspects and features of the approach include:
It is highly customizable, and will be built around the work program defined in
this proposal.
It is data and evidence‐based, ensuring a robust outcome, and a vision and plan
that deals with reality, rather than a ‘wish‐list.’
Community and Stakeholder Engagement are front and center in the design, and
all citizens have the option to have input via multiple methods.
This process is inclusive and easily scalable, and can draw input from all sections
of the community ‐ from backyards to classrooms to boardrooms.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 16
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 10
Outputs include high quality reports, data analysis and presentations (including
innovative data visualization platforms), where community and stakeholder
input is valued and reflected in the final outcomes.
Working with a core representative and invited local stakeholder group identified by the
City, the scenario ‘Think Tank’ planning process develops a series of plausible futures for
the community. This would be conducted as a highly participatory workshop run across
two evenings or days and would include 100+ key representative stakeholder
participants. The workshop program includes:
Review of important trends, background research and stakeholder networks.
Identification of key drivers shaping the future and clustering of critical sets of
drivers.
Formulation of different plausible scenario ‘spaces’. Developing detailed
narratives and descriptions about each of the plausible scenarios.
Examining the impact and consequences of each scenario on various aspects of
the city.
Identifying preferred futures and critical actions steps.
The process produces four plausible futures. It provides a robust framework to test
proposed strategies and assumptions, and a ‘testing ground’ for planning, particularly in
complex or changing communities. These sessions bring together local stakeholders and
provide an important forum for discussion and planning about the future. The scenario‐
based approach to visioning has significant advantages including:
It allows stakeholders choice, and the chance to engage with a series of well
thought out and researched plausible futures. This accelerates the process of
visioning, and allows people to consider longer‐term choices and implications,
rather than short‐term self‐interest agendas.
This naturally leads to high quality data visualizations, where the future can have
a tactile and interpretable representation.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 17
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 11
In essence, we believe this process is trying to answer important questions such as:
What should the City of St. Louis Park become?
How will community preferences and business development fit into this vision?
How does the St. Louis Park ensure that planning for the future will incorporate
quality of life issues?
How should public funds be invested and leveraged to improve the city?
In addition, we believe that we can use the opportunity of the planning process to build
on initiatives such as its previous Comprehensive Plan and its Vision 2005 Plan and
further examine questions such as:
What is unique and important about living and doing business in the City of St.
Louis Park?
How can we keep the City relevant and attractive to current and future residents
in ways that best capitalize on our assets and protects resources?
How do we retain the character of the City while at the same time supporting
development and/or redevelopment?
How does development in the region complement or supplement other
development occurring throughout the community and region?
Stakeholder
engagement
Explore
opportuni es,
advantages and risks
Future Scenario
development
• Develop narra ves of
plausible futures
• Mul ple dimension
analysis
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Assess Preferred /
Expected future and
implica ons
• Tes ng ground for
future strategy
and direc on.
Assess implica on of plausible scenarios on
triple bo om line
• Examine combina ons
of factors and trends
Percep ons of
the future
Internal and
external drivers
Exis ng plans
and work Research
Analysis
Tes ng
Aligned vision and strategic
collabora ve ac on plan
Ac on
Foresight
• Customized research
and analysis
Future iQ
Future Think Tank ‐ Scenario‐based strategic planning process
• Basis for broader
strategic plan
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 18
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 12
Where does St. Louis Park fit into the world, and what are our unique
competitive strengths?
What jobs will we have and how will we continue to attract a skilled workforce?
How does the area anticipate and take advantage of emerging trends in the
economy, County/community living, and aspirations of community members?
What hurdles might the City face, and how do we build collaborative approaches
and structures to ensure continued successful progress?
Where is there opportunity or need to evolve or change? Where is there an
appetite for change, and where might there be resistance to change?
What is the story we want to tell about ourselves?
The methodology being proposed will allow St. Louis Park community members to
tackle these questions in an engaging and thought provoking manner. This will then lead
to a logical action plan, which defines a clear roadmap to the preferred future.
3.3.3 ‘Scenarios for the Future’ Report
Following the workshop, Future iQ will prepare a detailed high quality workshop report
(including data tables and visuals) with outcomes and scenario analysis, together with
survey results and key recommendations. The report will be in a professional, print
ready format, suitable for circulation to local stakeholders. This material then provides
the basis for the community engagement, and ultimately the identification of the
preferred future (vision) for the City of St. Louis Park. To see a sample ‘Scenarios for the
Future’ Report, please visit: http://future‐iq.com/project/vision‐edina/
3.3.4 Develop Communications Package and Train Local Facilitators
Following the production of the Scenarios for the Future Report, Future iQ Partners
team members will work closely with City staff to update City communications on the
project. At this point, communications regarding public meetings, workshops
opportunities to engage in community surveys will need to be in full swing. Based on
feedback from our experience in Edina, Future iQ recommends multiple forms of
advertisement – social media, local newspapers, postcards and flyers – about
community engagement opportunities.
Future iQ Partners will also train St. Louis Park City staff to be local facilitators of
community workshops and outreach efforts. In our experience, the locally trained team
is made up of City staff willing to go out into the community to engage local citizens in
the visioning process. This added City involvement creates a collaborative environment
between local government and citizens that can add to the success of the visioning
process. This expands the capacity of the City to reach many more groups and citizens
within the community, thus providing more data to be collected with respect to
community preferences via survey responses and feedback.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 19
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 13
3.4 Phase 3: Broad Community Engagement
Phase 3 focuses on the breadth or width of community engagement in the visioning
process. Seeking significant breadth of community engagement involves trying to reach
every corner of the community to engage as many people and groups as possible in the
visioning process. This is important to the community and planners in that the
collection of data from as many community members as possible will provide a more
transparent understanding of community views and where points of consensus lie. It
follows that the larger the collection sample, the more it will reflect the nature of the
community.
It is recognized there is a desire to reach into each ‘corner’ and edge of the community.
In addition to the detailed description of engagement techniques in the subsections
below, Future iQ Partners will seek broad community engagement by:
Investigating community connections by using FiQ’s network mapping expertise
to identify community groups and subgroups.
Reaching out specifically to neighborhood groups and associations. St. Louis
Park has a well‐developed neighborhood association network and these will
provide significant inroads to engagement.
Use people to connect to other people. We have used this in other engagement
projects and it works well. Those who attend visioning sessions are given
multiple information sources to “pass on” to friends and colleagues.
Permeate the stratification of the community – especially social networks such
as schools, ethnic groups, sporting associations and gathering locations.
3.4.1 Broad Community Engagement and Community Surveys
Following the Think Tank workshop, the broader public engagement will begin in
earnest. This is the stage where groups not commonly involved in community activities
will be sought out with the assistance of the City staff and other groups. The following
face‐to‐face engagement approaches will be used:
Future Thinking workshops
Larger town hall‐style meetings as well as small‐group meetings
Attendance at City events with table representatives to talk about the vision
process and to invite citizens to complete surveys
Neighborhood Associations/community groups/sector workshops
Intercept surveys
Interviews with stakeholders
The format of the community engagement session will include:
Introduction to the project
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 20
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 14
Outline and discussion of key issues and trends
Outline of the scenarios developed by the Think Tank group
Discussion about potential implications and impacts of each scenario on the
target workshop groups or citizens
Completion of detailed input survey
We have allocated time on‐site for detailed work presentations and community
engagement. A mixture of the team will facilitate these workshops, together with the
City’s locally trained team. It is anticipated that approximately 30‐40 targeted
workshops will be held, providing access to a cross‐section of stakeholders and citizens.
The workshops are typically 1.5 to 2.0 hours, and include about 20 minutes to complete
a comprehensive Community Survey. Town‐hall meetings and City events are additional
access points to community members, and FiQ team members will work with City staff
to coordinate these outreach efforts.
Towards the second half of the community engagement cycle, we will also provide an
Online Community Survey option to allow for broad based participation into the
process. In all cases, expertly designed survey instruments capture resident and
business owner perspectives and visions. The surveys will examine appetite for change,
and sensitivity to a range of future shaping themes, identified in the think tank process.
It is anticipated that 1,000‐1,500 citizens will be engaged in these detailed face‐to‐face
sessions. These are considered high quality data points. In addition, it is aimed to
engage with another 1,500 – 2,500 citizens in online formats, or response to short issue
polls and surveys. These represent somewhat lower quality data points, but can help
build the wider engagement and awareness outcomes.
3.4.2 Data Visualization Platform
The survey results (and project reports) will be presented in an innovative and
interactive data visualization platform. This will allow community members to examine
the data collected from surveys themselves, and explore levels of alignment or
divergence around key topics, and selectively filter to view perspectives from their own
sector, location and other similar profile categories. An example of such an interactive
data visualization developed by FiQ for a similar project can be viewed at
www.visionedina.com. This approach provides interactive and transparent feedback to
participants, and allows them to explore the issues and views across the community.
Future iQ Partners has developed this concept and approach to provide transparency
and a data‐driven approach to community visioning and key issue analysis.
The following image shows an example of the screen shot of the ‘point of consensus’ in
an example project. The dots represent groups of citizens and where their preferred
future was located relative to a range of choices within the scenario matrix. Each point
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 21
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 15
can be interrogated to allow a full understanding of that person’s view (or group of
people) across a range of issues. The dots represent an average across 8 key slider
sensitivity scales of major issues facing town planning and vision.
Example of data visualization platform page
The point of consensus will move depending on the search filters selected, allowing an
engaging and interesting way to explore the various views of different cohorts and
groups within the community. In St. Louis Park, we would set filters based on profile
questions such as age, neighborhood, the length of time living in the city, gender, ethnic
background and so on.
The following screen shot shows responses, from an example project, to one of the key
slider sensitivity questions. Again it shows how this can be filtered and explored. This
approach to data collection and visualization allows extra insight and intelligence to be
gathered from the community surveys.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 22
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 16
3.4.3 Data Analysis and the Production of a Community Engagement Report
In addition to the quantitative analysis, each Community Survey question is
accompanied by a written response. This data is then analyzed, allowing us to explore
citizens’ perspectives more deeply on key issues or topics. Based on the community‐
wide visioning, planning and engagement process, we will prepare a Community
Engagement Report, which will provide a detailed analysis of community and
stakeholder views and desires for the future. For an example of this type of report,
please see the following link:
http://future‐iq.com/project/vision‐edina/
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 23
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 17
3.4.4 Reconvene Future Think Tank Group to validate Final Vision
As a concluding community engagement step in the visioning process, Future iQ
Partners will reconvene the St. Louis Park Future Think Tank stakeholder group to
review the compiled community input and to validate the final vision for the City. We
recommend this final session to secure added “buy in” to the final Community Vision by
community members and stakeholders. The Vision Consultant will reconvene the
original St. Louis Park Future Think Tank participants to revisit the results of the original
Think Tank and incorporate the results from the expanded community engagement to
produce a draft outline of Vision 2040.
3.5 Phase 4: Vision 2040 and its Incorporation into the Comp Plan Process
The visioning process that is being proposed by Future iQ Partners is one that promises
to deliver outcomes that will blend seamlessly into the Comprehensive Plan process.
The strategic vision and framework that will result in the Vision 2040 plan will include
community selected drivers and priorities that will inform and guide the elements of the
final Comprehensive Plan. Each strategic area in the vision framework will be analyzed
based on community data collected to provide well‐documented recommendations for
action. Examples of strategic priorities may include:
Residential Development
Transportation Options
Commercial Development
Life/Work Balance
Education
Population/Demographics
Environment
Regional Leadership
3.5.1 Vision 2040
Based on the results of the extensive public engagement and the production of the draft
Vision 2040, Future iQ team members will prepare the final Vision 2040 document
including a recommended implementation action plan for the future. This will
incorporate the proposed vision framework and provide recommended strategies for
policy development to build on and complement recent City planning efforts and to
represent the results received through the community and stakeholder engagement.
The final version of Vision 2040 will be presented to the City of St. Louis Park by the
Vision Consultant, either at a City Council meeting or at a meeting of the City’s choosing.
