The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015/07/27 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA JULY 27, 2015 (Mayor Jacobs Out? & City Manager Harmening Out) 6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 10, 2015 2. 6:05 p.m. Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Presentation 6:50 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Continued – Council Chambers Discussion Items 3. 6:50 p.m. Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion 9:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 9:25 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 4. June 2015 Monthly Financial Report 5. Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2015) 6. Cityscape Apartments – Special (Conditional) Use Permit Major Amendment & Variances at 5707 Hwy 7 7. Shared Services Agreement with City of Golden Valley for Central Park West 8. Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC 9. Dementia Training Update 10. SWLRT Update 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 27, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 10, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the Deputy City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on August 10, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on August 10, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 10, 2015 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 10, 2015 Study Session, August 10, 2015 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Excelsior Boulevard Traffic – Engineering (60 minutes) Discuss transportation planning related to the Excelsior Boulevard corridor. 3. Unimproved Alley Discussion – Operations & Recreation (45 minutes) Staff will provide Council with information regarding the City’s alley network, assessment policy, and estimated cost to reconstruct the unimproved alleys. There are 21.25 miles of alleys throughout the City. 5.2 miles of these alleys are considered unimproved according to City policy. 4. De-Brief on Polystyrene Industry Expert Panel Discussion – Operations & Recreation (45 minutes) Staff will check in with City Council as a follow-up to the panel discussion held on July 27, 2015 regarding the process to recommend policy regarding a desire to limit the use of polystyrene food and beverage containers in St. Louis Park. 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. Reports 5. Water Storage Capacity 6. Partnership with CEE – Commercial Energy Codes Support Program 7. Bass Lake Project Update 8. T.H. 100 Update End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) Presentation RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required POLICY CONSIDERATION: Information only at this time SUMMARY: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) is preparing the 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The purpose is to anticipate future facility needs for the next 20 years for guiding the airport’s development strategy by shaping the Capital Improvement Program. It will focus on assessing when facility improvements are needed in order to accommodate projected demand in a safe, efficient, orderly and cost-effective manner. The 2035 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan will include an updated 20-year forecast of aircraft operations (number of flights), a facility requirements analysis, development alternatives, selection of a Recommended Development Plan, and an assessment of environmental considerations. MSP boarder cities may be impacted by site development while changes in aircraft operations may have a community wide impact on noise. MAC is offering all the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) member cities information on the planning process. MAC Planner Neil Ralston will present Council with a progress briefing about work completed on the plan to date, and describing the forthcoming community engagement process that will occur before the Commission approves the plan. MAC Commissioner Lisa Peilen will also be attending. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. 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: None Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the research being conducted to make policy decisions on polystyrene to-go containers, as well as outline the process used to form the Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: At the May 4, 2015 Special Study Session, Council supported staff’s approach and timeline for reaching policy decisions on single-use plastic bags (plastic bags) and polystyrene to-go containers (PS containers). Staff has since updated the approach and timeline to allow for two separate discussion tracks, one on plastic bags and one on PS containers, in order to allow adequate discussion on both products and avoid confusion in future communications to stakeholders. This report focuses on polystyrene food and beverage containers. It presents the updated timeline; an outline of the experts panel discussion at the July 27, 2015 Study Session and the process used to form the panel; written statements by stakeholders; information on Minneapolis’ Green To Go Ordinance; polystyrene container’s percent of the waste stream as well as disposal and recyclability options; availability of litter data; human health risks; and next recommended steps. Polystyrene Next Steps: 1. Study Session discussion – Polystyrene Experts/Stakeholder Panel – July 27, 2015 2. Study Session discussion – Polystyrene Check-in – August 10, 2015 3. Public information process to inform stakeholders – August through September 2015 4. Listening Session – Receive public comment– Late September 2015 5. Study Session discussion – Proposed policy recommendations – Late October 2015 6. Public hearing on Council’s draft policy position – November 2015 7. Study Session discussion – Finalize policy – December 2015 8. City Council Meeting - Policy implementation follows Study Session discussion – TBD FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. 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 1 – Minneapolis ‘Green To Go’ Ordinance; 2 – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; 3 – Hennepin County Environment & Energy; 4 – American Chemistry Council; 5 – Litin Paper; 6 – Grocers Association; 7 – Restaurant Association; 8 – Retailers Association; 9 – TwinWest Chamber; 10 – Beverage Association; 11 – Eureka; 12 – Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the May 4, 2015 Special Study Session, staff provided council with an approach and timeline to provide information and options to Council, inform residents and business stakeholders, and collect feedback from those stakeholders on both single-use plastic bags (plastic bags) and polystyrene to-go containers (PS containers). The timeline has been modified to allow two separate discussion tracks to occur simultaneously through the summer and fall months. During the July 13, 2015 Study Session, Council asked staff to adjust the timeline to hold two listening sessions for each potential ban, one prior to proposing policy recommendation and one after, where Council would hear from all interested stakeholders. Council also requested that an invitation be made to the Environment and Sustainability Commission to participate in the listening sessions in order to allow them to provide input on both potential bans at a later date. The timelines below reflects the additional listening session and the progression toward making policy decisions on both plastic bags and PS containers by fall of 2015. Plastic Bags Timeline & Next Steps: 1. Study Session discussion – Plastic Bag Experts panel – June 22, 2015 2. Study Session discussion – Check-in on Council direction –July 13, 2015 3. Public information process to inform stakeholders – Begin Jul/Aug, ongoing through Oct/Nov 2015 4. Listening Session - Receive public comment – Late August/September 5. Study Session discussion - Proposed policy recommendations – October 2015 6. Public hearing on the Council’s draft policy position- November 7. Study Session discussion – Finalize Policy – November 8. City Council Meeting – Policy implementation to follow Study Session discussion PS Containers Timeline & Next Steps: 1. Study Session discussion – Polystyrene Experts/Stakeholder Panel – July 27, 2015 2. Study Session discussion – Polystyrene Check-in – August 10, 2015 3. Public information process to inform stakeholders – August through September 2015 4. Listening Session – Receive public comment– Late September 2015 5. Study Session discussion – Proposed policy recommendations – Late October 2015 6. Public hearing on Council’s draft policy position – November 2015 7. Study Session discussion – Finalize policy – December 2015 8. City Council Meeting - Policy implementation to follow Study Session discussion Polystyrene Expert/Stakeholder Panel The experts/stakeholder panel for polystyrene will be separated into five presentation groups and were given an appropriated time to speak. They will be presenting in the order noted below (see Panelist written comments – Attachments 1-11). Blois Olson with Fluence Media will be moderating and facilitating the panel discussion. All panelists will be presenting in person. 1) Ban Study • The City of Minneapolis – Green To Go Ordinance (Attachment 1) Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion 2) Governmental Agencies • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Attachment 2) • Hennepin County Environmental Services (Attachment 3) 3) Packaging Industry • Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group – (Attachment 4) Note: Reports referenced in the information provided by PFPG are accessible by hyperlink, where noted in the attachment, or may be made available upon request to staff. • Litin Paper/Eco - provider of “green” choices in food service and packaging (Attachment 5) 4) Business Organizations • Minnesota Grocers Association (Attachment 6) • Minnesota Restaurant Association (Attachment 7) • Minnesota Retailers Association (Attachment 8) • TwinWest Chamber of Commerce (Attachment 9) • MN Beverage Association (Attachment 10) 5) Environmental Organizations • Eureka Recycling (Attachment 11) The following are stakeholders not scheduled to present, but have been contacted and have provided the following input for consideration by Council: • Hennepin County Health Department, which currently licenses food establishments in St. Louis Park has been contacted about Council’s interest in a potential ban. The County is willing to work with Staff to notify them of businesses that are non- compliant, if a ban were passed. The County does not have the ability to enforce a city ordinance. • Material Recovery Facilities, who operate in the Twin Cities Metro, were contacted regarding the recyclability of both rigid and expanded (foam) polystyrene. See more information below, in Polystyrene - Research Update / Current Disposal and Recycling Methods / Recyclability. • Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), which has some members in St. Louis Park, was suggested as a stakeholder by City of Minneapolis staff. BOMA has a concern over the Minneapolis ordinance’s requirement to provide customers the opportunity to recycle (including a qualifying collection program that requires collection/hauling of recycling or organic material from restaurants in their buildings). Building managers and owners, in general, should be contacted to provide their input during the policy making process. • As Council directed, the Environment and Sustainability Commission has been invited to attend the listening sessions. The Commission will be provided an opportunity to give their recommendation, as a Commission, to the City Council in the same timeframe above when other public comments are received. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Purpose of experts/stakeholder panel The purpose of the panel is to provide the Council with information and varying points of view on a possible ban on polystyrene as one step in a larger process of informing the Council on potential policies. Background on panel formation Staff has conducted initial meetings/correspondence with several stakeholder groups to gauge their interest in providing information and perspectives to Council and has invited interested organizations or agencies to participate in an expert’s panel. Each stakeholder group was provided questions/discussion topics and provided comments. Written comments Written comments were provided both by presenting organizations (see all statements in Attachments 1 – 11). Note that some of the stakeholder written comments may contain information on both plastic bags and PS containers, and therefore are the same comments provided in the June 22, 2015 staff report. Polystyrene – Research Update A research update on polystyrene includes the following: Green To Go Ordinance - Minneapolis Council has expressed interest in an ordinance similar to the City of Minneapolis’ Environmentally Preferable Packaging Ordinance, commonly known as the Green To Go Ordinance, which went into effect on April 22, 2015 (Attachment 1). Consideration of similar ordinance language would eliminate confusion for restaurants with multiple locations in the Twin Cities Metro area and allows sharing of education/outreach between municipalities. During the experts panel the City of Minneapolis Health Department will be presenting on the background, outreach, enforcement, exceptions, and general overview of the Green to Go Ordinance. Important components of the Minneapolis ordinance that Council may want to be aware of when considering a similar policy, are outlined below: 1. Legislative Purpose: Reducing waste from disposable food and beverage packaging associated with food and beverages prepared for immediate consumption. 2. Definition of Environmentally Acceptable Packaging: Reusable, Recyclable, or Compostable packaging. a. Reusable – capable of being refilled or returned for reuse at least once. b. Recyclable – common recyclable glass, aluminum, and plastic food and beverage containers that have strong recycling markets. In the case of plastic packaging, plastics #1, #2, and #5 are considered recyclable. Both rigid and expanded/foam polystyrene are #6 plastics and not considered recyclable by the ordinance. c. Compostable – Certified compostable plastics that meet the ASTM testing standards, as well as paper products that can be composted. 3. Requiring the Opportunity to Recycle and/or Manage Organics: Packaging only meets the definition of environmentally acceptable if the food establishment provides the opportunity to recycle recyclables and/or organic materials on-site and that Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion recyclable or organic material is collected and hauled to a recycling or commercial composting facility. 4. Enforcement: The city’s Health Department enforces the ordinance and is also responsible for licensing food establishments. 