Specific elements of the final version of the St. Louis Park Vision 2040 will include:
Substantive supporting text, visuals and rationale.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 24
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 18
Strategic focus areas, issues and actions – high level analysis of areas of
consensus and desire for change, and areas where alignment is needed.
Specific recommendations and analysis of appetite and urgency for change, and
around what priorities and issues.
Recommendations on policy areas that will require development, and supporting
documentation from the public engagement process.
Creation of visual elements and graphics reflecting district stakeholder’s ideas,
options and desires. This will provide a strong visual narrative of the future vision
and desired plan outcomes.
3.5.2 Incorporation of Vision 2040 into Comp Plan Process
Upon completion of the Vision 2040 document and visioning process, Future iQ Partners
staff will work closely with City staff to transition Vision 2040 into the Comprehensive
Plan process. Vision 2040 will be relevant to all eight elements of the Met Council’s
Comprehensive Plan requirements. Specifically, Future iQ Partners will assist City staff to
apply relevant information from the data collected from the visioning process to inform
the areas of:
‐ Land Use ‐ Housing
‐ Transportation ‐ Resilience
‐ Water Resources ‐ Economic Competitiveness
‐ Parks & Trails ‐ Implementation
For an example of community engagement in the Comprehensive Plan process, Future
iQ Partners would propose a public meeting whereby City representatives and the
Vision Consultant would host a panel discussion on how Vision 2040 may impact the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. This discussion could then be opened to the public for
questions, answers and suggestions, thereby engaging the community in the
Comprehensive Planning process itself.
4.0 Future iQ – Qualifications and Experience
Future iQ Partners connects global presence to local solutions. With over a decade of
experience, we have amassed a diverse portfolio of projects that have built aligned
vision and strategic action based on a future‐oriented approach. Our client base
includes governments, cities, regional communities, corporations, organizations and
industry groups. The sections below outline our qualifications and experience as
requested. Please note that Future iQ Partners has a verifiable record of completing
projects on time and within budget. Additional information is available as needed.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 25
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 19
4.1 Specific Foresight Work and Research
Future iQ Partners is an industry leader in foresight work and research. In addition to
the future‐oriented approach we bring to all of our projects, links to our recent foresight
research publications and 2012 Future iQ Partners hosted global consultation may be
found below.
‘Cities of The Future – Anticipating Trends and Possibilities’ (2015)
http://future‐iq.com/project/cities‐of‐the‐future/
‘The Future of Manufacturing’ (2016) http://future‐iq.com/project/future‐
manufacturing‐2016/;
‘The Future of Food’ (2016) http://future‐iq.com/project/future‐food‐2016/;
‘Economics of Collaboration’ (2015) http://future‐iq.com/project/economics‐of‐
collaboration/;
Global Think Tank – Windsor Castle, UK. In October 2012, Future iQ Partners
hosted and facilitated a global consultation entitled, ‘Building Sustainable
Regions in Today’s World’, at St Georges House, Windsor Castle. This followed
the 2010 presentation made by Future iQ Partners at a Windsor Castle on
‘Creating Entrepreneurial Communities.’ http://future‐iq.com/projects/st‐
georges‐house/
Global Food Industry Scenarios (2015‐16). Future iQ Partners is conducting
global scenario and strategy development with Griffith Foods, a major Mid‐West
(Chicago) based food processing company. With operations in 19 countries, they
are undergoing a major strategic review, and Future iQ Partners is working with
them to develop global food industry scenarios, including widespread industry
engagement and presentations across the world. http://future‐
iq.com/project/griffith‐foods‐chicago‐usa‐2016/
“Many people have simply not woken up to the challenges ahead and I am convinced
that the work of Future iQ Partners plays a very important part in promoting new
thinking.” (Lord David Puttnam, CBE, Global Think Tank – Windsor Castle, UK)
4.2 Community Engagement Expertise
The Future iQ Partners team presented in this proposal has significant experience in
working on community engagement and planning projects. The team has worked with
large‐scale engagement sessions, with up to 800 participants at a single session, as well
as smaller‐scale sessions that have taken place in libraries and community‐member
homes. The lead facilitators have collectively conducted over 300 community‐visioning
sessions and completed more than 50 major long‐term planning projects, including city,
regional and neighborhood scales.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 26
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 20
Please note that ideas for engaging both a deep and wide swath of the community,
along with methods for synthesizing information and data to create Vision 2040 are
described extensively in Phase 3 of this proposal. The engagement process that Future
iQ Partners proposes relies heavily on community engagement that reaches all corners
of the community and seeks to collect data from many community members. This data
is compiled in our data visualization platform enabling transparency and critical
inclusion to the visioning process.
4.3 Experience Leading a City Visioning Process
Future iQ Partners has completed many visioning projects for cities, regions and
corporations. Outlined here are two very different city visioning projects that have each
positively impacted their communities for the long term. The first and most relevant to
St. Louis Park, is Vision Edina, a visioning project that took place throughout the course
of 2014‐2015. The City of Edina is using the vision and strategic planning focus areas
that came out of the process to guide their long‐term planning as well as their every‐day
decision‐making. They are also using the reports and recommendations that resulted
from the process to inform the update of their Comprehensive Plan due to Met Council
at the end of 2018. The second is an older project from Newton, Iowa. Recent
communications from the Newton project director at the time celebrates the ongoing
impact of Future iQ Partners’ visioning work.
4.3.1 City of Edina, Minnesota (2014‐2015)
Edina, Minnesota ‐ The City of Edina, is a well‐known ‘inner‐ring’ city, adjacent to St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, with a population of approximately 50,000. Edina is known as a
successful city that has evolved to become a best‐practice model amongst municipalities
in the region. Future iQ Partners was contracted by the city to design and facilitate the
Vision Edina initiative, to develop the strategic vision framework for the city’s future.
This initiative was an ambitious and innovative community visioning and engagement
process, set within the context of a major North American metropolitan region
incorporating the twin cities of Minneapolis‐St. Paul.
From a strategic planning perspective, Vision Edina examined the challenges and
opportunities that were identified as having the highest priority within the community.
These included the community’s stated desired features to be inclusive and connected;
to maintain a “build‐to‐scale” development perspective; to pursue sustainable
environment policies; to remain and build its status as being a community of learning;
and to be future‐oriented in its planning initiatives. These strategic focus areas
represent key priorities and drivers that were determined during the scenario planning
process and highlighted within Edina’s two overarching areas of concern: “Balancing
Edina’s Redevelopment” and “Enhancing Community Fabric and Character”.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 27
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 21
Vision Edina was an ambitious, broad‐based and inclusive community visioning process.
It also served as an important foundation for other strategic efforts, such as the city’s
upcoming Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Plan. Edina has a very high
capacity and engaged community and Future iQ Partners achieved over 600 high quality
survey points with residents, businesses and other stakeholders with respect to
engagement with the Vision Edina plan. Each ‘touch point’ represented some 2‐3 hours
per respondent, including workshop participation and detailed resurvey responses.
The initiative examined future trends in cities across North America and globally, and
how generational values are changing. This was linked to local aspirations, values and
desires for the future. The final product produced a clear understanding of what people
might be looking for in Edina in 2030 and beyond. Future iQ Partners worked with the
City of Edina on this project from its commencement to conclusion in Spring 2015. For
copies of the Vision Edina reports and analysis, please visit: http://future‐
iq.com/project/vision‐edina/
4.3.2 Newton Transformation Council, Newton, Iowa (2007)
Newton, Iowa ‐ Newton is a case study in the successful revitalization of a small
Midwestern city after a long‐standing primary employer terminated its operations.
Instead of folding up shop, Newton challenged conventional thinking and became a
magnet for innovations in renewable energy and printing and opened its doors to small
business development.
After a 100‐year presence in the City of Newton, the Maytag Corporation was bought by
Whirlpool Corporation and relocated operations. Faced with an impending economic
shock due to the loss of up to 3,000 jobs and corresponding income in the region, the
City of Newton created the Newton Transformation Council (NTC) to provide cohesive
leadership and organization for the city’s transition from corporate city to city of
innovation. The NTC did two things that provided clarity and direction for the city: it
commissioned a regional analysis including asset mapping to determine the boundaries
of the local labor market and Newton’s functional economic area (using commuting
patterns, intra‐regional trade, and infrastructure considerations), and it brought in
Future iQ Partners to conduct a community visioning session for the city.
According to Kim Didier, then Director of the NTC, the visioning session became a
turning point for the city as over 300 participating community members were able to
see hope in the potential to turn its economy into something broader than a one‐
corporation town, particularly in the area of renewable energy. President Obama
recognized Newton’s recovery and revitalization from the loss of the Maytag
Corporation in visits he made to the city in 2009 and 2012. The city has succeeded in its
revitalization to such a degree that the current challenge is to find employees to fill
open positions.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 28
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 22
Communications last month with Kim Didier finds the city continuing to develop its
community strengths and she generously gave Future iQ Partners this testimonial:
"I love this t‐shirt because it symbolizes to me the
work we did that fateful night (September 21, 2006)
with 300 + plus residents to put our vision together
with David Beurle’s help. To me, that was the night
that we created hope for our community and a sense
of empowerment to move beyond the loss of Maytag
and forge a new identity which is celebrated. This is
lasting transformation!!!”
‐ Kim Didier, Executive Director, DMACC
Business Resources, July 2016
For additional information on this project, please visit:
http://future‐iq.com/project/newton‐transformation‐council/
4.4 Ability to create a public, engagement‐rich process to update and
integrate direction into the Comprehensive Plan
Future iQ Partners specializes in building strong stakeholder engagement processes,
that inform action planning steps. Some recent Midwest projects that reflect
engagement rich processes are as follows:
4.4.1 Allen County, Ohio (2014‐16).
Future iQ Partners was contracted to design and lead the USA Department of Defense,
Office of Economic Adjustment funded Phase 1 and 2 of this project. These contracts
include collaborative action planning, stakeholder engagement (including via network
mapping), scenario planning, asset inventory, customized research and extensive
organizational facilitation. This project is focused on a 7 county regional economy
surrounding the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (U.S. Army/General Dynamics Land
Systems), and aims to build regional economic resilience.
http://future‐iq.com/project/task‐force‐lima/
4.4.2 Oshkosh Region, Wisconsin, USA (2014‐15).
This project was funded by the US Department of Defence and followed the announced
lay‐off of some 1,500 jobs from the region’s largest defense contractor (Oshkosh
Corporation). Future iQ Partners was contracted to design and lead a five county
regional planning effort as part of the economic diversification and response strategy.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 29
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 23
This work included stakeholder engagement (via network mapping), future planning and
scenario planning.
http://future‐iq.com/project/fox‐valley‐wisconsin/
4.4.3 Kewaunee Region, Wisconsin (2013‐14)
Following the announced closure of a regional nuclear power station, Future iQ Partners
was contracted to design and lead a three‐county long‐term regional planning effort as
part of the economic response strategy. This work included stakeholder engagement,
future planning and focus group sessions involving over 400 people. A comprehensive
vision‐based regional action plan has been developed to align the region and key
organisations around economic innovation and collaboration.
http://future‐iq.com/projects/kewaunee‐nuclear‐power‐station‐closure/
4.4.4 The Community Progress Initiative, Wisconsin (2003‐09)
The Future iQ Partners team were the key designers and facilitators of this initiative,
which was created to address the substantial local economic impact of the downturn in
the paper manufacturing industry. This region is home to several very large paper
making businesses, and is a renowned Cranberry producing region. The Community
Progress Initiative played a role to define a new vision, and act as a catalyst in shifting
culture from dependent to self‐reliant, building new and engaged civic processes.
http://future‐iq.com/projects/community‐progress‐initiative‐wisconsin‐usa/
4.5 Related Planning Projects with Government Entities
Future iQ Partners has established a thirteen‐year history of providing strategic planning
and regional visioning services to a number of government and government‐sponsored
agencies. The following selected references demonstrate the depth of services that the
company has provided to agencies at the Federal, state/provincial, and local level.