5. Exemptions: Hospitals and nursing homes are exempted. Packaging without a reasonable commercially available alternative is allowed, even if it does not meet the definition of environmentally acceptable. Other Bans A number of other large U.S. cities have banned the use of polystyrene food and beverage packaging as well. However, staff has focused on the Minneapolis ordinance, for reasons mentioned above. Examples cities with bans include: Seattle, WA; Washington DC; New York City, NY; Portland, OR; and San Francisco, CA. Polystyrene in the Waste Stream In a February 23, 2015 report to Council, staff estimated that polystyrene to go containers comprise 2% or less, by weight, of Municipal Solid Waste thrown away. This estimate was based upon data taken from the Hennepin County waste composition study conducted at their Brooklyn Park Transfer Station in 2011. Local composition studies do not currently single out polystyrene in order to more accurately determine their percentage of the city or county’s waste stream. A 2014 survey, conducted by staff, indicated that 52% of food establishments in St. Louis Park who responded to the survey use PS containers for food and beverages. Current Disposal and Recycling Methods Waste Management Hierarchy According to Minnesota Statute 115A.02, the State identifies the following waste management practices, in order of preference: waste reduction and reuse, recycling, composting, resource recovery through incineration, and lastly landfilling. Reuse Reuse: The Minnesota Department of Health provided information regarding acceptable reuse under the food codes to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) upon their request. In general, containers brought from home cannot be used as to-go containers for food handled by restaurant staff. Reusable containers provided by the restaurant/business, and sanitized in a commercial sanitizing facility, could be used. Details about specific reuse scenarios can be found in the response provided by MPCA, under “Additional Information” (Attachment 2). Recyclability Rigid PS: Rigid polystyrene, a number 6 plastic, is not currently collected in the residential curbside program provided to St. Louis Park residents. PS plastic is also not a requirement of the Hennepin County Residential Recycling Agreement, in which the County provides a portion of the SCORE funds received to the City to fund residential recycling efforts. Metro area material recovery facilities (MRFs) that accept recyclables from residential and commercial sources are split on their ability to accept and market rigid polystyrene. In particular, Eureka Recycling, does not accept either rigid or expanded/foam polystyrene (Attachment 11). Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 6 Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Expanded/ Foam PS: Expanded polystyrene, a number 6 plastic, is also not collected in the residential curbside program, nor is it a requirement of the County Agreement. Metro area MRF’s do not collect expanded polystyrene for recycling. Disposal Polystyrene containers end up in residential garbage managed through St. Louis Park’s curbside garbage program. This waste is disposed through resource recovery by incineration at the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center in Minneapolis. Infrequently, during periods of outage or when the HERC facility has met capacity, garbage from St. Louis Park’s program is landfilled. Availability of Litter Data Current litter inventories do not single out polystyrene in order to determine their presence in the environment in St. Louis Park or Hennepin County as litter. St. Louis Park does not have marine litter issues that many coastal cities have cited in their justifications for instituting bans. However, it is important to note that the city’s geographical boundaries are found in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, the Basset Creek Watershed, and the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Human Health Risks Human health risks may also be considered by Council. The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry provides health information on styrene, which is used to manufacture consumer products, including the polystyrene food and beverage containers being considered. Small amounts of styrene can be ingested through eating food that has come in contact with styrene-based containers. Other exposures to styrene include the manufacturing process. Styrene has been listed as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (Attachment 12). NEXT STEPS: Staff will check-in with Council during the August 10, 2015 Study Session regarding the information and perspectives shared during the Experts Panel. Based upon feedback from Council, staff will make any changes to the polystyrene policy decision process and timeline. Staff will then begin public outreach and the process to invite all interested parties to a future listening session to provide public comment on polystyrene to Council. Polystyrene Discussion Topics Minneapolis ‘Green To Go’ Ordinance June 1, 2015 St. Louis Park City Council has asked staff to research a range of policy options to reduce or ban the use of polystyrene to-go containers in St. Louis Park in order to minimize their impact on the environment. 1. Please provide a general overview of the ‘Green To Go’ ordinance. Refer to the City of Minneapolis Health Department’s Green To Go Informational flyer (www.minneapolismn.gov/GreenToGo Click on the link for the informational flyer.) 2. What specific goals were you trying to accomplish by implementing the ban? Update the existing ordinance to move to using environmentally friendly products that are reuseable, recyclable or compostable. Take steps towards Minneapolis zero waste goals. 3. Please explain if other options or changes to the existing ordinance were considered, but not included and why? No, this was to update and clarify an existing ordinance 4. What groups/stakeholders did you include in your process, to both collect information from and to provide information to? Licensed food businesses Minneapolis business associations Trade associations (MN Restaurant Assn, MN Beverage Assn, MN Grocers Assn, American Chemistry Council) Chamber of Commerce Manufacturers and Distributors 5. Can you provide any research/data collected regarding the financial impacts/cost increases to businesses as a result of the ordinance? The City of Minneapolis Health Department is not collecting this data. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 7 6. What type of opposition did you encounter, including legal action, and by whom? No legal opposition. Some businesses expressed opposition to the higher costs of recyclable and compostable containers compared to foam. 7. Please provide a brief explanation of the decision making and implementation processes and their respective timelines. (Outline city process) The updated ordinance was passed in May 2014. The effective date was delayed until April 22, 2015 (Earth Day) to allow businesses to use up existing supplies of non- compliant containers. The Minneapolis Health Department is working toward compliance. Prior to the effective date of the ordinance, the Health Department conducted extensive education and outreach to licensed food businesses. Implementation of the ordinance is being phased in. After April 22, 2015, establishments using non-compliant products will be marked out by Minneapolis Health Inspectors on inspection reports. Citations will not be issued unless the violation is egregious. In 2016, Minneapolis Health Inspectors will issue citations to establishments using non- compliant products. In addition, Health Inspectors will check for proper collection bins. Lack of proper collection bins will be marked as out by Health Inspectors on Inspection Reports. Citations will not be issued for non-compliant collection bins until 2017. 8. Please share any lessons learned during the process of policy making and implementation that would be useful for other municipalities considering similar policy. The Minneapolis Health Department focused education and outreach on licensed food holders. Two impacted stakeholders were not contacted early in the process: building owners and waste haulers. Suggest including these two stakeholder groups in discussions early in the process. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 8 KEY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE The Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance requires food and beverages prepared for immediate consumpƟon and to-go must be placed in environmentally acceptable packaging. Recyclable materials must be recycled. Compostable plasƟcs must be composted. WHO IS AFFECTED? All people, businesses, events, or individuals who serve or give away food prepared for immediate consumpƟon. This includes all restaurants; grocery store deli cases; food trucks and other mobile vendors; and temporary, short term and seasonal food vendors. WHEN DO PACKAGING CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE? The ordinance goes into effect on Earth Day, April 22, 2015. WHAT IS PACKAGING? Food or beverage cans, boƩles, or containers used to package product for immediate consumpƟon including glasses, cups, plates, serving trays, and to-go containers. ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE PACKAGING is reusable, recyclable, or compostable. May 2015 Green To Go Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW PlasƟcs: Required if using compostable plasƟcs: For more informaƟon call 311 or visit www.minneapolismn.gov/GreenToGo Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 9 EXEMPTIONS Exempt from the ordinance : xKnives, forks and spoons xStraws xSƟr sƟcks xFoods prepackaged by the manufacturer, producer or distributor xPlasƟc ﬁlms less than 10 mils thick xCatering companies licensed by the City of Minneapolis, another city or the state. xHospitals and Nursing Homes The following exempƟons will be reviewed annually as required by the ordinance: xPE lined paper products are allowed unƟl April 22, 2017 (Earth Day) to allow for full city-wide implementaƟon of organics collecƟons. xLids for Polyethylene (PE) lined hot cups and containers (such as soup containers) xCold cup lids are exempt unƟl April 22, 2016. FOR MORE INFORMATION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Are businesses required to have compost collecƟon in the front of the house? Only if the business uses compostable plasƟc containers. Compost collecƟon is not required for businesses that only use compostable paper, reuseable and/or recyclable products. What materials are accepted as compostable? Products which are BPI cerƟﬁed or meet ASTM D6400 or D6868 standards. Contact your supplier with quesƟons about products you are using. QuesƟons about the ordinance? Call 311 or email food@minneapolismn.gov HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSISTANCE Free: xBin set up, labels and signs xEducaƟonal & promoƟonal materials xCost savings esƟmates Business Grants up to $50,000 are available to assist with: xStart or improve recycling and organics programs xBin and equipment purchases xInstallaƟon xImprovements to loading docks and waste container enclosures (fenced in areas) www.hennepin.us/businessrecycling NOT ALLOWED xRigid polystyrene - plasƟc marked xExpanded polystyrene (commonly known as Styrofoam™) Call 311 or visit www.minneapolismn.gov/GreenToGo Stay connected. Subscribe to Food Establishment News from the Health Depart- ment. Send an email to Food@minneapolismn.gov with “subscribe” in the subject line. AƩenƟon: If you have any quesƟons regarding this material please call 311 or (612) 673-2301; Hmong - Ceeb toom. Yog koj xav tau kev pab txhais cov xov no rau koj dawb, hu (612) 673-2800; Spanish - Atención. Si desea recibir asistencia gratuita para traducir esta información, llame al teléfono (612) 673-2700; Somali - Ogow. Haddii aad dooneyso in lagaa kaalmeeyo tarjamadda macluumaadkani oo lacag la’ aan wac (612) 673-3500. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 10 Page 1 CHAPTER 204. - ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION: ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE PACKAGING 204.10. - Legislative purpose. The city council finds that discarded packaging from foods and beverages prepared for immediate consumption constitutes a significant and growing portion of the waste in Minneapolis' waste stream. Regulation of food and beverage packaging, therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable and compostable waste stream, thereby reducing the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs of waste management for the citizens of Minneapolis and others working or doing business in Minneapolis. The council further finds that plastic packaging is rapidly replacing other packaging material, and that some plastic packaging used for foods and beverages is nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable. The council also finds that the two (2) main processes used to dispose of discarded nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable plastic food and beverage packaging are land filling and incineration, both of which should be minimized for environmental reasons. The council therefore finds that the minimization of nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments and at events providing food and/or beverages within the city of Minneapolis is necessary and desirable in order to minimize the city's waste stream, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by- products of incineration, and to make our city and neighboring communities more environmentally sound places to live. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 96-Or-059, § 1, 6-28-96; 2014-Or-023, § 1, 5-23-14) 204.20. - Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings as defined in this section: (a) Packaging shall mean and include food or beverage cans, bottles or containers used to package food and beverage products for distribution including glasses, cups, plates, serving trays, and to-go containers; but shall specifically exclude foods pre-packaged by the manufacturer, producer or distributor; plastic knives, forks and spoons sold or intended for use as utensils; and plastic films less than ten (10) mils in thickness. (b) Environmentally acceptable packaging shall mean and include any of the following: (1) Reusable and returnable packaging: Food or beverage containers or packages, such as, but not limited to, water bottles, growlers, milk containers and bulk product packaging that are capable of being refilled at a retail location or returned to the distributor for reuse at least once as a container for the same food or beverage; (2) Recyclable packaging: Packaging that is separable from solid waste by the generator or during collection for the purpose of recycling including glass bottles, aluminum cans and plastic food and beverage packaging that have robust recycling markets. For the purposes of this chapter, environmentally preferable plastic packaging includes the following plastic types: a. Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE); b. High Density Polyethylene (#2 HDPE); and Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 11 Page 2 c. Polypropylene (#5 PP). (3) Compostable packaging: Packaging that is separable from solid waste by the generator or during collection for the purpose of composting. Compostable packaging must be made of paper, certified compostable plastics that meet ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 for compostability or other cellulose-based packaging capable of being decomposed through composting or anaerobic digestion. (c) Food establishment, as used in this chapter, means a "food establishment" as defined in section 186.50 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 90-Or-067, § 1, 2-23- 90; 96-Or-059, § 2, 6-28-96; 2013-Or-145, § 1, 12-6-13; 2014-Or-023, § 2, 5-23-14) 204.30. - Prohibitions and duties. (a) No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment or any person or organization providing free food or beverage products within the city of Minneapolis pursuant to a permit or license, or in a manner which would require a permit or license, shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the city: Sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food or beverage intended for immediate consumption contained, at any time at or before the time or point of sale, in packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging. The presence on the premises of the food establishment of packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey at retail, or to provide to retail customers packaging which is not environmentally acceptable packaging; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who conduct or transact no retail food or beverage business. (b) Packaging used to contain food or beverages intended for immediate consumption shall be considered environmentally acceptable packaging only when the food establishment provides consumers with an opportunity to recycle and/or appropriately manage compostable plastics and utilizes a qualified recycling and/or organics management system. (1) A qualified recycling system shall have the following elements: a. A clear and verifiable process for separating recyclable packaging from discarded solid waste; and b. Collection and delivery of recyclable packaging to a recycling facility for processing in the same or at least similar manner as recyclable packaging collected in a municipally approved recycling program. (2) A qualified organics management system shall have the following elements: a. A clear and verifiable process for separating organic materials from discarded solid waste; and b. Collection and delivery of organic materials to a food to people, food to animals, organics composting or anaerobic digestion facility in the same manner or at least similar manner as organic materials collected in a municipally approved organics management program. (89- Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 96-Or-059, § 3, 6-28-96; 2014-Or-023, § 3, 5-23-14) 204.40. - Enforcement. The environmental health division of the health department shall have the duty and the authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter. The license official shall also have authority to enforce Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 12 Page 3 the provisions of this chapter. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 96-Or-059, § 4, 6-28-96; 2013-Or-145, § 2, 12-6-13; 2014-Or-023, § 4, 5-23-14) 204.50. - Rules and regulations. The environmental health division may, upon notice and hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter and protect the health of the public, including the development of exemptions under section 204.70 for packaging for which there is no reasonable commercially available alternative. In promulgating such rules, the division shall consider the legislative purposes provided in section 204.10 of this chapter and shall consult with the operators of affected food establishments. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 96-Or- 059, § 5, 6-28-96; 2013-Or-145, § 3, 12-6-13; 2014-Or-023, § 5, 5-23-14) 204.60. - Reserved. Editor's note— Ord.\No. 2014-Or-023, § 6, adopted May 23, 2014, repealed § 204.60, which pertained to advisory committee on environmentally acceptable packaging. See also the Code Comparative Table. 204.70. - Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this chapter shall not apply to: (a) Any packaging used at hospitals or nursing homes; (b) Any packaging which is not environmentally acceptable, but for which there is no commercially available alternative as determined by the environmental health division by rule promulgated pursuant to section 204.50. In determining whether there are commercially available alternatives, the environmental health division shall consider the following: (1) the availability of environmentally acceptable packaging for affected products; (2) the economic consequences to manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors of requiring environmentally acceptable packaging when available; and (3) the competitive effects on manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors involved in the sale of product brands or labels available only in packaging that is not environmentally acceptable packaging. Every rule creating an exemption under this paragraph shall be reviewed annually by the environmental health division to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the exemption. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 90-Or-067, § 2, 2-23-90; 95-Or-044, § 1, 3-31-95; 96-Or-059, § 7, 6-28-96; 2013-Or-145, § 5, 12-6-13) 204.80. - Penalties. Each violation of any provision of this chapter or of lawful regulations promulgated under section 204.50 hereof shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to Chapter 2 of this Code. Each day on which a violation occurs constitutes a separate violation. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 2014-Or-023, § 7, 5-23-14) 204.90. - License adverse action. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 13 Page 4 A violation of section 204.30 shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation, suspension, denial or nonrenewal of any license for the food establishment at which the violation occurs. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89) 204.100. - 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. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89) 204.110. - Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect April 22, 2015. (89-Or-060, § 1, 3-31-89; 90-Or-067, § 3, 2-23- 90; 2014-Or-023, § 8, 5-23-14) Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 14 Attachment 2 - MPCA Polystyrene/Plastic Bag State – Discussion Topics Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Updated Response July 15, 2015 St. Louis Park City Council has asked staff to research a range of policy options to reduce or ban the use of plastic bags and polystyrene to-go containers in St. Louis Park in order to minimize their impact on the environment. 1. What is MPCA position on the issue of banning single-use plastic bags; polystyrene take out containers with respect to recyclability, litter and/or health? A: Similar to prior comment, the MPCA has no stance on polystyrene separate from other materials in the waste stream. We encourage source reduction, and in this case, polystyrene (like plastic bags) is already a lightweighted product, as it is mostly air, and is lighter than most other options. Generally the lighter a product, the less its overall environmental impact. Speaking from a waste management perspective, having already been lightweighted, the next goal would be to find a way to reuse or recycle the material. We recognize that polystyrene food containers are not typically recyclable. Because it is not recyclable, however, is not necessarily a reason to look at supplanting it with a more resource intensive (heavier) container. As mentioned in earlier comments, the right policy depends on your specific intent. The question remains “What is your fundamental goal for pursuing the policy? And do you have the facts to support that your proposed policy will reach that goal?” If you want only to increase recycling rates, then shifting to recyclable containers will do that. But if you want to net decrease GHG impacts, switching from EPS may not do that compared to process-intensive paper or heavier-weight PET or corn-intensive PLA. Maybe you are concerned about potential health impacts from polystyrene production and its effects on workers, or the leaching of styrene from polystyrene? These are legitimate concerns. Styrene does have human health impacts to those who are occupational exposed, it is moderately toxic to aquatic organisms, and it adds to smog Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 15 Attachment 2 - MPCA formation (EPA fact sheet). The question then becomes, is St. Louis Park certain enough that the replacement containers would be sufficiently healthier? 2. More specifically, does your agency see these as issues, why/why not? What resources and data (scientific consensus) does your agency rely upon to establish a position on such issues? What is missing in the data or information to better identify potential issues related to plastic bags and polystyrene to-go containers from your agency’s perspective? A: The Agency doesn’t see plastic bags and expanded polystyrene as issues of larger significance than other plastics. Bags are a small part of the waste stream and there are other plastics and other materials that are bigger waste and toxic issues. Bags, both plastic and paper, generally also have a recycling option already in place in the metro area. When considering taking a position the Agency looks for clear science that makes the environmental benefits and consequences of a course of action evident and significant. Coal tar asphalt sealant is a good example –water quality was clearly worsened by sealant from Minnesota roadways, parking lots, and driveways and there was a less toxic alternative on the market. I haven’t seen as many LCA studies about EPS compared to PP, PET or PLA containers so am not prepared to speak to the relative environmental merits of one over the other. 3. Council mentioned they want to put upward pressure on the county and state legislators to take the lead in considering similar policies. Will MPCA take a position on banning these materials or suggest a path for metro cities/counties to take to respond to the negative public perception of these materials? A: At this time, the MPCA has no plans to take a position on policies around polystyrene. Our solid waste-related policy stances will be issued in the Solid Waste Policy Report (due December 2015) and also in the next Metropolitan Solid Waste Policy Plan (due late late 2016). In both cases, the MPCA considers input on what policies are of primary priority for stakeholders. In all cases, policies proposed by the MPCA are carried forward to the legislative process only if the Governor supports them. 4. MPCA solicited feedback from municipalities on their desire to have a white paper made available on the use of product bans by municipalities. Please provide an update on this effort. A: The MPCA will be issuing a whitepaper this summer aimed at city and county elected officials and environmental staff. The goal of this white paper is to offer guidance and information that local units of government (LUGs) may want to consider when thinking about product bans and related policies. The white paper will summarize policy Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 16 Attachment 2 - MPCA approaches that have been taken for product restrictions, taxes, fees or bans, the success or failure of the policies in achieving stated goals, and any unintended consequences. It will also point out that a policy focus on larger parts of the waste stream may result in more significant environmental benefit. We are working with the Management Analysis and Development group at Minnesota Management and Budget on this project. 5. Please provide information on current and future recycling markets for rigid polystyrene plastics including your knowledge on the ability of material recovery facilities (metro- area) to accept, sort and market this material. A: Rigid polystyrene plastics are accepted by some metro area material recovery facilities, but not by all. In general these are not sorted separately but are put into mixed bales and sold. Typically they are sold overseas, where they are sorted, often by hand, and then recycled. There are a couple of North American markets for these mixed bales – one in Indiana and one in Canada. Some expanded polystyrene plastics are collected in a trial program at the Coon Rapids recycling center. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Reuse options: Promotion of reuse is always a good option. Reusable containers, like reusable bags, can be a big environmental benefit over any disposable the more they are reused. Some communities have reusable take-out container programs. Such a program could operate here. MDH rules on reuse: The Minnesota Department of Health provided the following information about acceptable reuse in Minnesota under their food codes. A community could consider promotion of more reuse in allowable cases and/or foster a business that provides reusable to- go containers to restaurants/delis. The MPCA asked MDH about the legality of each of the following situations. In all cases, consider a reusable container INTENDED for multiple uses, like Tupperware or an insulated beverage mug, not a single-use container). MDH responses are in red. 1. A person brings their own container to be filled with coffee or tea at a coffee shop when the dispensing equipment doesn’t touch the container or the liquid in it. This would be acceptable as long as it is a contamination free process. 2. A customer brings in a reusable cup to a coffee shop. The dispensing equipment touches hot milk that in turn touches the refillable cup (a nozzle is inserted into milk that is already in a cup to heat or froth that milk). This would be acceptable as long as the wand does not contact the reusable cup or the drink while it is in the reusable cup (the milk must be frothed outside the reusable cup and then poured into the reusable cup in a contamination free manner). 3. At the end of a meal at a restaurant, a person transfers her left over food from her plate into a reusable container she brought with her from home to take the leftovers home Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 17 Attachment 2 - MPCA with her. This would be acceptable when the patron is transferring the food and the transfer does not occur in a food service area such as the kitchen, at a bar, or the wait station. 4. A customer brings a reusable take-out container from home to a restaurant or food truck, and asks that the restaurant/food truck put his “to-go” order into that container. This would not be allowed. 5. A person refills a container brought from home at a dry goods bulk station at a grocery store (where that dry goods bulk station meets code as it is arranged). This would be acceptable as long as there is no contact between the dispensing equipment and the refillable container. 6. A deli-counter worker at a grocery store takes a refillable container that a customer brought from home and fills their order for a pound of deli salad from the deli case. This would not be allowed. 