Travel Oregon (2014‐16). Strategic planning, including systems mapping and
data visualization work with Oregon Tourism Commission (Travel Oregon),
covering all 7 regions of the State and including numerous stakeholder
engagements. This has included planning with over 600 stakeholders across
numerous engagement and planning session.
http://future‐iq.com/project/oregon‐regional‐tourism‐planning‐usa/
Alberta Small Business Strategy (2013‐14) ‐ Future iQ Partners undertook a
comprehensive process of surveys, interviews and focus group sessions with
both service providers and clients. In particular, the brief for the project included
addressing the topic from a ‘systems perspective’; that is, looking at how the
various service delivery pieces together and the degree to which the suite of
services offered by the Province and its partners occurred as a coherent system.
http://future‐iq.com/project/regional‐and‐economic‐development‐in‐alberta/
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 30
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 24
North Tyrrhenian Sea–Mediterranean (2015). Future iQ Partners undertook an
EU inter‐territorial planning project including the port cities in Tuscany, Liguria,
Sardinia and Corsica (France). This initiative examined the opportunities for long‐
term collaboration and integration of transportation infrastructure.
http://future‐iq.com/project/mediterranean‐sea‐ports‐project/
The Gathering Tourism Initiative, Ireland (2013). The Gathering was the lead
tourism initiative for Ireland in 2013. It aimed to connect the global Diaspora
back into Ireland, and bring a new wave of tourists and visitors to the country.
Future iQ Partners designed and facilitated the Community Sessions for The
Gathering 2013 in the South West Region of Ireland.
Montespertoli, Tuscany, Italy (2014). Located about 20km southwest of
Florence, Montespertoli has a population of 13,300 (2013) and accounts for 1.3%
of the province of Florence’s population. Future iQ Partners, with their Italian
partners Klink produced a Scenario Planning process with local artisans, wine
makers, olive oil producers, farmers and agronomists. The planning assisted in
identifying key actions for the region and identified how various groups might
contribute to future developments. http://future‐iq.com/projects/scenario‐
planning‐in‐montespertoli‐tuscany
Mountains of León – Northern Spain (2013‐14). The Mountains of León are in
the province León in northwestern Spain. Populations of 60,000 people inhabit
this region. The region is undergoing challenges with regards to the loss of
mining in their area. These include the challenges of unemployment, youth
outmigration, an aging population and a lack of industry in the area. Future iQ
Partners worked with local organizations to create a process that has allowed
them to bring future thinking to the region and to enable the region to work
together as one community to shape the future. http://future‐
iq.com/projects/mountains‐of‐leon‐forging‐the‐future‐leon‐spain/
Future West Cork – Ireland (2009‐12). This regional visioning project drew
together stakeholders from across the West Cork Region (pop >100,000). It
explored the long‐term future and designed, facilitated and implemented an
intensive engagement process; with some 800 people having comprehensive
input. The future planning work was coupled with extensive local community
engagement sessions. http://future‐iq.com/projects/future‐west‐cork/
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 31
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 25
5.0 General Project Timeline
The following chart outlines key phases and suggested periods of activities. This timeline
reflects the relative emphasis of activity. Work on a number of the key deliverables will
occur in parallel. This will allow the work packages to be completed within the project
timeline.
Key Phases
Key Deliverables
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
Phase 1:
Initial Planning and
Research
Meetings and interviews with key
stakeholders and project managers
Develop detailed project plan and
schedule (Public Engagement Plan)
Background research on key tasks and
studies; Benchmark Analysis Report
Create communications plan with the
City
Phase 2:
Developing Scenarios
of the Future
Pre Think Tank surveys on community
views
St. Louis Park Future Think Tank
Workshop
Production of “Scenarios of the Future”
Report
Develop communications package and
train local facilitators
Phase 3:
Broad Community
Engagement
Broad community engagement;
interviews; community workshops
surveys; city events; town hall meetings
Produce data visualization platform
Data analysis; Produce Community
Engagement Report
Reconvene Think Tank Workshop Group
to review final report and finalize vision
Phase 4:
Vision 2040 and its
Incorporation into
Comprehensive Plan
Process
Produce detailed strategic vision
framework and implementation plan;
Produce detailed graphics and visuals to
complement the vision framework
Presentation of Final City of St. Louis
Park Vision 2040
Work with staff to transition Vision into
Comprehensive Plan process.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 32
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 26
6.0 Project Personnel
The proposed team brings together the senior staff to present an experienced and
reliable team. The team skills are complementary, with a mix of required skills in:
Highly developed critical thinking capacity in the area of project design, strategic
planning and collaboration building;
Detailed practical experience in economic analysis, planning, research, and data
analysis / visualization;
Community and stakeholder workshop facilitation, including extensive
experience in community planning, economic and workforce development,
industry cluster development, economic analysis and impacts research, and city
planning and redevelopment.
This team brings many decades of collective experience, a track record of success, and a
proven ability to work on high‐level and demanding public engagement and visioning
projects.
6.1 Primary Vision Consultant: David Beurle, CEO, Future iQ Partners
Qualifications
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Sydney University, Australia
Thirteen years as CEO of Future iQ Partners
Developed Future iQ Partners’ unique methodologies and
global presence of the company
Eight years as Principal Project Officer to Minister for Primary
Industry and Fisheries (Hon. Monty House, 1991‐2000),
Australia
Past Board Director, Western Australian Community Foundation
As founder and CEO of Future iQ Partners, David is a renowned expert in creating future
planning approaches for use in city, regional, industry and organizational settings. He
has pioneered the application of scenario planning for cities, regions, regional industries
and corporations around the world. David created the Future Game, a widely used
planning and workshop tool that has been used in over 500 workshops across 10
countries. As CEO of Future iQ Partners, David has led global projects across four
continents and has written and contributed to a number of foresight papers. Having
worked in the field of organizational and regional economic and community planning for
over 20 years, his work has earned international, national and state awards. David has
had a major role in all of Future iQ Partners’ projects as lead consultant and director of
projects.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 33
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 27
6.2 Supporting Personnel
6.2.1 Heather Branigin, Research and Development Specialist
Qualifications
Past‐President of the United Nations Association of Minnesota
(UNA‐MN)
M.A. in Teaching, University of St. Thomas, Minnesota
B.A. in Political Science and International Relations, Carleton
College, Minnesota
Honors Degree, Neuchatel Jr. College, Switzerland
Heather is an accomplished project manager, research analyst and grant writer, and has
been involved in the fields of Education and Development for over 20 years. She has a
background in Political Science and International Relations and is committed to helping
people understand global interconnectedness and collaboration. Heather is past
President and current board member of UNA‐MN, and co‐founded a Global Citizens
Fund to provide students opportunities to learn about the world. She has experience in
local government, and provided integral support to the Vision Edina project. She has
coordinated numerous conferences, events and workshops and applies her research
skills in both her professional and volunteer work.
6.2.2 Dr. Jeffrey Sachse, Research and Development Specialist
Qualifications
Doctorate in Political Science (UW Milwaukee).
Masters of Public Affairs (UW Madison).
Over fifteen years of experience as a practicing and academic
Economist.
Worked as Chief Economist for Wisconsin (USA) Department of
Workforce Development.
Expert on a number of foresight panels over the past decade on
issues ranging from regional development, rural development,
workforce and training, and manufacturing technology trends.
Jeffery specializes in detailed economic analysis and data interpretation. He has worked
extensively on industry clusters, regional partnerships, workforce development and
economic trends and indicators. He has led research and development projects in
transportation, manufacturing, and resource‐based industries; and, has conducted
program monitoring. This includes the development and administration of a number of
large‐scale survey and engagement projects. He has detailed global knowledge of the
manufacturing sector and the interplay between emerging technologies and their
potential disruptive and beneficial impact in key sectors such as agriculture,
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 34
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 28
manufacturing and food and beverage sectors. In addition, he has extensive experience
in support for defense related manufacturing industries and studies of value chains.
Jeffrey researched and co‐produced Future iQ Partners’ The Future of Manufacturing.
6.2.3 Heidi Beierle, Planning Specialist
Qualifications
Former Planning Commissioner for the City of Eugene, OR
M.A. in Community and Regional Planning, University
of Oregon
M.A. in English, Texas Christian University
B.A. in English, Colgate University, New York
Heidi has over 15 years of work experience in the field of Community and Regional
Planning. She is passionately committed to advancing transportation systems, and is a
known conference speaker on bicycle tourism. Heidi is a prolific writer and has used her
community organizing and project outreach skills to survey and compile tourism reports
and literature for Travel Oregon, the Gresham Area Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Southwest Oklahoma.
She currently manages an ongoing project that originated with a 3,500‐mile solo bike
trip from Eugene, Oregon, to Washington, DC, researching the relationship between
economic development, transportation, and environmental protection. Heidi is a
volunteer for Women in Transportation Seminar and Portland’s Community Cycling
Center and has served as Board Member of North by Northwest Transportation
Foundation and the North Tabor Neighborhood Association.
6.2.4 Marcus Grubbs, Planning Specialist
Qualifications
Former Community Planner in Hazard Mitigation Land
Use and Market Assessment Planning for the Headwaters
Regional Development Commission in Minnesota.
M.A. in Urban and Regional Planning, Humphrey School
of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.
B.A. in Environmental Studies, University of Minnesota‐Morris.
Candidate for M.B.A., Carlson School of Management,
University of Minnesota‐Twin Cities (2018).
Marcus is currently completing a Graduate Research Fellowship with the University of
Minnesota – Twin Cities, managing a research collaborative exploring the future of
agricultural production, economic development, and environmental conservation in
Southern Minnesota. Marcus has extensive project management experience with a
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 35
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 29
particular interest in scenario‐based planning and regional economics and has worked
for the Northwest Emergency Communications Board in Minnesota to review board
management and conduct a program review. Marcus recently served as non‐
metropolitan regional government representative to The State of Minnesota Statewide
Geospatial Advisory Board and is a current member of the Minnesota Chapter of the
American Planning Association.
6.2.5 Marc Rassel, Creative Director
Qualifications
Bachelor of Fine Art University of Wisconsin – Stout
Creative Director, Future iQ Partners
13 years of experience in web design and data
visualization
Marc is a pioneer in developing networks of creative professionals to bring our clients
teams of top‐notch expertise. He has actively studied the relationships between design
and human psychology to develop a keen sense of how design can influence and often
create a desired reaction. With over 13 years of experience in the advertising and
printing industries, Marc has worked in areas from concept and planning through
production and delivery.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 36
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 30
6.3 Personnel Roles and Responsibilities
All team members will report to the Vision Consultant, David Beurle. The following table
outlines staff allocation to key project tasks and deliverables. This project team
allocation ensures we are able to deliver the required workload in the time requested by
the City of St. Louis Park.
Task
Descriptions
Key deliverables David
Beurle
Heather
Branigin
Jeffrey
Sachse
Heidi
Beierle
Marcus
Grubbs
Marc
Rassel
Phase 1:
Initial Planning
and Research
Initial meetings and interviews
Develop detailed project plan and
schedule (Public Engagement Plan)
Background research on key tasks and
studies; Benchmark Analysis Report
Create communications plan with the
City
Phase 2:
Developing
Scenarios of the
Future
Pre Think Tank surveys on community
views
St. Louis Park Future Think Tank
Workshop
Production of “Scenarios of the
Future” Report
Develop communications package
and train local facilitators
Phase 3:
Broad
Community
Engagement
Broad community engagement;
interviews; community workshops
surveys; city events; meetings
Produce data visualization platform
Data analysis; Produce Community
Engagement Report
Reconvene Think Tank Workshop
Group to review final report and
finalize vision
Phase 4:
Vision 2040 and
its Incorporation
into
Comprehensive
Plan Process
Produce detailed strategic vision
framework and implementation
action plan; Production of Final City of
St. Louis Park Vision 2040
Produce detailed graphics and other
visuals to complement the vision
framework
Presentation of Final City of St. Louis
Park Vision 2040
Work with staff and community to
transition Vision into Comprehensive
Plan process.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 37
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 31
8.0 Project References and Contact Information
8.1 Vision Edina, Minnesota (2014‐2015)
Edina, Minnesota ‐ Future iQ Partners was contracted by the city to design and facilitate
the Vision Edina initiative, to develop the strategic vision framework for the city’s
future. Vision Edina was an ambitious, broad‐based and inclusive community visioning
process that has served as an important foundation for other strategic efforts, such as
the city’s upcoming Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Plan. The initiative
examined future trends in cities across North America and globally, and how
generational values are changing. This was linked to local aspirations, values and desires
for the future. The final product produced a clear understanding of what people might
be looking for in Edina in 2030 and beyond.