7. A customer fills a container they bring from home at a serve-yourself salad bar/soup bar at a grocery store. This would not be allowed. Note: While containers brought from home cannot be used as to-go containers for food handled by staff, reusable containers provided by the business, and sanitized in a commercial sanitizing facility, could be used. MPCA responses provided by Madalyn Cioci, Waste & Pollution Prevention Specialist Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 18 Friday, June 12, 2015 Polystyrene – Sample Questions Hennepin County Environment & Energy St. Louis Park City Council has asked staff to research a range of policy options to reduce or ban the use of plastic bags and polystyrene to-go containers in St. Louis Park in order to minimize their impact on the environment. 1. What is Hennepin County’s position on the issue of banning polystyrene take out containers with respect to recyclability, litter and/or health? The County does not have an official position on banning polystyrene take-out containers. The County takes direction from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and its Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan. The state has set higher priorities for recycling and organics, which require efforts to be focused on areas that achieve the most significant impacts in terms of environmental outcomes. 2. More specifically, does your agency see these as issues, why/why not? What resources and data (scientific consensus) does your agency rely upon to establish a position on such issues? What is missing in the data or information to better identify potential issues related to plastic bags and polystyrene to-go containers from your agency’s perspective? The County supports both source reduction and recycling. The life cycle analysis of packaging comparisons is complicated and studies are inconclusive. The County has monitored policy action on packaging in cities across the country. One element missing in the analysis is the effect of these policies. The data to establish a baseline before policy implementation is often nonexistent and there is little evaluation after the fact. 3. Council mentioned they want to put upward pressure on the county and state legislators to take the lead in considering similar policies. Will the County take a position on banning these materials or suggest a path for cities within Hennepin County to take to respond to the negative public perception of these materials? The County Board has not expressed an interest in pursuing a ban on these materials. At the end of this year the MPCA will submit a Solid Waste Policy Report to the legislature with recommendations on waste management policies. This report, along with the Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 19 Friday, June 12, 2015 Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan that will be developed in 2016, will determine the priorities and provide direction to the County. Once the state has completed its policy plan, the County will create its Solid Waste Management Master Plan. This process will involve engagement with a wide variety of stakeholders and the opportunity for a dialogue on topics of interest. Across the country these issues have proved to be more suitable for action at the city level. There are many cities that can serve as an example on how to move forward, including San Francisco and Seattle. A great example closer to home is Minneapolis. Their packaging ordinance went into effect on Earth Day this year. 4. Please provide information on current and future recycling markets for rigid and expanded polystyrene plastics including your knowledge on the ability of material recovery facilities (metro-area) to accept, sort and market this material. According to Secondary Materials Pricing, the price for baled #3-7 comingled plastics and baled polystyrene EPS in the Chicago region is $0.00. That is the current value and the expected future value. It has also been the historic value. Rigid and expanded polystyrene plastics are not valuable commodities. If Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) receive #6 plastic, it is treated as contamination or sorted into a mixed plastics bale, which is likely to be exported. In our conversations with MRFs, they are not interested in receiving #6 plastics. The County’s residential recycling funding policy does not require cities to collect #6 plastics. Furthermore, the County does not accept #6 plastics at our drop-off facilities or as a part of our internal recycling program. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 20 Date: July 10, 2015 To: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Coordinator, the City of Saint Louis Park, MN CC: Scott Merkley – Public Works Services Manager Mark Hanson – Operations Superintendent Shannon Pinc – Environment & Sustainability Coordinator Jacqueline Larson – Communications & Marketing Manager From: Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group Subject: (a) Additional information for July 27, 2015 Polystyrene Experts Panel presentation (b) May 26, 2015 information submitted by PFPG also attached Dear Kala, Thanks for the opportunity to provide additional information in advance of the Polystyrene Experts Panel that will be held on July 27th at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. I appreciate the invitation to present as part of the panel, and will do so. Our group, the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), represents the leading suppliers and manufacturers of plastics foodservice packaging products, including polystyrene food and beverage containers. I am including the May 26, 2015 letter from the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group I submitted to you with information on polystyrene. Following up on the May conference call with you, your staff, and PFPG member company Dart Container, this letter provides you with additional information as you develop policy options on polystyrene food containers. I would appreciate it if you also would provide this information to City Council. Here's additional information on: - Polystyrene foodservice and waste to energy recovery - Polystyrene foodservice recycling case studies - MRF Material Flow Study released July 2015 identifying ways to improve efficiencies in recycling facilities - Polystyrene foodservice – sustainability comparison versus alternative packaging - Polystyrene foodservice costs versus alternatives Polystyrene foodservice and waste to energy recovery – Hennepin Energy Resource Co. - Polystyrene foodservice products are recovered and recycled in various ways in many communities, depending on their solid waste program. The City of Saint Louis Park’s residential waste is sent to the Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Co. (HERC) waste to energy plant. Plastics, including plastics foodservice waste like polystyrene, provide a higher BTU (caloric) value than the mixed paperboard and non-plastics waste – and help with the burning of waste in the HERC facility. Compared to composting, waste-to-energy is a more cost effective alternative that produces electricity “with less environmental impact than almost any other sources of Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 21 electricity” (EPA). (Source: Congress to Convert Waste to Energy, Oct 6, 2011, http://cha.house.gov/press- release/congress-convert-waste-energy). – Oahu, Hawaii Report to City Council – Uses and Impacts of Single-Use Food service Containers. Like Saint Louis Park, the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii was asked to perform a study for its City Council to assess the uses and impacts of single-use food service containers, including polystyrene. Also like St. Louis Park, the City and County of Hawaii rely on waste to energy recovery (HPOWER) as the primary end of life disposal mechanism. A June 2015 report (copy attached) included an assessment of the quantify of different single-use food service containers use on Oahu, as well as the quality of single use food containers, recognizing the insulation benefits of PS foam versus the other materials. The report did not have any specific recommendations for handling polystyrene foam containers compared to the other alternatives, since (a) all foodservice was part of the trash that is collected and turned in to energy at the City’s waste-to energy facility (HPOWER), and (b) the island has no commercial composting program for single-use-containers (i.e., for compostable foodservice alternatives). The report also assessed the potential health and safety risks associated with the everyday use and disposal of single- use foodservice containers – and found that FDA regulates them and there is no risk to consumers for FDA approved foodservice products, including polystyrene foodservice. Summary – Given the HERC facility in Hennepin County that already exists, and the lack of infrastructure and series of commercial composting facilities in place that would be needed to handle “compostable” foodservice, along with the fact that there is no end of life benefit for a compostable product if it’s not composted, it appears that polystyrene foodservice is already recovered for energy, and reduced as a waste under the current waste disposal practices in Hennepin County. Polystyrene foodservice recycling case studies and NYC facts - I previously provided detailed information on the viability of recycling polystyrene foam foodservice should City of Saint Louis Park wish to add PS foam to its programs. Our industry has experience working with haulers and material recovery facilities (MRFs) who may wish to or have added polystyrene foam to their program, and we are willing partners to work with those haulers and MRFs should they want to complement the HERC program with a recycling of polystyrene foam program as well. - I’ve included two “Case Studies” of polystyrene foam programs in California – EDCO Disposal in Lemon Grove and Burrtec Waste Industries in Fontana – that provide first-hand information about the steps these MRFs took to develop their PS foam recycling programs and sustained them. There is also a list of EPS recycling resources as well on these as well. - New York City polystyrene foam recycling decision- from the view of a recycler. In late 2013 the NYC Council passed a law which required the commissioner of the NYC Department of Sanitation to determine, by Jan 1, 2015, whether or not food service expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam containers could be recycled in an economically feasible and environmentally efficient manner that was safe. While this was demonstrated to be the case by industry, New York City rejected that proposal, and enacted a ban only on polystyrene foam takeout containers; all other polystyrene (i.e., egg cartons, meat trays) is permissible in NYC. In an article written by a national recycler (“The Big Apple Made a Big Blunder on EPS”), it was shown how this decision by NYC will result in less recycling and higher costs for business and consumers. There is good information in the article on the markets for PS foam. A copy of the article is attached. - July 2015 MRF Material Flow Study – This “MRF Material Flow Study” (pdf final report attached) uniquely looks at how numerous materials flow through several different types of materials recovery facilities (MRFs) with the goal of better understanding how to get more recyclables actually recycled. o Packaging companies want to ensure the packages they put in the marketplace are properly managed at end-of-life, instead of ending up in the landfill. Five national trade associations representing a wide range of packaging types, including the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Association of Postconsumer Plastics Recyclers (APR), Carton Council of North America (CCNA), Foodservice Packaging Institute Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 22 (FPI) and the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), joined together to commission a study to find ways to optimize the recycling of their packaging after it goes into the bin or cart. The study specifically evaluated where packages end up in a sorting facility, why packages flow in certain ways and what potential changes to the sorting processes could improve recovery. o This research was aimed to help answer questions like … What steps can a resident take to ensure the items they place in a recycling container end up successfully being recycled into new products? And once at a recycling facility, how does one item make it all the way to the correct bale while another ends up in the wrong one, or worse, in the residue and ultimately, the landfill? o Key finding from the study  Size and shape make a difference – Items tend to flow with similarly sized and shaped materials, so containers shouldn’t be completely flattened or crushed by residents before being placed in their recycling bin or cart. Additionally, package form and stiffness influences flow. Materials that hold their shape have a higher likelihood of making it to the right bale.  Good separation is important – Maintaining equipment to ensure efficient sorting is critical.  Optical sorters can help identify material types – As the recycling stream evolves into being more diverse and lightweight, optical sorters play an increasingly important role. o The organizations look forward to finding ways to apply this knowledge to increase recovery and working closely with stakeholders, such as communities and facilities. The study was developed and delivered by RRS, Reclay StewardEdge and Moore Recycling Associates. To access the study, learn more from the funders and about how facilities and communities can apply the learnings, visit www.CartonOpportunities.org/MRFStudy. Polystyrene foodservice – sustainability comparison versus alternative packaging - A measure of sustainability goes well beyond whether a product can be recycled or composted. It’s an assessment throughout the whole life cycle of making a product from raw materials (cradle) to end of life disposal (final use), and then determining what the impacts are on the environment. Polystyrene foam foodservice, when compared to alternative foodservice products (namely coated bleached paperboard and corn-based compostable foodservice), is actually more sustainable in that the footprint (or burden) of raw materials, energy resources, air, water, solid waste emissions it takes to makes PS foam foodservice products (on an item by item basis) is lower than what it takes to make non polystyrene foam foodservice containers. - In the May 26th submission, I referred you to a full life cycle study that shows the data to support these claims: A link to the release of the study (http://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news- releases/New-Study-Polystyrene-Foam-Cups-and-Plates-Use-Less-Energy.html) as well as to the full peer reviewed study is provided here - http://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/Life-Cycle-Inventory-Foodservice-Products. - Highlights of the study include: o Energy use: Polystyrene foam products consume significantly less energy than the alternatives—half as much as wax-coated paperboard cups and one-third as much as PLA clamshells. o Water use: Polystyrene foam products use significantly less water than the alternatives—up to four times less than PLA clamshells. o Solid waste: Polystyrene foam products create significantly less solid waste by weight than the alternatives—up to five times less than paperboard and PLA products. Comparisons by volume vary widely:  Polystyrene foam cups for hot drinks create less waste by volume than the alternatives— significantly less than paperboard cups with corrugated sleeves used for insulation.  Polystyrene foam cups for cold drinks create similar waste by volume as plastic coated paperboard cups and significantly less than wax coated paperboard and PLA cups.  Heavy duty polystyrene foam plates produce more solid waste by volume than the alternatives, while lighter duty polystyrene foam plates create similar waste by volume as the paperboard counterparts. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 23  Polystyrene foam clamshells create slightly more waste by volume than paperboard clamshells and half the waste by volume of PLA clamshells. o Greenhouse gases: Polystyrene foam products generate slightly more greenhouse gas emissions than PLA products, expressed as net CO2 equivalents (see note below). If paperboard products do not degrade after disposal, they store carbon and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions than polystyrene foam products; however, if paperboard products degrade to the maximum extent, they generate more greenhouse gas emissions than polystyrene foam products, so comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions vary widely depending on assumptions about the degradation of paperboard products. The study’s authors found that lower weight products with similar functionality—such as polystyrene foam products composed of more than 90% air—generally produce smaller environmental burdens. Although PLA is corn-based, the study notes: “According to the [PLA producer] NatureWorks LLC website, PLA does not biodegrade in landfills.” Summary: When developing policy around polystyrene foam foodservice containers, it is important to evaluate its overall sustainability including, but not limited to, the end of life disposal of the product. When doing so, the studies show polystyrene foam foodservice products are actually more sustainable than alternative products, which are usually heavier by weight and have larger impacts on the environment. Polystyrene foodservice costs versus alternatives - Polystyrene foodservice containers – both foam polystyrene (e.g., cups, clamshells, plates) and solid polystyrene (e.g., cups, lids) are anywhere from 2–3 times less expensive than coated bleached paperboard items, and 2-4 times less expensive than compostable alternatives. Polystyrene foam containers, because of their insulation and performance characteristics, also have performance characteristics non-foam containers cannot provide. - Cost comparison information provided to Minneapolis EnVAP committee. I am providing cost data (attached) requested from our industry as part of our work on the EnVAP task force to show these cost differences. Summary – As part of the policy development for polystyrene foodservice containers, the economic impact of substitutes (higher costs to the consumer, higher costs to agencies higher costs for vendors) when there is no demonstrated environmental benefit for the substitutes (especially with no commercial composting City wide programs to process “compostables”) should be factored into the uses and benefits of the polystyrene foodservice containers. PFPG is here as a resource for you – and looks forward to participating in the July 27, 2015 Polystyrene Experts Panel to be able to answer any questions you may have. I look forward to working with you, and please contact me if you have additional questions or need more information. Sincerely, Mike Levy, Senior Director Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) (tel: 202-249-6614; e-mail: mike_levy@americanchemistry.com) attachments Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 24 Date: May 26, 2015 To: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Coordinator, Saint Louis Park, MN From: Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group and Dart Container Corporation Subject: (a) Information you requested from industry on polystyrene containers – in advance of June or July, 2015 Learning Sessions on plastic bags and polystyrene containers, and (b) Request for phone discussion with PFPG/Dart on polystyrene foodservice Dear Kala, It was good talking with you today. Our group, the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), represents the leading suppliers and manufacturers of plastics foodservice packaging products, including polystyrene food and beverage containers. We do support programs with respect to health and safety studies and testing, litter education and prevention, waste minimization, and recycling (including all plastics foodservice, like polystyrene foam #6 as proven solutions to address these key issues. As you in Saint Louis Park go through a similar process that the City of Minneapolis is going through with how it is addressing environmentally acceptable packaging with respect to certain packaging, including polystyrene containers, I would like the opportunity to talk with you (by phone) prior to the June (and now July) City Council learning sessions that Saint Louis Park will be holding to learn more about the contribution of plastic bags and polystyrene containers to Saint Louis Park’s solid waste stream – and how they might best be addressed. I am Mike Levy, Senior Director, for the PFPG, and along with AnnMarie Treglia, Dart Container Corporation – a PFPG member company - have been working on similar issues in other cities – and are members of the City of Minneapolis Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance Implementation Work Group (EnVAP) set up since 2014 to help implement the ordinance Minneapolis passed with respect to the environmentally acceptable packaging. Here’s some of the information we’d like to discuss with you by phone, and then based on our conversation, we’d be happy to provide you with details (studies, reports, and learnings). We have found that there is a lot of misconceptions about the environmental acceptable and sustainability of plastics foodservice products, including polystyrene #6, that we’d like to discuss them with you and make sure we can best understand your concerns as you consider legislation for Saint Louis Park: 1. Integrated Waste Management and Recycling Opportunities • Recycling Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 25 o How polystyrene foam containers are recycled in cities (http://www.fpi.org/PressReleases) and the Foam Recycling Coalition shows how it can be done (http://www.fpi.org/recyclefoam) o How solid polystyrene containers are recycled more and more in “non-bottle rigid programs” that cities like Saint Louis Park can replicate. Here’s the latest non-bottle rigid plastic report: http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Publications/2013-National-Report-on- Post-Consumer-Non-Bottle-Rigid-Plastic-Recycling.pdf.  • Polystyrene Foam Recycling is a reality - PS Foodservice recycling more prevalent than paper foodservice recycling or composting, should Saint Louis Park want to further explore recycling - http://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/Pages/Access-to-Recycling-Expanded-Polystyrene-Food-Service-Items.pdf Many Americans believe that paper cups and plates are widely recycled and that similar plastic foam products cannot be recycled. A new study finds both beliefs to be mistaken. The study looked at access to recycling of foodservice products to compare recycling opportunities for paper versus polystyrene foam. The study of the fifty largest US and California cities found that far more communities provide access to recycling of polystyrene foam foodservice products than paper foodservice products. For example, half the population of California’s fifty largest cities has direct or indirect access to foam foodservice recycling. In contrast, only two percent of this population has direct or indirect access to paper foodservice recycling, meaning paper foodservice recycling in California is almost nonexistent. Of the population of the fifty largest US cities, sixteen percent has direct or indirect access to foam foodservice, while six percent can recycle paper foodservice. In addition, the study shows that access to composting of paper foodservice products also is low: only seven percent of the population of the fifty largest US cities. The study demonstrates that commonly held beliefs about the recyclability of foodservice products are not based on actual recycling activities. ACCESS TO RECYCLING/COMPOSTING OF FOAM AND PAPER FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS CA 50 Largest Cities Percent of Population Foam Collected for Recycling 50% Paper Collected for Recycling 2% Paper Collected for Composting 13% US 50 Largest Cities Percent of Population Foam Collected for Recycling 16% Paper Collected for Recycling 6% Paper Collected for Composting 7% Note: these population figures are solely for the fifty largest US cities and CA cities and cannot be extrapolated for the entire US or CA population. 65 cities in California (representing 22% of the population) have PS foam recycling going on – both foodservice polystyrene foam and what we call EPS (expanded PS foam) protective packaging (shape molded transport packaging). There are recyclers like Nepco in California that collect, process and make picture frames out of the recycled polystyrene foam. This includes the City of Los Angeles, our nation’s second largest city, which collects polystyrene packaging in its curbside recycling program. The LA program accepts foodservice products, like foam cups and take-out containers—residents simply wipe away food residue and toss them in the blue bin with their other recyclables. 2. Polystyrene is approved as safe for use in foodservice by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA has determined for more than 50 years that polystyrene is safe for use in foodservice products. A common but unnecessary worry about many plastics in foodservice is that they may have tiny amounts of constituents that can Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 26 make their way into food. This is precisely one of the reasons why the FDA reviews and approves every material to be used in contact with food for safety –- before it hits the market -- and this includes a look at what might migrate out of the material, so FDA scientists and regulators are fully satisfied about the safety of the material., 3. Foodservice Safety: For more than 50 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have approved the use of polystyrene for foodservice products. Polystyrene foodservice products offer a sanitary way to serve fresh food and to help prevent the spread of disease at school, restaurants, hospitals ... even at home. 4. Small Part of Litter – According to a 2012 study, commonly used polystyrene foam foodservice products make up 1.5 percent of litter. The report compiled information from nineteen litter surveys conducted in the U.S. and Canada from 1994 to 2009, including a 2008 national survey of 240 sites. Evaluating only the surveys conducted since 2000 yields an even lower median value of 1.1 percent. (Source: “The Contribution of Polystyrene Foam Food Service Products to Litter,” Environmental Resources Planning, Gaithersburg, MD, May 2012). In addition, our industry has many partnerships with cities on helping them address the root causes of litter, and help changing behavior that is necessary to help prevent litter. 5. Composting: Not a Simple Solution – Many people believe that communities could easily compost paper-based and other “biodegradable” foodservice products. But it’s not that simple. These used foodservice items would still need to be collected, separated and delivered to a large-scale compositing facility, of which there are few in the U.S. In the absence of such a facility, these products generally end up in landfills. Once in landfills, they do not readily break down because modern landfills are actually designed to retard decomposition. 6. Environmental Footprint – A full environmental picture is critical when comparing foodservice options. It’s easy to focus only on a product’s end of life since that’s what consumers see – but the environmental footprint of any product includes all of its impacts, such as raw material use, resources used in manufacture, fuel use and emissions in transport and more (see Sanitation above). Polystyrene foodservice packaging uses less energy and resources to manufacture than comparable paper-based products, leaving a lighter footprint. For example, a polystyrene foam cup requires about 50% less energy to produce – and creates significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions – than a similar coated paper-based cup with its corrugated sleeve. A link to the release of the study (http://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/New-Study-Polystyrene- Foam-Cups-and-Plates-Use-Less-Energy.html) as well as to the full peer reviewed study is provided here - http://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/Life-Cycle-Inventory-Foodservice-Products. 