Project Link: http://future‐iq.com/project/vision‐edina/
For a reference on the Vision Edina project, please contact:
Scott Neal, City Manager
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Tel: 952‐826‐0401
Email: sneal@EdinaMN.gov
8.2 Task Force Lima, Ohio – Defense Initiative (2015‐2016)
Allen County, Ohio ‐ Future iQ Partners was contracted to design and lead the
Department of Defense office of Economic Adjustment funded Phase 1 and 2 of this OEA
funded project. These contracts, collectively valued at over $750,000, include building a
shared vision, collaborative action planning, stakeholder engagement (via network
mapping), asset inventory, customized research and extensive organizational
facilitation. This project is focused on a 7 county regional economy surrounding the Joint
Systems Manufacturing Center (U.S. Army/General Dynamics Land Systems).
Project Link: http://future‐iq.com/project/task‐force‐lima/
For a reference on the Task Force Lima project, please contact:
Jeff Sprague, President/CEO
Allen Economic Development Group
144 S. Main Street, Ste. 200
Lima, OH 45801
Tel: 419‐222‐7706 Email: Spraguej@aedg.org
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 38
City of St. Louis Park Proposal for Visioning – Submitted by Future iQ Partners – July 2016 32
8.3 Oshkosh Regional Defense Industry Div. Initiative (2014‐2015)
Oshkosh Region, Wisconsin – This project was funded by the US Department of
Defense, and followed the announced lay‐off of approximately 1,500 jobs from the
region’s largest defense contractor (Oshkosh Corporation). Future iQ Partners was
contracted to design and lead a five county regional planning effort as part of the
economic diversification and response strategy. This work included stakeholder
engagement (via network mapping), future planning and scenario planning.
Project Link: http://future‐iq.com/project/fox‐valley‐wisconsin/
For a reference on the Oshkosh Regional Defense Industry Division Initiative, please
contact:
Eric W. Fowle, AICP, Exec. Director
East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Menasha, WI 54952
Tel: 920‐751‐4770 Email: efowle@ecwrpc.org
8.4 Newton Transformation Council, Newton, Iowa (2007)
Newton, Iowa ‐ In 2007, the town of Newton (pop. 15,000) lost its largest employer, the
Maytag Corporation, due to closure and relocation. Almost 3,000 jobs were lost. Future
iQ Partners was contracted to host a Community Visioning Session drawing nearly 300
people. The session became a defining moment for the town and by the fall of 2008,
Newton had attracted more than 1,200 new jobs through advanced manufacturing and
high‐tech companies.
Project Link: http://future‐iq.com/project/newton‐transformation‐council/
For a reference on the Newton Transformation Council project, please contact:
Kim Didier, Executive Director
DMACC Business Resources
1111 Army Post Road
Des Moines, IA 50315
Tel: 515‐256‐4917
kmdidier@dmacc.edu
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 39
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Advancing Racial Equity: Moving Forward Together as a City
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed at this time. The purpose is to provide
information and have a discussion regarding our yearlong participation in the Advancing Racial
Equity and Transforming Government program with the Center for Social Inclusion (CSI) and
League of Minnesota Cities (LMC).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City continue its work in this area?
SUMMARY: In 2016, a team from the City of St. Louis Park started work with CSI and LMC to
learn about advancing racial equity and transforming government. Part of the program was for
participants to attend a racial equity workshop and other racial equity training sessions throughout
the year.
What is covered in this yearlong program?
Develop understanding and awareness of racial equity.
Explore the role, challenges, responsibilities, and opportunities for government to advance
racial equity in the metro area.
Development and use of racial equity tools that can be used in decisions relating to policies,
practices, programs and budget.
Education on national best practices to normalize racial equity as a key value and
operationalize racial equity via new policies and institutional practice.
Create connections and partnerships with other institutions and the community to advance
racial equity region-wide.
Program is led by Glenn Harris, CSI President, and Julie Nelson, Director, Government
Alliance on Race and Equity and Senior Vice President, CSI.
What will we cover at our study session meeting? Nancy Deno will present an overview of the
yearlong program the St. Louis Park team is participating in and will provide educational
information and city data. We will also hear from some of our cohort team members and have
discussion on next steps.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Advancing Racial Equity: Moving Forward Together as a City
DISCUSSION
Why is the City of St. Louis Park interested in the Advancing Racial Equity and
Transforming Government program? Awareness is the start to understanding what we need to
do for all of us to work together for a stronger future. This is not a quick fix, instead it’s a long,
ongoing journey with race and equity. It is important that we all take the time to listen, learn,
understand and have courageous conversations around race. Our goal is to continue to make the
community welcome and open for all in service delivery, programs, policy, housing, public safety,
employment and all other factors that are part of our life in St. Louis Park.
The program through CSI allows groups to work with each other and is a yearlong program to help
agencies develop their own plan. The actions to advance racial equity are done in a lengthy
process; first, develop a shared understanding on racial equity; next, move into development of
statements for the organization and training; followed by analysis with the use of tools developed
to provide future guidance to Council.
This work will help us further understand, collaborate, grow and evolve our city in the
advancement of racial equity.
What are the steps for St. Louis Park?
1. Racial Equity Strategic Leadership Team started awareness and learning and attended the
yearlong racial equity training (program and participants started in January 2016).
The St. Louis Park cohort team has started work as a group to learn and develop
communication tools. Cohort team members: Mayor Jake Spano, Councilmember Gregg
Lindberg, City Manager Tom Harmening, Police Chief John Luse, JCPP Coordinator
Afton Martens, Recreation Superintendent Jason West, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Nancy Deno. Newer cohort members are Communications and Marketing Manager
Jacqueline Larson, Administrative Services Intern Jane Adade, and Police Department
Intern Sagal Abdirahman.
Other Councilmembers participating in the elected officials track: Tim Brausen, Thom
Miller and Anne Mavity.
Additional 21 staff members representing all departments participated in the Advancing
Racial Equity Workshop on May 11, 2016.
2. Created racial equity statement. Cohort team developed document (will be distributed at study
session).
3. Development of a shared understanding is in process.
July 13: Connected with other staff who are new to the program and discussed their view
of the May training. Gathered their insight on the race and equity program to help guide
training and communication plans for all staff.
Gather demographic and other data on our city.
July 25: Conversation with Council at the study session.
July 28: Supervisor information session to provide introduction and overview on advancing
racial equity.
Analyze what we already do to advance racial equity and discuss opportunities for
improvement and advancement.
Plan all staff training with Julie Nelson, CSI, which is recommended to start fall 2016.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Advancing Racial Equity: Moving Forward Together as a City
4. Collect and use data on race for the community, school and staff. Review programs and
procedures, share findings and use information as part of action plans.
5. Develop plans for connecting with HRC and Multicultural Advisory Group to gather their input
and assistance.
6. Creation of racial equity tool to use when considering policies or programs.
Testing tool on several programs or new policies prior to implementation.
Revise as needed.
Roll out for organizational use.
7. Develop action plan. Set expectations for racial equity and provide method for tracking and
accountability.
8. Develop communication plan including:
Commissions
Schools
Community
9. Ongoing education, training and use of tools.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report is intended to assist in the Council’s study session
discussion regarding the draft Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB)
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council want to move forward with consideration of the
draft BYOB Ordinance? If so, does Council wish to use the proposed process, timeline and next
steps outlined in this report? Does Council have input on questions posed in the Research & Input
section of the report?
SUMMARY: In 2015, after considerable public process and research, the Council transitioned
from crafting an ordinance that would ban plastic and paper bags, to creating an ordinance that
would require that a fee be charged to the customer if they chose to use these types of bags. At
the November 2, 2015 meeting, this item was tabled for future discussion. Should Council want to
proceed with implementing an ordinance, staff is suggesting the following steps be taken prior to
ordinance going into effect:
Pre-Ordinance Adoption (from present date to March 2017) - finalize the ordinance, collect
baseline monitoring data, and hold a public listening session.
Post-Ordinance Adoption (from March 2017 to July 2018) – assuming an ordinance is
adopted, provide education and outreach for businesses and residents, ongoing data
collection, and staff training.
For these steps to occur, staff proposes a March 2017 adoption and July 1, 2018 effective date.
NEXT STEPS: The suggested timeline for research, public process, adoption and implementation
of the Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance is below:
1. October 2016 Study Session Discussion – Update on research and data collection
2. December 2016/January 2017 Study Session Report – Updated Draft Ordinance
3. January 2017 Council Listening Session
4. March 2017 Public Hearing – Ordinance Adoption
5. July 1, 2018 – Ordinance Effective Date
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The implementation, education and
enforcement of the proposed ordinance would impact the solid waste budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion, Draft Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance (Attachment
1), Environment & Sustainability Commission Memo (Attachment 2)
Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager; Mark Hanson, Operations
Superintendent; Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Staff last presented Council with the Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB) Draft
Ordinance (see Attachment 1) during a November 2, 2015 special study session discussion.
Council chose to table discussion for a future meeting. Council has since asked that staff bring the
draft ordinance back for discussion. In a June 13, 2016 Solid Waste Program Update study session
report, staff provided a suggested timeline for BYOB implementation in preparation for the BYOB
discussion at the July 25, 2016 study session.
About BYOB
The draft BYOB Ordinance would require all retail establishments to charge customers for any
single-use plastic and paper carryout bag that is used to carry purchases out of the store. The charge
for single-use carryout bags is yet-to-be-determined. The retail store would need to indicate, on
the receipt, how many bags are being charged for the associated cost. Retailers cannot refund
customers for the charge of the bags. The retail store would retain the entire charged fee and would
be required to use the collected funds for in-store bag reduction education, training, and other uses
defined in the ordinance.
Certain types of bags used inside the store for specific purposes (e.g. vegetable/meat bags) or sold
in packages inside the store (e.g. kitchen garbage bags, pet waste bags) would be exempt by
definition. Certain stores would also be required to provide at-store plastic bag recycling for
customers.
Enforcement of ordinance compliance would be done on a complaint basis.
Environment and Sustainability Commission Position on BYOB
The Environment and Sustainability Commission was asked to provide a recommendation on the
BYOB Ordinance. The Commission prepared a position statement (see Attachment 2). The quote
below is taken from their cover page and states the following reasons why they do not support the
adoption of the Bring Your Own Bag ordinance.
“The proposed Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance (BYOB) is commendable in its
intention of moving towards the goals of Zero Waste and sustainability. However,
the Environment and Sustainability Commission has come to the conclusion, based
on scientific evidence and Life Cycle Analysis that the Ordinance would not achieve
these goals and consequently we do not support the proposed Ordinance.”
City of Minneapolis Bag Ordinance
In April 2016, the City of Minneapolis passed an ordinance banning the use of plastic carryout
bags by retailers in the city. It does not impact plastic bags used for produce, prescription drugs,
take-out food, newspapers, or dry cleaning, among others. The ordinance allows the use of paper,
compostable, or reusable bags, but retailers must charge customers a minimum of 5 cents per bag
or donate 5 cents per bag to a recognized non-profit for the purposes of litter cleanup or waste
reduction initiatives in Minneapolis. The stated purpose of the ordinance is to “reduce litter, waste,
lifecycle environmental impacts, and negative impacts on recycling facilities of single-use bags
and incentivize Minneapolis consumers to use reusable bags.” Baseline data is not believed to be
available for current litter makeup in Minneapolis or regarding usage trends for reusable bags in
the city. It is unknown how staff will measure the effectiveness of the policy. The ordinance goes
into effect on June 1, 2017.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: If Council decides to proceed with implementing the BYOB
ordinance, staff suggests a timeline that would allow for research, data collection, and public
process prior to adoption in March 2017, and adequate education and outreach before a July 1,
2018 effective date. This schedule also has a relationship to staff capacity in part due to ongoing
implementation measures related to the packaging ordinance. Details on these activities are found
below, followed by an adoption and implementation timeline under Next Steps.