7. Lessons learned from participation in EnVAP (City of Minneapolis Work Group) a. Polystyrene foodservice containers cost much less than alternatives – several exemptions were discussed among the working group for small businesses and vendors that would be impacted b. The scope of products under the environmentally acceptable packaging ordinance was underestimated. For instance, polystyrene lids are used for all hot beverages (regardless if the container is paperboard, compostable, or plastic). Exemptions for these products were needed. c. Polystyrene containers shipped into the city (Minneapolis) are not covered by the ordinance. Polystyrene meat trays, seafood trays, and poultry trays used by grocery stores and supermarkets are the preferred product because of sanitation (public health – less blood leakage) as well as cost issues. d. Ordinance was based on the misperception that PS foam could not be recycled. Companies like Dart Container Corporation that has programs to recycle foam cups in place applied for an exemption from the ordinance on the basis that the product can be recycled. The city rejected this request citing it has to be Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 27 recyclable in the existing recycling the city currently undertakes. Dart is open to working with the city to help them institute foam recycling. e. The replacement compostable/biodegradable products do not have an infrastructure or approved facilities to handle all the polystyrene replacement products. In the absence of this, the polystyrene containers that were banned in the ordinance are actually a more environmentally sustainable choice – since less energy, waste, water and greenhouse emissions are used in the life cycle it takes to make polystyrene containers versus the alternatives. AnnMarie Treglia and I would like to talk with you about some of these issues – and again, make sure we not only answer your questions, but can provide you with some specific information in advance of the June or July learning sessions. We realize this is a lot of information all at once, but hope it is helpful. Look forward to talking with you. Sincerely, Mike Levy, Director Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) (tel: 202-249-6614; e-mail: mike_levy@americanchemistry.com) (AnnMarie Treglia/Dart Container) Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 28 Attachment 5 – Litin Paper-ECO [Litin Paper/ECO – Simon Hefty provided the following input by email on June 25, 2015] I have been selling compostable packaging and foodservice for over 10 years. I am the forefront leader in compostable packaging in our market. No other distributer in MN has moved more compostable products than me. I served on the Minneapolis task force for their ban on polystyrene and was the products guru for them. I know all of the mfg’s in the compostable products market in the U.S. and I have my finger on the pulse of this industry. After listening to the information session for council on Monday June 22nd about single use plastic bags I feel that the most important thing in proposing a ban on a particular type of packaging involves a understating of the alternative products available. I would like to state that when thinking about alternatives price for a product should never be involved at the government level. We live in a capital society and products can be sold at will for any price possible. If a business incurs higher costs for their packaging it is up to that business owner to figure out how to adapt. All food service packaging has price increases on a regular basis, the business adapts to that all the time or finds another product. Polystyrene packaging is very cheap when compared to other products. That is because the market is saturated with manufacturers, low cost of raw materials, etc. The main packaging you are wishing to consider to ban are #6 rigid foam containers and cups, #6 clear clamshells, and #6 coffee and cold cup lids. These are where you find a majority of #6 plastics being used. Remember that all mfg use different diameters and molds for their products, so if you ban a material and have to use another you would probably have to use a new manufactures cup and lid. Not all lids are created equal is the point there. Alternatives is the most important thing to the ban. What can I use as a business owner if I cannot use this. Compostable food packaging is luckily now the answer and will continue to be for a long time. Products made from sustainable renewable sources that can be turned directly back into the soil that was used to grow the raw material in the first place is an amazing thing. For clam shells there are bagasse styles to replace the foam, and clear PLA ones to replace the clear clams. Cups are replaced with PLA clear or paper/pla lined cups. That paper/pla lined is also the alternative to polylined paper cups sold in most coffee shops today. For the lids we have CPLA coffee lids and PLA flat cold lids. From a cost standpoint today foam is at the bottom of the cost scale and mentioned why above. So anything you put up against it will cost more. But the market will dictate how much more. Could be very little, could be a lot. When you think of how these alternative products are made and if they are better options that the #6 plastics you should know that some mfg offset their carbon footprint by 100% to get these products to market. Being BPI certified these products end life is organic soil. Being that you are a community with organic curbside pickup you have the best advantage to recycle these alternative products effectively. And there will always be a market for organic soil. Minneapolis uses much if not more than what is available from the organic soil currently made from the compost sites in southern MN. They use the soil to line the streets with flowers and trees. You must have some sort of container or cup and lid to run any to-go food program. Using compostable products reduces waste in a huge number, the effectiveness of the alternative in your community is largely impacted by your ability to curbside organic recycle. In Minneapolis there have been exemptions on coffee lids and cups. The only reasoning for this was the current inability to have consumers in Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 29 Attachment 5 – Litin Paper-ECO Minneapolis putting them curbside. These lids and cups have been sold in premium arena’s across the country for years and used in coffee shops around the twin cities for over 5 years. We have moved almost a million coffee lids in just the last 12 months. These products work. They accomplish what their purpose and function are in a effective profit making ability for these businesses that use them on a daily basis. Simon Hefty Sales @ Litin Paper/ECO 3003 N Pacific St Minneapolis MN 55411 Desk: 612-607-5704 Cell: 651-329-8935 Fax: 612-607-5711 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 30 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 31 June 10, 2015 Kala Fisher The City of Saint Louis Park 7305 Oxford Street St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 Dear Kala, On behalf of the Minnesota Restaurant Association, thank you for this opportunity to share some insight regarding food packaging. Our members have taken the position that we want to be a helpful and constructive part of the decision making process. We do, however, have concerns about possible bans on single use plastic bags and polystyrene food containers. These concerns include increased costs, possible impacts on guest satisfaction and acceptance, and the importance of accurately and consistently portraying brand images through packaging. As you know, the City of Minneapolis enacted a major amendment to their Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance in May of last year that was effective on Earth Day, this year. The MRA was engaged in the discussion prior to the passage of the new ordinance and even more active in the development of the rules and exceptions following passage. The Minneapolis ordinance does not include plastic bags, and it specifically exempts cutlery, straws and stir sticks from the definition of packaging, while creating a process for city staff to develop rules and regulations for the implementation of the ordinance. The rules process has been used to provide temporary exemptions for products that are either currently impossible, or extremely cost prohibitive, to replace. The major exceptions, each of which has an expiration date, include:  Polystyrene lids for coffee cups, soup cups and cold drink cups  Molded PS clear “treat cups”  PE lined paper cups for both hot and cold beverages The MRA has a wide variety of members with locations in Saint Louis Park, ranging from coffee shops to quick service and fast casual to fine dining. Our general thoughts on the work being done by the city to assess options are as follows:  The MRA wants to work with the staff and the City Council. We want to be helpful while addressing the concerns of our members.  Mandates usually increase costs for operators and increase prices for guests. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 32 305 Roselawn Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55117-2031 (651) 778-2400  www.mnrestaurant.org  Franchised businesses buy standard packaging through their brands in large quantities and at good prices. Multi-unit local operators also have enhanced purchasing power. Forcing the use of non-standard packaging is a problem, as it is more expensive when bought in large quantities and even more expensive when purchased in smaller numbers.  Most franchise agreements require that non-standard packaging be approved in advance by the franchisor. This process can be quite time consuming.  We support recycling of styrene as a much better option than a prohibition on its use.  The most difficult polystyrene packaging items to replace are hot cup lids, cold cup lids, soufflé or portion cups and some specialty items such as the “treat cup” used by Dairy Queen which has recipe marks molded into the item.  Restaurants use plastic bags for a number of reasons, including the fact that spilled sauces or dressings don’t bleed through onto car seats or clothing in a plastic bag as they do in a paper one.  Guests like plastic bags for carry out orders because handles make them easy to carry and manage. Plastic bags also accommodate a variety of shapes and sizes of containers that may make up an order. Some local bag ordinances in other states have exemptions for restaurants. A few of the many cities with exemptions for restaurant plastic bags include Chicago, Santa Fe (NM) and Corvallis (OR). We may have additional input after hearing from more of our members and suppliers. We are looking forward to attending the public meeting on June 22. Please call me if you have questions or need more information. Sincerely, Dan McElroy Executive Vice President Minnesota Restaurant Association Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 33 June 5, 2015 Kala Fisher City of St. Louis Park 7305 Oxford Street St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Dear Ms. Fisher: Thank you for soliciting input from the Minnesota Retailers Association relating to the regulation of polystyrene and plastic bags in the City of St. Louis Park. General Thoughts On Plastic Bag Regulation Retailers spend a fair amount of time and resources on sales and marketing programs aimed at consumers. After all, if a retailer does not motivate consumer sales, they don’t have much of a store. Retailers have learned over the years that motivating consumers works best when you find an incentive—a sale, a special offer, a targeted message. Rarely do you see a retailer attempt to influence a consumer’s purchasing behavior through penalties or extra costs. We encourage the City of St. Louis Park to apply that same philosophy to consumer behavior and single-use plastic bags. As the City considers changing consumer behaviors in the area of plastic bag use, we believe the best approach would center on an incentive and education model. Ultimately changing community culture and leading in the reduction of plastic bags in the City of St. Louis Park requires giving consumers an incentive not to use a plastic bag. And we know first-hand that an incentive strategy works. Right now in St. Louis Park there are retailers incenting consumers to skip the plastic bag at the checkout counter. In fact, one retailer that utilizes a loyalty punch card gives consumers an extra punch if they elect not to use a plastic bag. This incentive works—the retailer has reported a dramatic decrease in use of plastic bags since beginning the program. Banning bags and fees for bags come with many issues and problems. Are all single-use bags banned, or are just consumers at select retailers subject to a ban or fee? How about items delivered online in plastic bags? In the end, an effort to ban or add fees to plastic bags results in enormous hours invested in determining exemptions and exceptions, as well as conversations with consumers that don’t understand why the retailer across the street (but in a different city) has a different policy. Bans and fees are difficult for consumers and a headache for retailers. Bans and fees have so many problems in fact that the City Council in Dallas this week repealed its 5 cent bag fee and also voted down a plastic bag ban proposal. The Texas Retailers Association reported that the fee-oriented ordinance was “poorly conceived and compliance was unnecessarily onerous, confusing and expensive for manufacturers, retailers and consumers alike and had met with considerable resistance from its effective date January 1, 2015.” Minnesota Retailers Association - mnretail.org - 800.227.6762 - 400 Robert Street North, Suite 1540, St. Paul, MN 55101 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 34 Let’s not spend our energy mitigating issues surrounding bans and fees. Let’s get everyone working on incentives and education that motivate behavior changes, and that might also pay benefits in other areas of sustainability. The Minnesota Retailers Association and its member would enjoy the opportunity to work with the City Council, staff and residents on a plastic bag reduction incentive program. We believe there is an opportunity to establish an incentive model—similar to how the City has lead in the past with great success on recycling--that St. Louis Park residents will be proud of and other cities across the state would look to as an effective and responsible model. General Thoughts On Polystyrene Regulation The Minneapolis “Green To Go” ordinance focused on expanded and ridged polystyrene is difficult to assess given it just took effect late April. In the area of beverage containers, Minneapolis has allowed for a one-year delay to give retailers an opportunity to search for cost-effective alternatives. Polystyrene is recyclable and we continue to hear that a market for polystyrene recycling is beginning to develop, but is not quite there yet. As mentioned above, not all existing polystyrene products have comparable, cost-effective alternatives and we ask that the City consider differences between rigid polystyrene and expanded polystyrene as it continues to examine a potential ordinance. Thank you for the opportunity to provide initial thoughts on plastic bag and polystyrene regulations. We look forward to upcoming opportunities to provide input. Sincerely, Bruce Nustad President bruce@mnretail.org Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 35 Polystyrene/Plastic Bag Business Stakeholder – Discussion Topics May 28, 2015 Answers are below in RED on behalf of the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brad Meier, President St. Louis Park City Council has asked staff to research a range of policy options to reduce or ban the use of plastic bags and polystyrene to-go containers in St. Louis Park in order to minimize their impact on the environment. 1. a) Council is considering a range of policy options for plastic bags, including but not limited to: charging a fee for plastic bags, banning plastic bags, or banning plastic bags and requiring a fee for paper bags. What are your initial comments, concerns, questions regarding these reduction or elimination strategies? The TwinWest Chamber has questions and concerns about approaching a plastics reduction through a ban. Plastics are used in a wide variety of businesses and i n everyday shopping of the St. Louis Park residents and visitors. Businesses like hospitals, dry cleaners, flower shops, coffee shops, grocery stores and many more will be impacted. How will you determine which plastic bags are OK and which are not? St. Louis Park has a history of working with it residents and businesses to figure out solutions to community challenges. If plastic bags are considered an issue, then we encourage an incentive based approach to reaching the city goals. Punitive solutions create more bureaucracy for enforcement and a more hostile relationship between local government and business. b) Council is considering a policy similar to Minneapolis’ Green To-Go Packaging Ordinance (Ban). What are your initial comments, concerns, questions regarding this reduction or elimination strategy? The Minneapolis Green To-Go Packaging Ordinance went into effect on April 22, 2015. They have had just over 1 month of implementation and have exemptions to later dates Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 36 for some products. It is very difficult to gain many conclusions yet from this limited timeframe. 