Pre-Ordinance Adoption – 8 month period to adoption
(Present – March 2017)
Research & Input Required For Final Draft Ordinance
Additional research and Council input is necessary in several sections of the draft ordinance.
Finalizing the draft ordinance for public comment would also include an effort to re-write the
ordinance using plain language, so that the ordinance language is easy to understand. Sections in
need of research and/or Council input are as follows:
Purpose 12.251 – To promote use of reusable bags and reduce single-use bag distribution
and their associated impacts on the solid waste management and recycling systems, litter,
natural resource impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions through a charge assessed for the
purpose of mitigating these impacts. To increase opportunities to appropriately recycle
plastic single-use carryout bags and incentivize the use of reusable bags in the City of St.
Louis Park.
o Council Input Requested: Are there additional goals Council would like to
include? Is Council in favor of baseline and ongoing data collection to track
ordinance effectiveness in achieving the stated goals? See “Baseline Data
Collection” section below.
Reusable Bag 12.252(a) – This definition will determine which bags are considered
reusable and therefore no charge is required. This definition is also important because it
can unintentionally create a loop-hole for thicker plastic bags to be considered reusable,
though consumers generally do not treat them as reusable and end up discarding them or
improperly recycling them, as seen in other municipalities such as Austin, Texas.
o Staff Research Required: Determine if the requirements for a reusable bag, from
source ordinances, can be substantiated by an industry standard. Reword definition
so that the thickness requirement for reusable bags made of plastic, found in
12.252(a)(2), does not result in loophole that causes greater environmental impact.
Retail Plastic Bag Recycling Location 12.252(b) – This definition will determine which
stores would be required to provide at-store recycling of plastic bags, based upon criteria
such as: square footage of store or number of stores in the State. It also exempts restaurants
by definition.
o Staff Research Required: Determine the appropriate retail square footage and/or
number of retail stores in the State with a certain retail square footage in order to
meet the requirement and ensure efficient collection.
Retail Store 12.252(c) – This definition will determine which stores would be required to
charge customers for single-use carryout bags. Draft language includes all retail stores
including grocers, department stores, big box stores, gas stations that provide single-use
carryout bags to customers at the point-of-sale.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance
o Council Input Requested: Does Council wish to provide an exemption either by
definition or exemption to restaurants (take-out food) due to the potential for spills
or other retail businesses, such as department stores (Kohl’s, Nordstrom Rack, and
others) due to the lack of other alternatives?
Establishment of Bag Charge 12.254 – Typical charges found in ordinances around the
United States are 5 – 10 cents per bag.
o Staff Research Required: Determine appropriate charge for single-use carryout
bags to ensure that the charge would discourage use of single-use carryout bags.
Exemptions 12-259 – The current draft ordinance makes one exemption that requires a
Retail Store, as defined in the ordinance, to provide bags at no charge to customers who
show evidence that they are participating in a federal or state Food Assistance Program.
o Staff Research Required: Determine if public assistance programs, other than
Food Assistance Programs, should be considered for the exemption.
o Council Input Requested: Does Council wish to provide an exemption either by
definition or exemption to restaurants due to the potential for spills or other
businesses, such as department stores, due to the lack of other alternatives?
Baseline Data Collection
Staff suggests baseline data be collected to support goals outlined in the Legislative Purpose
section. This could include a litter study, survey of resident’s carryout bag use behaviors, and/or
data collection of plastic bags found in curbside recycling carts.
Public Listening Session
The first Plastic Bag Listening Session was held on September 2, 2015 before a draft ordinance
was available for public comments. This also occurred while Council was still considering a bag
ban. Another listening session is suggested to allow residents and businesses to comment on the
new draft BYOB Ordinance.
Post-Ordinance Adoption – 16 month period to implementation
(March 2017 – July 2018)
Education & Outreach
A 16 month implementation period is suggested to allow for an adequate education and outreach
initiative. This is longer than the implementation period being used for the Zero Waste Packaging
Ordinance because the number of businesses affected would be much greater (350 – 500 depending
upon exemptions) and BYOB also requires a targeted public education campaign to reduce
consumers’ use of single-use carryout bags.
Ongoing Data Collection
Staff expects that data collection to support ordinance goals would continue into the
implementation period.
Staffing Needs
Additional staff is suggested in order for successful implementation of the ordinance. This could
be accomplished through use of a MN Greencorps member or hiring of an intern. The MN
Greencorps is a statewide program that places AmeriCorps members with local governments and
other organizations where they both serve the organization and develop as an environmental
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance
professional over an 11 month period. Time is needed to go through the process of obtaining a
Greencorps member or to select, hire, and train an intern to work with staff on the ordinance
implementation. Future and on-going staffing needs will be evaluated after the first year.
NEXT STEPS: The suggested timeline for research, public process, adoption and implementation
of the Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance is below:
1. October 2016 Study Session Discussion – Update on research and data collection
2. December 2016/January 2017 Study Session Report – Updated Draft Ordinance
3. January 2017 Council Listening Session
4. March 2017 Public Hearing – Ordinance Adoption
5. July 1, 2018 – Ordinance Effective Date
Attachment 1
DRAFT
DRAFT ORDINANCE
TO REDUCE SINGLE‐USE BAG DISTRIBUTION, WASTE AND LITTER; INCREASE PROPER RECYCLING OF
SINGLE‐USE BAGS; AND INCREASE THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS
CHAPTER 12 – Environment and Public Health
Article VII. BRING YOUR OWN BAG
12‐251. Legislative Purpose
12‐252. Definitions
12‐253. Requirements for single‐use carryout bags made available to customers by retail stores.
12‐254. Establishment of Single‐use Bag Charge.
12‐255. Retention of the Single‐use Bag Charge.
12‐256. Establishment of an At‐Store Plastic Bag Recycling Program
12‐257. Reporting Requirements.
12‐258. Required Signage for Retail stores.
12‐259. Exemptions.
12‐260. Violations and enforcement.
12‐261. Severability
12‐262. Effective Date
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 6
Attachment 1
DRAFT
DRAFT ORDINANCE
TO REDUCE SINGLE‐USE BAG DISTRIBUTION, WASTE AND LITTER; INCREASE PROPER RECYCLING OF
SINGLE‐USE BAGS; AND INCREASE THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS
CHAPTER 12 – Environment and Public Health
Article VII. BRING YOUR OWN BAG
12‐251. Legislative Purpose
The city council of St. Louis Park (council) finds as follows:
(a) The council has a duty to protect public health and the environmental assets of St. Louis
Park;
(b) The city, through its policies, programs, and laws, supports efforts to reduce the amount of
waste that must be land‐filled or incinerated, increase reuse, recycling, and pursue efforts to
achieve State recycling and waste reduction goals;
(c) The use of both plastic and paper single‐use carryout bags have impacts on the environment
on a local and global scale, including greenhouse gas emissions, litter, harm to wildlife,
atmospheric acidification, water consumption and solid waste generation;
(d) Despite recycling and voluntary solutions to control pollution from single‐use carryout bags,
many single‐use carryout bags ultimately are disposed of in landfills and incinerators, plastic
single‐use carryout bags that are place in curbside recycling reduce the value of recyclables
collected through the curbside recycling process due to the harm they pose on material
recovery facility sorting equipment, litter the environment, endanger wildlife, and create
obstructions in stormwater conveyance systems and are discharged into surface waters in
our environment;
(e) The city’s taxpayers bear the costs associated with the effects of single‐use bags on the solid
waste stream, drainage, litter and wildlife;
(f) The council believes that residents and visitors should use reusable bags and that
prohibiting the free distribution of single‐use carryout bags by stores is appropriate and will
incentivize the use of reusable bags; and
(g) It is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of citizens and visitors of St. Louis
Park increase the value of recyclables and rate of single‐use carryout bag recycling, protect
our environment and natural resources by reducing the distribution of single‐use carryout
bags through requiring a charge be assessed for the purpose of mitigating their impacts and
increase opportunities to appropriately recycle them, and incentivize the use of reusable
bags at Retail Stores, as defined in this Ordinance.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 7
Attachment 1
12‐252. Definitions
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings defined in
this section:
(a) “Reusable carryout bag” means a bag that:
(1) is made with handles and is made of cloth, fiber, other machine washable fabric, or
durable plastic that can be cleaned and disinfected regularly;
(2) is at least 2.25 mil thick if made from plastic;
(3) is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuses over a period of time
and a minimum lifetime of 75 uses; and
(4) Has the capability of carrying a minimum of 18 pounds.
(b) “Retail recycling location” means a retail store, excluding a restaurant, that offers plastic
carryout bags to its customers in conjunction with the sale of goods and/or services and that
meets either of the following requirements:
(1) Has at least 7,000 square feet of retail sales space, or
(2) Has 3 or more stores or retail locations, each having at least 3,000 square feet of
retail sales space, in the State of Minnesota.
(c) “Retail store” means a retail establishment engaged in the business of selling or exchanging
goods and/or services for cash, barter or any form of consideration on the assumption that
the purchaser of such goods and/or services has acquired the goods and/or services for
ultimate consumption or use and not resale that provides single‐use carryout bags to its
customers in conjunction with the sale of such goods and/or services.
(d) “Single‐use Bag Charge” means a charge established by the city for the purpose of mitigating
the impacts of Single‐use Bags and required to be paid by each consumer making a purchase
from a retail store for each Single‐use Bag used during the purchase.
(e) “Single‐use carryout bag” means a bag of any material, commonly plastic or kraft paper,
which is provided to a consumer at the point of sale to carry purchases. The term “single‐
use carryout bag” shall not include:
(1) Bags used by consumers inside stores to:
(A) Package bulk items, such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, candy, or mall
hardware items;
(B) Contain or wrap frozen foods, meat, or fish, whether prepackaged or not;
(C) Contain or wrap flowers, potted plants, or other items where dampness may
be a problem; and
(D) Contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods;
(2) Bags provided by pharmacists to contain prescription drugs;
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 8
Attachment 1
(3) Newspaper bags, door‐hanger bags, laundry‐dry cleaning bags, or bags sold in
packages containing multiple bags intended for use as garbage, pet waste, or yard waste
bags;
(4) Reusable carryout bags.
12‐253. Requirements for single‐use carryout bags made available to customers by retail stores.
(a) Single‐use carryout bags made of paper shall:
(1) Be 100% recyclable;
(2) Contain a minimum of 40% post‐consumer recycled content; and
(3) Display the phrase “Please Recycle This Bag”, or a substantially similar phrase, in a
highly visible manner on the bag exterior.
(b) Single‐use carryout bags made of plastic shall:
(1) Be 100% recyclable;
(2) Be made of high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) film marked with the SPI resin
identification code 2 or low‐density polyethylene (LDPE) film marked with the SPI resin
identification code 4; and
(3) Display the phrase “Please Recycle This Bag At A Participating Store”, or a
substantially similar phrase, in a highly visible manner on the bag exterior.
(c) Single‐use carryout bags made of compostable plastic shall:
(1) Be 100% certified compostable;
(2) Be made of certified compostable plastic that meets ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868
for compostability and be labeled to reflect that it meets the standard.
(3) Display the phrase “Please Compost This Bag In An Organics Recycling Program”, or a
substantially similar phrase, in a highly visible manner on the bag exterior.
(4) Display the BPI Certified Compostable Logo or Cedar Grove Logo
12‐254. Establishment of Single‐use Bag Charge.
(a) A consumer making a purchase from a retail store shall pay at the time of purchase a charge
of [TBD] for each single‐use carryout bag.
(b) A retail store shall not advertise or hold out or state to the public or to a customer directly
or indirectly that reimbursement of the charge or any part thereof to be collected by the
retail store will be offset by the retail store or otherwise refunded to the customer.
(c) All retail stores shall indicate on the consumer transaction receipt the number of single‐use
carryout bags provided and the total amount charged.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 9
Attachment 1
12‐255. Retention of the Single‐use Bag Charge.
(a) A Retail Store shall retain 100 percent of each Single‐use Bag Charge collected.
(b) The Single‐use Bag Charge may only be used by the Retail store to:
(1) Provide educational information about the Single‐use Bag Charge to customers;
(2) Provide the signage required by section 12.258, “Required Signage for Retail stores,”;
(3) Improve or alter infrastructure to allow for the implementation, collection,
administration of the charge;
(4) Collect, account for and provide reporting to the city;
(5) Develop and display informational signage to inform consumers about the charge,
encourage the use of reusable bags, promote reuse and recycling of plastic bags, or
educate on organics recycling for compostable bags so they do not contaminate plastic
bag recycling; and
(6) Establish, maintain or improve an at‐ store plastic bag recycling program.
(7) Subsidize cost paid by consumer for purchase of reusable carryout bags sold by
Retail Store.
12‐256. Establishment of an At‐Store Plastic Bag Recycling Program
(a) A Retail Recycling Location shall establish an at‐store plastic bag recycling program pursuant
to this section that permits a customer of the store to return clean plastic carryout bags to
the store.
(b) A retail store that does not meet the definition of a retail recycling location, as defined
herein, may adopt a similar at‐store plastic bag recycling program, as specified in this
section.
(c) An at‐store plastic bag recycling program provided by a retail recycling location shall include
all of the following:
(1) A plastic single‐use carryout bag collection bin shall be placed at each store and shall
be visible, easily accessible to the consumer, and clearly marked that the collection bin
is available for the purpose of collecting and recycling plastic single‐use carryout bags.
(2) All plastic single‐use carryout bags collected by the store shall be collected and
recycled in a manner consistent with the intent of this section and Minnesota Statute
115A.95 (Recyclable Materials). In no instance shall a store permit collected plastic
carryout bags to be disposed of or to further any act other than the recycling of such
bags.
(3) The Retail Recycling Location shall make reusable bags available to customers within
the store, which bags may be provided to or purchased by such customer and used in
lieu of using a plastic carryout bag or paper bag.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 10
Attachment 1
12‐257. Reporting Requirements
Every Retail Store and Retail Recycling Location shall maintain records and submit information on
reporting on forms provided by the City, which includes the following information:
(a) Every Retail Store shall maintain records of the single‐use carryout bag charges to their
customers for each type of single‐use carryout bag, and documentation of the use of the
retained single‐use bag charge on an annual basis.
(b) Every Retail Store shall maintain and provide records of the quantity and type of single‐use
carryout bags purchased during the previous calendar year.
(c) Every Retail Recycling Location shall maintain records describing the collection and recycling
of plastic carryout bags collected by such store and shall make the records available to the
City, upon request, to demonstrate compliance with this chapter.
12‐258. Required Signage for Retail Stores.
Every Retail Store subject to the collection of the Single‐use Bag Charge shall display a sign in a location
outside or inside of the business, viewable by customers, alerting customers to the city of St. Louis
Park’s Single‐use Bag Charge.
12‐259. Exemptions.
A Retail Store must provide Single‐use Carryout Bags to a customer at no charge for purchases made, if
the customer provides evidence that he or she is a participant in a federal or state Food Assistance
Program.
12‐260. Violations and enforcement.
When a violation of this chapter has occurred, the Retail Store or Retail Recycling Location in violation of
this chapter shall be subject to the penalties set forth below.
A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor.
Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to City Code
Ordinance 2420‐12, Section 1‐14 Administrative Penalties, as follows:
(a) A warning notice in writing for the first violation;
(b) A fine of $100 for the second violation;
(c) Repeat subsequent violations with 24 months, a fine double the amount of the fine imposed
for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example if there were four
occurrences of a violation that carried a $100 fine: first is $0 (warning); second is $100, third
is $200, forth is $400).
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 11
Attachment 1
(d) At the time a violation occurs, the city will provide the food establishment Retail Store or
Retail Recycling Location with a corrective action timeframe prior to a subsequent fine being
issued.
The administrative offense provided for in this chapter shall be in addition to any other legal or
equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
12‐261. Severability
If any part or provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances
shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall
be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application which is directly involved in the
controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity
of the remainder of this chapter or the application thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances.
12‐262. Effective Date
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 2018.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 12
Attachment 2
Environment and Sustainability Position Statement for BYOB Policy Page 1
Proposed Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance
Environment and Sustainability Commission Position Statement
The proposed Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance (BYOB) is commendable in its intention of moving
towards the goals of Zero Waste and sustainability. However, the Environment and Sustainability
Commission has come to the conclusion, based on scientific evidence and Life Cycle Analysis, that
the Ordinance would not achieve these goals and consequently we do not support the proposed
Ordinance.
For further evidence of our commission’s position, please read the following pages.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 13
Attachment 2
Environment and Sustainability Position Statement for BYOB Policy Page 2
Background
There is a widespread perception that plastic bags are an environmental problem because they are
believed to be made from petroleum and seemingly create a lot of litter. However, after a great deal of
research and discussion with diverse parties, our Commission discovered that ethylene plastic bags
are not made from petroleum but instead from the process of making natural gas (the ethylene is
captured rather than flared off because it makes the natural gas “too hot”) and that plastic bags
actually make up only 1% of all litter.
Furthermore, we found that all of the major, credible, independent Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)
clearly show that plastic bags are far superior to paper bags and generally superior to re-usable bags
unless the re-usables have well over 125 re-uses (and in some cases 300-615).
Scientific Research
There have been many studies done on the Life Cycle Assessment of each type of bag and the
science is clear that the thin shopping bags have the least environmental impact of all types of
shopping bags, even the reusable bags – unless the reusable bag is used a sufficient number of times
(what quantity of reuse is “sufficient” varies greatly on a number of variables).
The most recent research came out of Clemson University in 2014 and is entitled “Life Cycle
Assessment of Grocery Bags in Common Use in the United States.”1 This research is third party
reviewed, was published in a reputable journal, and passes the validity parameters that studies have
to pass to be considered reliable.
Simply stated, the thin point-of-sale retail bags from Cub and Target are not bad for the environment
and, in fact, may be best in terms of their environmental impact when the many variables are factored.
As stated above, the only exception to this being when reusable bags are used a sufficient number of
times. Studies of consumer behavior show that, in the USA, people do not actually use their bags
enough to make reusable bags better for the environment. By promoting reusable bags, the council
may actually be promoting consumers and retailers to cause a greater negative environmental impact
rather than decreasing this impact.
It is clear, based on the scientific research, that this ordinance would not achieve the goals of the
BYOB ordinance and may actually have the unintended consequence of increasing, rather than
decreasing, environmental impact.
Conclusion
We feel that the Ordinance could be counter-productive in terms of sustainability from an LCA
perspective and the fact that plastic bags often have second uses as garbage liners and animal waste
containers or are recycled in plastic bag collection programs.
While the Ordinance will seemingly address concerns and may make us feel better, it will actually
have a negative impact from a science-based sustainability perspective.
There are far greater sustainability priorities and such an ordinance is not a priority of the
Commission. Furthermore, the Ordinance will divert precious Council, staff and Commission
resources and may actually interfere with moving forward the Environment and Sustainability
Commission’s 2106 Key Goals.
1 Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Bags in Common Use in the United States, Clemson University, 2014
http://www.clemson.edu/cedp/press/pubs/grocery‐bags/grocery‐bags.pdf
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 14
Attachment 2
Environment and Sustainability Position Statement for BYOB Policy Page 3
Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinance
We would recommend a comprehensive educational and recycling effort focused on Zero Waste and
Sustainability that would hopefully be done in conjunction with Hennepin County and/or the entire
Metro Area.
The campaign would more effective if could be coordinated with Hennepin County and/or the
Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board so that additional expertise and resources could
be provided and the impact extended rather than the burden falling just on the City and
businesses in St. Louis Park.
When introducing new consumer policies, we benefit from neighboring communities doing the
same.
We encourage reusable bags and business incentives for a bring your own bag initiative, along with
efforts to expand business plastic bag recycling and public acknowledgement of businesses having
plastic bag recycling programs.
Such an effort could be far more effective at achieving Zero Waste and Sustainability, building
new partnerships and generating public and business support, while avoiding polarization and
opposition.
Whether or not the Council proceeds with the Ordinance or the suggested alternative educational and
recycling campaign, there should be clear, strong language upfront that frames the initiative as part of
a zero waste and sustainability effort so as to better contextualize it and to provide broader
awareness, education and understanding.
We hope this input is helpful for you in moving forward.
In Closing
We understand and appreciate the Council’s desire to address the many challenges connected with
plastic bags. It is our hope that whatever policies are enacted will fully meet the considerations
mentioned above. If approved by Council, the Commission plans to make additional
recommendations regarding implementation.
We appreciate the mandate and the 100% support each of you and the City Staff have given to us as
we strive to meet your goal of St. Louis Park becoming an environmental and sustainability leader. In
every discussion we’ve had, it has been clear that each of you cares deeply about the environment,
health and sustainability and is committed to policies that will bring them into reality.
In particular, we appreciate your clearly stated desire to become zero waste and a model of
sustainability through cutting-edge initiatives, such as organic waste collection.
Even if our assessment does not change the direction of the proposed policies, it is our hope that our
perspective will at least provide a larger zero waste and sustainability context and focus on key
priorities.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 4)
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Draft Ordinance Page 15
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Discussion Item: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on Water Treatment Plant #4
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with an update
on modifications proposed to be made to Water Treatment Plant #4 (WTP4) to address the presence
of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: At the February 8, 2016 Study Session, Staff updated Council on the status of our
water capacity vs projected demand. As a part of that discussion Council was advised of concerns
associated with the presence Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in the water at WTP4 (4701 41st
St W). Certain VOCs, especially Vinyl Chloride and cis-1,2-dichloroethene, were approaching the
allowable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as set by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
Since the February discussion staff has made progress with the various agencies on a plan for
making interim improvements to address the situation while plans are developed and finalized for
permanent upgrades to this plant. At the study session staff will provide an overview of what is
proposed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The upgrades are currently included in the
City’s Capital Improvement Program as an unfunded expense. The MPCA is working to identify
potential funding sources for their construction.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship and will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: June 2016 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary of the four utility funds at mid-year is also being included in this
report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of June, General Fund
expenditures total approximately 46% of the adopted annual budget. Please see the attached
analysis for more details on specific variances.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures – General Fund
Budget to Actual – Enterprise Funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: June 2016 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary of the four utility funds at mid-year is
also included in this report.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
General Fund
Actual expenditures should generally run at about 50% of the annual budget at the end of June.
General Fund expenditures are running under budget at approximately 46% of the adopted
budget. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they
are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments, and seasonal
revenues for recreation. A few brief comments on specific General Fund variances are noted
below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues are exceeding budget at almost 78% at mid-year. Over 96% of the
2016 business and liquor license payments have been received, which is consistent with previous
years. Permit revenues are at 72% through June. Larger commercial permits in June included
continuing work at Japs-Olson, Methodist Hospital, and Central Park West.
Expenditures:
There are only two small expenditure variances through June. Human Resources is at 51.4% due
to some additional pre-employment testing/recruitment expenses. Organized Recreation is at
51.2%, which is a temporary variance because the full 2016 Community Education contribution
of $187,400 was paid to the school district in January.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: June 2016 Monthly Financial Report
Utility Funds
Revenues:
Usage revenue in each fund is below 50% due to the timing of the billing cycles. Revenue lags
one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind for residential
accounts depending on the billing cycle. Entries are made at the end of the year to recognize
billed revenue for the full year.
Other revenue is exceeding budget in the Water Fund due to additional antenna lease revenue.
Other revenue in the Solid Waste Fund relates to grants from Hennepin County for recycling and
organics, and the amount received is more than what was budgeted.
Expenses:
Services & other charges in the Sewer Fund are at 62% because the Met Council waste water
service charge of $348,097 is paid one month in advance.