2. a) How do you anticipate your members would be impacted by any of the policy options for plastic bags? Here’s one TwinWest Chamber member’s perspective on a proposed plastics ban. We know there are many other stories like this: ‘Yes, the ban on plastic bags in particular would definitely have some pretty major implications for our business as all of our flowers leave the shop in plastic. There’s no other comparable material that can provide the water barrier protection needed – not to mention the insulation and protection that plastic provides for our flowers. For us, it’s not simply a matter of switching from plastic bags to slightly more expensive pape r bags. Paper isn’t an option because it falls apart when wet and becomes completely useless. Without plastic, our cardboard and paper packaging will degrade when a little water splashes out of the vase. Then we’re not only delivering some very soggy and unprofessional looking packages, but there will be a number of instances where the packaging becomes so weak that the vases will fall right through creating the potential for angry customers, expensive replacements and injuries due to broken glass. I can’t imagine how we can possibly get along without plastic. It would put us at a serious competitive disadvantage as all of our non-St. Louis Park competitors will be able to continue using their plastic packaging. We are big on recycling at Linsk - and would be happy to include recycling reminders or instructions regarding our packaging. Cheryl Vavricka, Linsk Flowers’ b) Have your members been impacted by Minneapolis’ Ban, and if so, what can you share about their experiences which would help Council in their decision making process in respect to polystyrene to-go containers? I do not have any specific examples from Minneapolis’ Ban. 4. Can you give any initial indication of your organization’s stance on reduction or elimination strategies for both products? The TwinWest Chamber member businesses are always responding to their customer’s interests and needs. They are also very conscience of the community they work and do business in. Many of them have environmentally friendly policies and are looking for ways to be more environmentally friendly. We believe an approach to reducing plastic and polystyrene that is incentive based, includes the stakeholders in the process and takes business and consumer interests into consideration works best. We are not supportive of an outright ban that creates a punitive situation for businesses. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 37 5. What additional considerations should Council be aware of, from your organization’s perspective? The TwinWest Chamber looks forward to being a continued partner in this discussion. We appreciate the opportunities to bring the concerns and impacts of this discussion to the table on behalf of businesses in St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 38 Phone: 651-291-2722 • Cell: 612-554-7273 • Fax: 888-542-2932 Email: tim@mnbev.com • Website: www.mnbev.com Twitter: @mnbev Facebook: mnbev P.O. Box 21293 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55121 December 18, 2014 Daniel Huff Director of Environmental Health City of Minneapolis Health Department 250 4th Street South, Room 414 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear Mr. Huff, Thank you for hosting the November 10th meeting to discuss the implementation of the Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss our concerns. Per our conversation at that meeting, this letter is to formalize our request for an exemption for lids for cold beverage cups. Specifically, we would like to request that cups made from PS (rigid polystyrene) be exempt based on the significant price differential with alternative materials (PS lids are already exempt for hot beverages). PS lids are the standard in the industry for cold beverages. At the November 10th meeting, Dart Container distributed a spreadsheet (I have attached a copy for your reference) showing the relative prices of various materials, including PS cold cup lids. Our members have validated the pricing provided by that spreadsheet. Specifically, prices for compostable alternatives were anywhere from 214% to 400% of the cost of the PS lids. Based on this significant cost differential, we request that PS lids for cold beverage cups receive the same exemption that PS lids for hot beverage cups have received. Please feel free to call if you have questions. Sincerely, Tim Wilkin President Attachment Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 39 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel DiscussionPage 40 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel DiscussionPage 41 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel DiscussionPage 42 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel DiscussionPage 43 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 44 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 45 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 46 SOURCES 1 –http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc13 2 – The EPA National Human Andipose tissue survey for 1996 3 - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/california-bans-plastic-bags 4 – http://www.startribune.com/plastic-floating-in-lake-superior/182413051/ 5 - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090820-plastic-decomposes-oceans-seas.html Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 47 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 48 Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 49 ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 This Public Health Statement is the summary chapter from the Toxicological Profile for Styrene. It is one in a series of Public Health Statements about hazardous substances and their health effects. A shorter version, the ToxFAQs™, is also available. This information is important because this substance may harm you. The effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present. For more information, call the ATSDR Information Center at 1-800-232-4636. This public health statement tells you about styrene and the effects of exposure to it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the most serious hazardous waste sites in the nation. These sites are then placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and are targeted for long-term federal clean-up activities. Styrene has been found in at least 251 of the 1,699 current or former NPL sites. Although the total number of NPL sites evaluated for this substance is not known, the possibility exists that the number of sites at which styrene is found may increase in the future as more sites are evaluated. This information is important because these sites may be sources of exposure and exposure to this substance may harm you. When a substance is released either from a large area, such as an industrial plant, or from a container, such as a drum or bottle, it enters the environment. Such a release does not always lead to exposure. You can be exposed to a substance only when you come in contact with it. You may be exposed by breathing, eating, or drinking the substance, or by skin contact. If you are exposed to styrene, many factors will determine whether you will be harmed. These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), and how you come in contact with it. You must also consider any other chemicals you are exposed to and your age, sex, diet, family traits, lifestyle, and state of health. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 50 ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 1.1 WHAT IS STYRENE? Description Styrene is a colorless liquid that evaporates easily. In its pure form, styrene has a sweet smell. Manufactured styrene may contain aldehydes, which give it a sharp, unpleasant odor. Uses • manufacturing • consumer products Large amounts of styrene are produced in the United States. Small amounts are produced naturally by plants, bacteria, and fungi. Styrene is also present in combustion products such as cigarette smoke and automobile exhaust. Styrene is widely used to make plastics and rubber. Consumer products containing styrene include:  packaging materials  insulation for electrical uses (i.e., wiring and appliances)  insulation for homes and other buildings  fiberglass, plastic pipes, automobile parts  drinking cups and other "food-use" items  carpet backing These products mainly contain styrene linked together in long chains (polystyrene). However, most of these products also contain a small amount of unlinked styrene. 1.2 WHAT HAPPENS TO STYRENE WHEN IT ENTERS THE ENVIRONMENT? Sources Styrene can be found in air, soil, and water after release from the manufacture, use, and disposal of styrene-based products. Break down • Air • Water and soil Styrene is quickly broken down in the air, usually within 1–2 days. Styrene evaporates from shallow soils and surface water. Styrene that remains in soil or water may be broken down by bacteria or other microorganisms. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 51 ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 1.3 HOW MIGHT I BE EXPOSED TO STYRENE? Air The primary way you can be exposed to styrene is by breathing air containing it. Releases of styrene into the air occur from:  industries using or manufacturing styrene  automobile exhaust  cigarette smoke, and  use of photocopiers Rural or suburban air generally contains lower concentrations of styrene than urban air. Indoor air often contains higher levels of styrene than outdoor air.  0.06–4.6 parts per billion (ppb) in outdoor air  0.07–11.5 ppb in indoor air Water and soil Styrene is occasionally detected in groundwater, drinking water, or soil samples. Drinking water containing styrene or bathing in water containing styrene may expose you to low levels of this chemical. Workplace air A large number of workers are potentially exposed to styrene. The highest potential exposure occurs in the reinforced-plastics industry, where workers may be exposed to high air concentrations and also have dermal exposure to liquid styrene or resins. Workers involved in styrene polymerization, rubber manufacturing, and styrene-polyester resin facilities and workers at photocopy centers may also be exposed to styrene. Food Low levels of styrene occur naturally in a variety of foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, beverages, and meats. Small amounts of styrene can be transferred to food from styrene-based packaging material. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 52 ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 1.4 HOW CAN STYRENE ENTER AND LEAVE MY BODY? Enter your body • Inhalation • Ingestion • Dermal contact When you breathe air containing styrene, most of the styrene will rapidly enter your body through your lungs. Styrene in food or water may also rapidly enter your body through the digestive tract. A very small amount may enter through your skin when you come into contact with liquids containing styrene. Leave your body Once in your body, styrene is broken down into other chemicals. Most of these other chemicals leave your body in the urine within few days. 1.5 HOW CAN STYRENE AFFECT MY HEALTH? This section looks at studies concerning potential health effects in animal and human studies. Workers • Inhalation The most common health problems in workers exposed to styrene involve the nervous system. These health effects include changes in color vision, tiredness, feeling drunk, slowed reaction time, concentration problems, and balance problems. The styrene concentrations that cause these effects are more than 1,000 times higher than the levels normally found in the environment. Laboratory animals • Inhalation Hearing loss has been observed in animals exposed to very high concentrations of styrene. Animal studies have shown that inhalation of styrene can result in changes in the lining of the nose and damage to the liver. However, animals may be more sensitive than humans to the nose and liver effects. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 53 ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 Laboratory animals Impaired learning has been observed in rats exposed to high doses of styrene. • Oral Sperm damage has also been observed in rats exposed to high doses of styrene. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), National Toxicology Program (NTP) listed styrene as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" in the Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition, released on June 10, 2011. Cancer The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that styrene is a possible carcinogen. 1.6 HOW CAN STYRENE AFFECT CHILDREN? This section discusses potential health effects in humans from exposures during the period from conception to maturity at 18 years of age. Effects in children There are no studies evaluating the effects of styrene exposure on children or immature animals. It is likely that children would have the same health effects as adults. We do not know whether children would be more sensitive than adults to the effects of styrene. Birth defects Studies in workers have examined whether styrene can cause birth defects or low birth weight; however, the results are inconclusive. No birth defects were observed in animal studies. Breast milk Nursing infants can be exposed to styrene from breast milk. 1.7 HOW CAN FAMILIES REDUCE THE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO STYRENE? Tobacco smoke Styrene is a component of tobacco smoke. Avoid smoking in enclosed spaces like inside the home or car in order to limit exposure to children and other family members. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 54 ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 Styrene is released during the use of home copiers. Families should use a copier only when needed and turn it off when finished. It is also important to keep the room with the copier well ventilated. Copier 1.8 IS THERE A MEDICAL TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO STYRENE? Detecting exposure Styrene can be measured in blood, urine, and body tissues for a short time following exposure to moderate-to-high levels. Measuring exposure The presence of styrene breakdown products (metabolites) in urine might indicate that you were exposed to styrene; however, these metabolites can also form when you are exposed to other substances. Measuring styrene metabolites in urine within 1 day of exposure allows medical personnel to estimate actual exposure level. The detection of these metabolites in your urine cannot be used to predict the kind of health effects that might develop from that exposure. 1.9 WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MADE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH? The federal government develops regulations and recommendations to protect public health. Regulations can be enforced by law. The EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are some federal agencies that develop regulations for toxic substances. Recommendations provide valuable guidelines to protect public health, but cannot be enforced by law. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) are two federal organizations that develop recommendations for toxic substances. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 55 ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 Regulations and recommendations can be expressed as “not-to-exceed” levels. These are levels of a toxic substance in air, water, soil, or food that do not exceed a critical value. This critical value is usually based on levels that affect animals; they are then adjusted to levels that will help protect humans. Sometimes these not-to-exceed levels differ among federal organizations because they used different exposure times (an 8-hour workday or a 24-hour day), different animal studies, or other factors. Recommendations and regulations are also updated periodically as more information becomes available. For the most current information, check with the federal agency or organization that provides it. Some regulations and recommendations for styrene include the following: Drinking water The EPA has determined that exposure to styrene in drinking water at concentrations of 20 mg/L for 1 day or 2 mg/L for 10 days is not expected to cause any adverse effects in a child. The EPA has determined that lifetime exposure to 0.1 mg/L styrene in drinking water is not expected to cause any adverse effects. Bottled water The FDA has determined that the styrene concentration in bottled drinking water should not exceed 0.1 mg/L. Workplace air OSHA set a legal limit of 100 ppm styrene in air averaged over an 8-hour work day. 1.10 WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have any more questions or concerns, please contact your community or state health or environmental quality department, or contact ATSDR at the address and phone number below. DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 56 ______________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT Styrene Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) June 2012 ATSDR can also tell you the location of occupational and environmental health clinics. These clinics specialize in recognizing, evaluating, and treating illnesses that result from exposure to hazardous substances. Toxicological profiles are also available on-line at www.atsdr.cdc.gov and on CD-ROM. You may request a copy of the ATSDR ToxProfilesTM CD-ROM by calling the toll-free information and technical assistance number at 1-800-CDCINFO (1-800-232-4636), by e-mail at cdcinfo@cdc.gov, or by writing to: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (proposed) 1600 Clifton Road NE Mailstop F-62 Atlanta, GA 30333 Fax: 1-770-488-4178 Organizations for-profit may request copies of final Toxicological Profiles from the following: National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Phone: 1-800-553-6847 or 1-703-605-6000 Web site: http://www.ntis.gov/ DEPARTMENT of HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ Telephone: 1-800-232-4636 Fax: 770-488-4178 E-Mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Polystyrene Update & Experts/Stakeholder Panel Discussion Page 57 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Written Report: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: June 2015 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. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Actual expenditures should generally run at about 50% of the annual budget in June. General Fund expenditures are under budget through June by 4% at approximately 46% of the adopted budget. Revenues are 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 (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway User Tax, PERA Aid, etc.). A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below. Revenues: License and permit revenues are running well ahead of budget at 74%. As in previous years, this is due in part to that 94% or $756,000 of the 2015 business and liquor license payments have been collected. Permit revenues are at 67.5% of the annual budget. Expenditures: Accounting has a minor expenditure variance of about 1% due to the contractual payment for audit services. Human Resources is running a variance of about 4% due to Health in the Park expenditures, however, because this program is offset by revenue, there is no net effect to the overall budget. Community Outreach has a minor expenditure variance of about 1.75% due to payment of the community mediation services contract. Organized Recreation shows a temporary variance of approximately 5% because the full Community Education contribution of $187,400 was paid to the school district in June. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of June 30, 2015 20152015201320132014201420152015 Balance YTD Budget BudgetAudited BudgetAudited Budget June YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 21,176,542$ 22,364,509$ -$ 22,364,509$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,413,682 3,248,158 2,405,508 842,650 74.06% Fines & Forfeits335,150 311,882 320,150 369,545 320,200 127,711 192,489 39.88% Intergovernmental1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,423,642 1,292,277 357,333 934,944 27.65% Charges for Services1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,852,274 1,907,292 845,885 1,061,407 44.35% Miscellaneous Revenue1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,302,160 1,196,018 572,776 623,242 47.89% Transfers In1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,827,564 1,851,759 918,380 933,379 49.60% Investment Earnings150,000 14,180 150,000 119,831 140,000 - 140,000 0.00% Other Income36,650 10,756 17,950 13,306 17,900 5,759 12,141 32.17% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 286,325 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 31,498,546$ 32,624,438$ 5,233,352$ 27,391,086$ 16.04%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 980,087$ 979,183$ 471,510$ 507,673$ 48.15% Accounting827,320 819,458 876,216 873,987 912,685 462,991 449,694 50.73% Assessing543,855 543,202 559,749 560,979 602,299 294,923 307,376 48.97% Human Resources678,988 731,634 693,598 788,823 805,929 433,420 372,509 53.78% Community Development1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 1,118,444 1,245,613 601,061 644,552 48.25% Facilities Maintenance1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 1,039,699 1,094,836 475,672 619,164 43.45% Information Resources1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,406,187 1,468,552 663,320 805,232 45.17% Communications & Marketing201,322 170,013 566,801 562,063 635,150 245,260 389,890 38.61% Community Outreach8,185 (22,450) 8,185 6,680 24,677 12,778 11,899 51.78% Engineering303,258 296,383 506,996 223,491 492,838 158,476 334,362 32.16%Total General Government7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,813,097$ 7,560,440$ 8,261,762$ 3,819,409$ 4,442,353$ 46.23% Public Safety: Police7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 7,769,592$ 8,511,557$ 4,040,506$ 4,471,051$ 47.47% Fire Protection3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 3,535,716 3,722,396 1,804,199 1,918,197 48.47% Inspectional Services1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,867,618 2,139,325 952,245 1,187,080 44.51%Total Public Safety12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 13,172,927$ 14,373,278$ 6,796,950$ 7,576,328$ 47.29% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 236,304$ 232,437$ 94,591$ 137,846$ 40.70% Public Works Operations2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 2,571,496 2,763,735 1,180,400 1,583,335 42.71% Organized Recreation1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,277,046 1,304,470 720,935 583,535 55.27% Recreation Center1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,561,224 1,591,115 669,194 921,921 42.06% Park Maintenance1,431,825 1,424,139 1,445,813 1,412,612 1,550,033 741,684 808,349 47.85% Westwood520,554 503,309 531,853 508,576 564,055 264,524 299,531 46.90% Environment430,876 434,297 433,750 379,193 472,049 134,611 337,438 28.52% Vehicle Maintenance1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,323,358 1,333,520 569,425 764,095 42.70%Total Operations & Recreation9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,378,989$ 9,269,808$ 9,811,414$ 4,375,364$ 5,436,050$ 44.59% Non-Departmental: General -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 7,562$ -$ 39,548$ (39,548)$ 0.00% Transfers Out- 60,000 - 1,050,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 53,345 195,860 13,834 177,984 - 177,984 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 369,972$ 199,860$ 1,071,396$ 177,984$ 39,548$ 138,436$ 22.22%Total General Fund Expenditures29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 31,074,572$ 32,624,438$ 15,031,271$ 17,593,167$ 46.07%Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: June 2015 Monthly Financial ReportPage 2 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Written Report: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2015) 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, 2015 is approximately $60.8 million. Approximately 45% of the portfolio is in longer term investments that include agency bonds, municipal debt securities, and certificates of deposit. The remainder is held in money market accounts for future cash flow needs, project costs, and investing opportunities. The overall yield is at .74%, which is up from .62% at the end of 2014, but down slightly from the .85% at the end of the first quarter due to higher cash balances in lower yielding money market accounts. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Investment Portfolio Summary Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2015) 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 by $9.1 million in the second quarter of 2015 from $51.7 million at 3/31/2015 to $60.8 million at 6/30/2015. The increase was primarily in the money market funds due to the receipt of the 70% advance property tax settlement on June 19th. Since the balances in lower yielding money market accounts increased during the quarter, the overall yield of the portfolio dropped slightly to .74% from .85% at 3/31/2015, but is still up from .62% at the end of 2014. Cities generally use a benchmark such as the two year Treasury (.64% at 6/30/2015) or some similar measure for yield comparison of their overall portfolio. Approximately 55% or $33.6 million of the portfolio is currently held in money markets. The rates on the four money market funds range from .02% to .4%. While some of the cash in the money market accounts may be used to purchase longer term investments in the coming months, it is necessary to keep a large amount of cash available between property tax settlements for capital project payments, payroll and on-going operating expenses, as well as the August 1 debt service and Pay As You Go TIF note payments. After receiving the remainder of the first half settlement on July 6, 2015, the next property tax settlement won’t be received until December 1, 2015. Another 10.5% or $6.5 million of the portfolio is invested in fixed and step rate certificates of deposit. There are currently 27 CD’s in the portfolio, each with a face value of $240,000 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 2.2%. The remaining $20.7 million of the portfolio is invested in other long term securities, including municipal debt and agency bonds. Municipal debt instruments are bonds issued by States, local governments, or school districts to finance special projects. 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 five-year maturity date. There were no investments called during the quarter and two municipal debt securities matured. Two new agency bonds were purchased as replacements with yields to maturity of just over 2%. Here is a summary of the City’s portfolio at June 30, 2015: 3/31/15 6/30/15 <1 Year 58% 61% 1-2 Years 2% 5% 2-3 Years 19% 14% 3-4 Years 4% 2% >4 Years 17% 18% 3/31/15 6/30/15 Money Markets $24,327,746 $33,590,434 Commercial Paper $0 $0 Certificates of Deposit $6,477,248 $6,461,847 Municipal Debt $9,079,199 $6,912,027 Agency Bonds $11,860,493 $13,848,912 City of St. Louis Park Investment Portfolio Summary June 30, 2015 Institution/Broker Investment Type CUSIP Maturity Date Yield to Maturity Par Value Market Value at 6/30/2015 Estimated Avg Annual Income Citizens Indep Bank Money Market 0.09%3,048,589 3,048,589 2,744 4M Fund Money Market 0.02%4,762,409 4,762,409 952 4M Fund Money Market (Bonds Only)0.02%471,069 471,069 94 Northeast Bank Money Market 0.40%5,023,331 5,023,331 20,093 UBS CD - Apple Bank NY 0378304L7 09/14/2015 0.35% 240,000 240,058 840 UBS Muni Debt - Calif State 13063BNR9 10/01/2015 2.00% 1,000,000 1,005,400 20,000 UBS CD - BMW Bank UT 05568PZ59 10/26/2015 1.05% 240,000 240,638 2,520 UBS CD - Barclays Bank DE 06740KFS1 01/11/2016 1.60% 240,000 241,838 3,840 UBS CD - Medallion Bank UT 58403BM52 05/09/2016 0.50% 240,000 240,278 1,200 UBS CD - Discover Bank DE 254671AG5 05/02/2017 1.75% 240,000 243,161 4,200 UBS CD - GE Cap Retail Bank UT 36160NJZ3 05/04/2017 1.75% 240,000 243,598 4,200 UBS Muni Debt - N. Orange Cty CA 661334DR0 08/01/2017 1.01% 1,000,000 1,006,650 10,110 UBS CD - Sallie Mae Bnk UT 79545OPE9 08/29/2017 1.70% 240,000 243,665 4,080 UBS CD - Sun Natl Bank NJ 86682ABV2 10/03/2017 1.00% 240,000 243,449 2,400 UBS CD - Everbank Jacksonvl FL 29976DPB0 10/31/2017 1.00% 240,000 242,748 2,400 UBS CD - Comenity Bank DE 981996AX9 12/05/2017 1.25% 200,000 198,058 2,500 UBS CD - Banco Popular PR 05967ESG5 12/05/2017 1.10% 240,000 241,142 2,640 UBS FNMA 3136G1AJ8 01/30/2018 1.06% 1,000,000 997,530 10,630 UBS CD - Ally Bank UT 02006LNL3 02/05/2018 1.25% 240,000 240,965 3,000 UBS CD - Third Fed S&L Assn OH 88413QAT5 02/22/2018 1.35% 240,000 239,938 3,240 UBS FHLB 313381JW6 06/27/2018 0.92% 1,000,000 1,111,956 9,200 UBS Muni Debt - NYC Trans Fin Auth 64971QH55 11/01/2018 1.33% 1,000,000 999,760 13,280 UBS CD - Cit Bank UT 17284CH49 06/04/2019 1.90% 240,000 241,159 4,560 UBS CD - Amer Exp F UT 02587CAC4 07/10/2019 1.95% 240,000 240,742 4,680 UBS CD - First Bk Highland IL 3191408W2 08/13/2019 2.00% 240,000 240,442 4,800 UBS CD - Webster Bk NA CT 94768NJX3 08/20/2019 1.90% 240,000 240,389 4,560 UBS CD - Bk Hapoalim BM NY Step 06251AD31 08/22/2019 2.10% 240,000 240,029 5,040 UBS CD - Capital One Bank 140420PS3 10/08/2019 2.10% 240,000 240,914 5,040 UBS CD - State Bk India IL 856283XJ0 10/15/2019 2.10% 240,000 240,950 5,040 UBS FHLB Step Up 3130A3T61 12/30/2019 2.19% 3,000,000 3,004,710 65,700 UBS CD - Goldman Sachs Bank NY 38148JHB0 01/14/2020 2.20% 240,000 241,135 5,280 UBS CD - Amer Express UT 02587DXE3 01/30/2020 1.95% 240,000 238,594 4,680 UBS FHLB Bond Step Up 3130A3X66 01/30/2020 2.09% 1,000,000 999,200 20,880 UBS CD - Private Bank & Tr IL 74267GVA2 02/27/2020 1.750% 240,000 239,551 4,200 UBS CD - Camden Nat'l Bank ME 133033DR8 02/26/2020 1.800% 240,000 239,030 4,320 UBS FHLB Bond Step Up 3130A3ZC1 02/26/2020 2.163% 755,000 753,686 16,331 UBS CD - JP Morgan Chase OH Step 48125T2N4 03/04/2020 2.217% 240,000 240,000 5,321 UBS FHLB Bond Step Up 3130A4GQ9 03/18/2020 2.115% 1,000,000 1,001,170 21,150 UBS CD - HSBC Bank DE Step Rate 40434ASZ3 03/30/