Capital outlay will vary during the year based on timing of projects and when expenditures are
incurred.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of June 30, 201620162016201420142015201520162016 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget June YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ 22,653,095$ 23,597,282$ -$ 23,597,282$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 4,312,700 3,496,177 2,713,219 782,958 77.61% Fines & Forfeits320,150 369,545 320,200 263,951 341,200 130,004 211,196 38.10% Intergovernmental1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 1,669,395 1,419,017 447,004 972,013 31.50% Charges for Services1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 2,116,313 1,956,593 719,722 1,236,871 36.78% Miscellaneous Revenue1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 1,357,373 977,546 516,823 460,723 52.87% Transfers In1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 1,867,398 1,872,581 931,290 941,291 49.73% Investment Earnings 150,000 119,831 140,000 68,908 140,000 52,446 87,554 37.46% Other Income17,950 13,306 17,900 61,025 27,450 6,066 21,384 22.10% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 254,891 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 34,370,158$ 34,082,737$ 5,516,573$ 28,566,164$ 16.19%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 1,012,841$ 1,037,235$ 464,938$ 572,297$ 44.82% Accounting876,216 873,987 912,685 902,901 933,624 404,178 529,446 43.29% Assessing559,749 560,979 602,299 601,687 641,038 298,653 342,385 46.59% Human Resources693,598 788,823 805,929 857,950 748,718 384,897 363,821 51.41% Community Development1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 626,530 758,506 45.24% Facilities Maintenance1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 1,072,749 1,115,877 528,131 587,746 47.33% Information Resources1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 1,374,074 1,564,128 701,670 862,458 44.86% Communications & Marketing566,801 562,063 635,150 571,815 608,228 279,613 328,615 45.97% Community Outreach8,185 6,680 24,677 22,380 25,587 9,082 16,505 35.50% Engineering506,996 223,491 492,838 381,148 549,251 165,148 384,103 30.07%Total General Government7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 8,051,233$ 8,608,722$ 3,862,841$ 4,745,881$ 44.87% Public Safety: Police7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 8,248,745$ 8,698,661$ 4,314,668$ 4,383,993$ 49.60% Fire Protection3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 3,759,386 4,030,153 1,922,479 2,107,674 47.70% Inspectional Services2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 2,002,445 2,216,075 1,045,795 1,170,280 47.19%Total Public Safety13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 14,010,577$ 14,944,889$ 7,282,942$ 7,661,947$ 48.73% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 114,665$ 126,639$ 47.52% Public Works Operations2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 2,388,560 2,907,781 1,294,398 1,613,383 44.51% Organized Recreation1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 1,360,454 1,431,260 733,037 698,223 51.22% Recreation Center1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 1,575,042 1,602,935 693,147 909,788 43.24% Park Maintenance1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 1,513,700 1,634,249 760,099 874,150 46.51% Westwood531,853 508,576 564,055 560,744 576,173 266,529 309,644 46.26% Natural Resources433,750 379,193 472,049 377,617 479,408 121,656 357,752 25.38% Vehicle Maintenance1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 1,118,048 1,358,946 551,946 807,000 40.62%Total Operations & Recreation9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 9,107,547$ 10,232,056$ 4,535,477$ 5,696,579$ 44.33% Non-Departmental: General 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 123,720$ 30,351$ 15,174$ 15,177$ 50.00% Transfers Out- 1,050,000 - 2,194,245 - - - 0.00% Contingency195,860 13,834 177,984 14,438 266,719 - 266,719 0.00%Total Non-Departmental199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 2,332,403$ 297,070$ 15,174$ 281,896$ 5.11%Total General Fund Expenditures30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 33,501,760$ 34,082,737$ 15,696,434$ 18,386,303$ 46.05%Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: June 2016 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of June 30, 2016Current BudgetJun Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJun Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJun Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJun Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges5,967,419$ 1,960,926$ 4,006,493$ 32.86% 6,404,588$ 2,585,887$ 3,818,701$ 40.38% 3,295,700$ 1,146,480$ 2,149,220$ 34.79% 2,717,638$ 1,133,437$ 1,584,201$ 41.71% Other265,000 347,824 (82,824) 131.25% 30,000 12,208 17,792 40.69% 101,000 106,919 (5,919) 105.86%- - - Total operating revenues6,232,419 2,308,750 3,923,669 37.04% 6,434,588 2,598,095 3,836,493 40.38% 3,396,700 1,253,399 2,143,301 36.90% 2,717,638 1,133,437 1,584,201 41.71%Operating expenses: Personal services1,285,538 665,743 619,795 51.79% 571,540 297,360 274,180 52.03% 536,896 211,723 325,173 39.43% 689,746 254,589 435,157 36.91% Supplies & non-capital544,300 72,618 471,682 13.34% 64,550 19,476 45,074 30.17% 130,600 56,160 74,440 43.00% 30,100 1,873 28,228 6.22% Services & other charges1,659,607 625,775 1,033,832 37.71% 4,168,158 2,600,013 1,568,145 62.38% 2,558,367 855,354 1,703,013 33.43% 589,664 131,934 457,730 22.37% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,489,445 1,364,136 2,125,309 39.09% 4,804,248 2,916,848 1,887,400 60.71% 3,225,863 1,123,237 2,102,626 34.82% 1,309,510 388,395 921,115 29.66%Operating income (loss)2,742,974 944,614 1,798,360 34.44% 1,630,340 (318,753) 1,949,093 -19.55% 170,837 130,161 40,676 76.19% 1,408,128 745,042 663,086 52.91%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income - - - 10,000 3,753 6,247 37.53% 18,000 10,476 7,524 24,000 10,923 13,077 Other misc income- - - - - - 2,500 - 2,500 - - - Interest expense/bank charges(241,416) (142,025) (99,391) 58.83% (16,414) (7,717) (8,697) 47.01% (11,000) (5,155) (5,845) 46.86% (51,535) (18,881) (32,654) 36.64% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(241,416) (142,025) (99,391) 58.83% (6,414) (3,964) (2,450) 61.80% 9,500 5,321 4,179 56.01% (27,535) (7,959) (19,576) 28.90%Income (loss) before transfers2,501,558 802,589 1,698,969 32.08% 1,623,926 (322,717) 1,946,643 -19.87% 180,337 135,482 44,855 75.13% 1,380,593 737,083 643,510 53.39%Transfers inTransfers out(567,429) (283,715) (283,715) 50.00% (776,357) (388,178) (388,179) 50.00% (220,611) (110,306) (110,306) 50.00% (303,949) (151,974) (151,975) 50.00%NET INCOME (LOSS)1,934,129 518,875 1,415,254 26.83% 847,569 (710,896) 1,558,465 -83.87% (40,274) 25,177 (65,451) -62.51% 1,076,644 585,108 491,536 54.35%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,801,000) (881,921) (2,919,079) 23.20% (1,860,000) (1,164) (1,858,836) 0.06% (2,500) - (2,500) 0.00% (2,533,000) (163,215) (2,369,785) 6.44%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,866,871) (363,047) (1,503,824) (1,012,431) (712,059) (300,372) (42,774) 25,177 (67,951) (1,456,356) 421,894 (1,878,250) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 6) Title: June 2016 Monthly Financial ReportPage 5
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Written Report: 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2016)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Quarterly Investment Report provides an overview of the City’s investment
portfolio, including the types of investments held, length of maturity, and yield.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The total portfolio value at June 30, 2016 is
approximately $52 million. Nearly two-thirds of the portfolio is in longer term investments that
include U.S. Treasury notes, Federal agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of
deposit. The remainder is held in money market accounts and commercial paper for future cash
flow needs. The overall yield is at .86%, compared to 1.01% last quarter and .79% at the end of
2015.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Investment Portfolio Summary
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2016)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City’s investment portfolio is focused on short term cash flow needs and
investment in longer term securities. This is done in accordance with Minnesota Statute 118A
and the City’s Investment Policy objectives of: 1) Preservation of capital; 2) Liquidity; and 3)
Return on investment.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The total portfolio value increased slightly in the second
quarter to approximately $52 million from $51.1 million at 3/31/2016. The overall yield of the
portfolio is .86% at 6/30/2016, compared to 1.01% at 3/31/2016 and .79% at 12/31/2015. Cities
generally use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.58% at 6/30/2016) or some similar
measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio.
A large amount of available cash was needed during the quarter for capital project payments,
including the meter replacement project, indoor and outdoor recreation projects, mobile radio
replacements, and street and concrete projects, as well as two property acquisitions (billboard
property and 40th and France). The 70% advance of the first half property tax settlement totaling
just over $11 million was received on June 22nd, which brought the money market balances back
up from less than 10% to approximately 30% of the portfolio. Some of the money from the first
half property tax settlement will be moved into a slightly higher yielding 4M Money Market
Fund to maximize interest earnings while keeping cash liquid for August 1st debt service
payments, payroll and on-going operating expenses.
The remaining $3 million of proceeds from the 2014 bonds issued in December 2014 was fully
spent down during the 2nd quarter. The 2016 bonds for the outdoor and indoor recreation
projects closed on 7/14/2016, and the $10.3 million of proceeds received will be invested in the
4M Fund until fully spent, which is expected to occur within 12 months.
New investments purchased during the quarter included $2.25 million of commercial paper with
yields to maturity of .89% to 1% and maturity dates of 6 to 9 months. Commercial paper are
promissory notes issued by financial institutions and large corporations with very short maturity
periods. Purchasing these short term investments can help to improve interest earnings on
available cash. The City used commercial paper previously for short term investing of the fire
station bond proceeds. Commercial paper makes up about 6% or $3.2 million of the total
portfolio.
Another 11% or approximately $6 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed and step rate
certificates of deposit. There are currently 24 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of
$245,000 or less, which guarantees that each CD is insured by the FDIC up to $250,000. They
have varying maturity dates over the next five years with rates up to 2.3%. One lower rate CD
came to maturity during the quarter.
Nearly 52% or the remaining $26.8 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term
securities, including municipal bonds ($8.7 mil), Federal agency bonds ($8.6 mil) and U.S.
Treasury notes ($9.5 mil). Municipal bonds are issued by States, local governments, or school
districts to finance special projects. The agency bonds are issued by government agencies such
as the Federal Home Loan Bank or Fannie Mae and typically have call dates at specific intervals
where they can be called prior to their maturity date. Five agency bonds were called prior to
their maturity during the quarter. Two new U.S. Treasury notes were purchased.
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2016)
Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at June 30, 2016:
NEXT STEPS: None at this time.
3/31/16 6/30/16
<1 Year 31% 41%
1-2 Years 27% 19%
2-3 Years 17% 17%
3-4 Years 14% 10%
>4 Years 11% 13%
3/31/16 6/30/16
Money Markets/Cash $14,595,637 $16,112,721
Commercial Paper $995,650 $3,239,969
Certificates of Deposit $5,978,677 $5,769,845
Municipal Debt $8,681,730 $8,678,655
Agency Bonds/Treas Notes $20,887,709 $18,167,164
City of St. Louis Park
Investment Portfolio Summary
June 30, 2016
Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date
Yield to
Maturity Par Value
Market Value at
6/30/2016
Estimated Avg
Annual Income
Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.08%951,021 951,021 761
4M Fund Money Market 0.10%10,163,805 10,163,805 10,164
Northeast Bank Money Market 0.34%2,040,817 2,040,817 6,939
PFM JP Morgan Commercial Paper 46640PJN4 09/22/2016 0.83%1,000,000 998,560 8,340
PFM Bank of Tokyo Commercial Paper 06538BK44 10/04/2016 0.89%750,000 748,684 6,675
PFM ING Commercial Paper 4497W0LA4 11/10/2016 1.01% 750,000 747,150 7,575
PFM Toyota Motor Commercial Paper 89233GP75 02/07/2017 0.89% 750,000 745,575 6,675
PFM FHLB Bond 3130A7CX1 03/19/2018 0.88%5,000,000 5,017,600 43,750
PFM US Treasury Note 912828WD8 10/31/2018 0.89% 4,000,000 4,055,480 35,600
PFM FNMA 3135G0H63 01/28/2019 1.04%1,600,000 1,623,088 16,608
PFM US Treasury Note 912828VP2 07/31/2020 1.23% 3,000,000 3,130,890 36,900
PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 1.34% 1,100,000 1,120,152 14,740
PFM US Treasury Note 912828L32 08/31/2020 0.93% 1,200,000 1,221,984 11,160
19,409,163
UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 241,966 4,200
UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 242,172 4,200
UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,005,860 10,110
UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 242,794 4,080
UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 240,511 2,400
UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 240,468 2,400
UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 200,340 2,500
UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 241,963 2,640
UBS CD - Ally Bank UT 02006LNL3 02/05/2018 1.25% 240,000 241,238 3,000
UBS CD - Third Fed S&L Assn OH 88413QAT5 02/22/2018 1.35% 240,000 241,627 3,240
UBS Muni Debt - NYC Trans Fin Auth 64971QH55 11/01/2018 1.33% 1,000,000 1,001,980 13,280
UBS Muni Debt - Williamston Mich Sch 970294CN2 05/01/2019 1.37% 2,000,000 2,066,560 27,360
UBS CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90% 240,000 245,890 4,560
UBS CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95% 240,000 245,916 4,680
UBS CD - Capital One Bank 14042E4S6 07/15/2019 1.95% 240,000 245,131 4,680
UBS Muni Debt - New York City 64971WUX6 08/01/2019 1.29% 2,000,000 2,040,260 25,780
UBS CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00% 240,000 240,389 4,800
UBS CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90% 240,000 245,971 4,560
UBS CD - Capital One Bank 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10% 240,000 246,768 5,040
UBS CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10% 240,000 246,854 5,040
UBS CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 247,764 5,280
UBS CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 245,868 4,680
UBS CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.80% 240,000 246,497 4,320
UBS CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.75% 240,000 246,926 4,200
UBS CD - JP Morgan Chase OH Step 48125T2N4 03/04/2020 2.22% 240,000 240,288 5,321
UBS CD - HSBC Bank DE Step Rate 40434ASZ3 03/30/2020 2.22% 240,000 240,319 5,330
UBS CD - World's Foremost 9159919E5 08/06/2020 2.30% 200,000 198,590 4,600
UBS CD - Comenity Cap Bk UT 20033AND4 10/13/2020 2.00% 245,000 253,595 4,900
UBS Muni Debt - Connecticut St 20772JKN1 10/15/2020 1.75% 1,000,000 1,033,800 17,520
UBS Money Market - 2014 Bonds 0.38%29 29 0
UBS Prime Institutional Money Market 0.38% 1,856,784 1,856,784 7,056
UBS Prime Institutional Money Market 0.38% 1,100,265 1,100,265 4,181
15,875,384
Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 520,665 6,000
520,665
Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 1,009,530 10,500
Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.02% 1,000,000 997,810 10,200
Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00% 1,000,000 1,000,160 10,000
3,007,500
GRAND TOTAL 51,968,354 448,524
Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.86%
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 7)
Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2016)Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Written Report: 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Central Park West & 4800 Excelsior Public Art Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to update the Council
on the process of incorporating public art into the Central Park West development at West End
and the 4800 Excelsior project on the former Bally’s site.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions or
concerns you might have.
SUMMARY: Both the 4800 Excelsior and Central Park West development intend to incorporate
a public art element(s) on the property.
The public art for the 4800 Excelsior development site currently has a Request for Qualifications
(RFQ) issued for interested artists. The public art project committee will meeting soon to select
the three applicants who will move into the next phase of the process, which is to create a sample
of artwork for the space. There were strong feelings during the initial meeting towards moving the
location of the public art from the northwest corner of the development to the side along Excelsior
Boulevard. Additionally, proposed plans for a green wall have been switched with the location of
the art, and is now proposed to be on the northwest corner of the development rather than the side
along Excelsior Boulevard. While there was not a representative from the Wolfe Lake
Condominiums present at the initial meeting, we have since added a Wolfe Lake Condominium
resident to the public art project committee.
Currently the Central Park West public art project is in the process of drafting the Request for
Qualifications (RFQ), which will then be shared with the artist community. A second meeting will
likely take place in August to review the applications and select the final three who will move into
the next phase of the project.
Invitations to the nearby residents of the Flats at West End and Millennium at West End apartment
buildings to join the project committee have remained unsuccessful. Staff is planning additional
outreach to residents which may include a display of potential plans and proposals to gain
additional resident input. The project committee will ultimately decide on the artwork for the
development.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Breanna Freedman, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Written Report: 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Utility Box Wrap Neighborhood Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions you might
have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is this program consistent with the City Council’s strategic
priority of “promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all city initiatives,
including implementation where appropriate”?
SUMMARY: Utility box wraps have been used in other cities nationwide to add artistic flare,
aesthetics and deter graffiti in neighborhoods and communities (please see attached examples). A
St. Louis Park resident recently contacted the city to inquire about St. Louis Park starting a utility
box wrap program. This spurred the conversation for city staff to research box wraps, locate the
city-owned utility boxes and develop a new program for St. Louis Park neighborhoods.
The purpose of the program would be to further enhance neighborhood connectivity and provide
a way to incorporate more art and aesthetics in the community. This program would be eligible for
all neighborhoods that have a city-owned utility box in or bordering their neighborhood. If the
utility box borders two neighborhoods both would be given the opportunity to be involved.
Neighborhoods interested in the program would be responsible for completing an application, pre-
wrap inspection and preparation of the utility box, ensuring all neighborhood residents are given
the opportunity to participate in the image selection process, and working with the wrap printing
company to finalize wrap installation and removal.
Staff is proposing that the city wrap one utility box in a visible location to serve as a pilot and
show how these can be transformed into public art.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Staff is proposing set aside $750 for a 2016
project. If it is deemed to be a success, it is proposed that $4,000 be budgeted for 2017. The source
of funds would be from the lodging tax administration fee we retain for collecting the tax from our
hotels. This use is consistent with the policy established by the Council. Approximately
$40,000/yr. is collected in administration fees.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Map of Utility Box Locations
Examples from Other Communities
Prepared by: Breanna Freedman
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Title: Utility Box Wrap Neighborhood Program
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: A resident of the Browndale neighborhood contacted city staff inquiring about
wrapping a utility box with an artistic print or picture near Browndale Park. The City of St. Louis
Park currently does not have a program in place for having utility boxes wrapped. Since then, staff
have been researching the components of wrapping utility boxes and have begun formulating a
new program for residents and neighborhoods to participate in such a project.
A utility box can be wrapped in an adhesive vinyl with a lifespan of five to seven years. The wrap
material is similar to what is used on vehicles. The vinyl is graffiti resistant, allowing for graffiti
to be easily removed with water and rubbing alcohol. The utility box needs to be in good condition
prior to being wrapped; scratches, dents, dirt and other material must be removed. Only city-owned
boxes would available for the program at this time. Opening the program up to county or privately
owned utility boxes will be explored in the future. The City will provide a selection of preapproved
images or prints to choose from for the wrap design.
Attached is a map of the utility boxes in the city (government owned boxes only). The proposed
program would be available to any neighborhood, organized or not, that has a city owned utility
box in or bordering their neighborhood. Neighborhoods eligible for this project include: Shelard
Park, Cedar Manor, Westwood Hills, Willow Park, Texa Tonka, Pennsylvania Park, Elmwood,
Eliot, Blackstone, Wolfe Park, Brooklawns, Meadowbrook, South Oak Hill, Meadowbrook,
Aquila and Oak Hill. An informal survey was distributed to organized neighborhood associations
to measure the level of interest in having a utility box wrap program provided by the city. Four
neighborhoods responded with positive feedback and enthusiasm for undertaking such an initiative.
To apply for the box wrap, a neighborhood must have at least two residents in charge of the project.
These residents are responsible for (or delegating some responsibilities to other residents)
completing the application, ensuring the utility box desired for wrapping is in good condition,
engaging neighborhood residents in the selection process, ongoing maintenance including cleaning
the box, removing graffiti, and working with the wrap company for printing, installing, and
removing the wrap at the end of its lifespan. The residents in charge of the project will also be the
main point of contact.
Unfortunately, the utility box in Browndale Park is not city owned. In order to wrap that box
approvals would have to be obtained from the utility company who owns the box. Some utility
companies have been open to having their boxes wrapped on a case by case basis, and some such
as Xcel have stated their boxes cannot be wrapped. For the first year of this program we recommend
only opening the grant up to city owned boxes so that we know the box can be wrapped. If the
program is successful after the first year staff can explore expanding the program to other boxes
belonging to Hennepin County and those utility companies willing to have their boxes wrapped.
The proposed process for the program would start with targeted outreach to neighborhoods with
city-owned utility boxes. This would begin around the same time as the Neighborhood Association
Grant program in January or February. Applications would be due the same time as the
neighborhood grants, typically the end of March. Neighborhoods would be notified by early May
if they were selected to participate in the program, and would have the spring/summer to install
the box wrap.
NEXT STEPS: If Council is favorable, staff will move forward on program implementation and
will bring a resolution creating the parameters for the Utility Box Wrap Program to a future City
Council meeting.
Utility Box Locations
´1
Miles
Legend
County
Minneapolis
St. Louis Park
State
Government Utility Boxes
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 9)
Title: Utility Box Wrap Neighborhood Program Page 3
Study Session Meeting of July 25, 2016 (Item No. 9) Page
Title: Utility Box Wrap Neighborhood Program
Examples of Utility Box Wraps
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Written Report: 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on City Hall Lobby Art Display
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time unless Council requests discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None
SUMMARY: The recent city hall remodel includes an art display wall on the third floor lobby
next to the service counter. This is intended to provide an opportunity for local artists to display
their work in a public location, while offering city hall visitors the enjoyment of viewing different
pieces throughout the year. One of the requirements for submitting artwork was that the applicant
must be a resident of St. Louis Park. Residents were given one month to apply, and we received
15 applications of various art mediums for this space. Artwork submitted included paintings,
photography, clay and glass figurines, paper art, and quilts.
A small public art committee made up of city staff Brian Hoffman, Meg McMonigal and Rutager
West, St. Louis Park community member Jonna Kosalko, and Friends of the Arts representative
George Hagemann met on Thursday, July 7 to select appropriate and varied artwork for each four-
month term. The first selected pieces of art will be installed early August 2016 and will remain
on display until the end of December. The next art display will be installed early January 2017
through the end of April, following with the next term lasting from May through August, and lastly
September through December. The artwork selected for display includes photography, oil
paintings, canvas paintings, clay and glass figurines, and quilts. For some terms, more than one
piece of art from differing applicants will be on display. This way, more artists have the
opportunity to display their artwork. Some artists’ work will be available for purchase. The city
will not be responsible for the transaction between artist and buyer; those interested in purchasing
the artwork will be able to contact the artist.
Artists are given the option to provide a small card to display with their artwork which could
include a brief biography, explanation of the piece, and contact information for anyone interested
in purchasing the art after it is removed from the lobby.
The next call for artwork will take place in August of 2017 for artwork to be displayed for the
three four-month terms in 2018.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts,
culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where
appropriate.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None.
Prepared by: Breanna Freedman, Community Liaison
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: July 25, 2016
Written Report: 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bicycle Friendly Community Application
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to inform the City
Council of staff’s efforts to apply for this designation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is this designation consistent with the Councils strategic priority
of “being a connected and engaged community” and the Connect the Park initiative?
SUMMARY: Several departments, including Engineering, Administration, and Community
Development are completing an application for the League of American Bicyclists’ “Bicycle
Friendly Community” program. This program allows communities to assess its policies,
infrastructure, enforcement practices, and educational efforts as it relates to bicycling.
The application for St. Louis Park involves inventorying and showcasing our efforts to encourage
bicycling in the city. Receiving this designation would recognize the city as an advocate for
bicycling. It also will provide a main point of reference when staff and other city officials talk
about bicycling. The process of applying has allowed staff to gather essential bicycle-related data
in one place. As of 2016, more than 700 communities around the country have applied, and 371
have been awarded a Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum designation. Several communities within
the Twin Cities area are listed as Bicycle Friendly Communities, including Edina, Richfield, and
Minneapolis.
There is no cost to apply for the program. Once listed, communities would need to re-apply every
four years to remain on the list. Once receiving recognition as a Bicycle Friendly Community, the
League of American Bicyclists will provide us with customized feedback, technical assistance,
and a report card to assist us with our efforts on adding to our bicycle infrastructure.
Applications are due August 9, 2016. Communities will be notified if they are awarded bicycle-
friendly status later this year.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: Other than staff time to submit the application and maintain
the designation, there is limited financial implications of such a designation.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Deb Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager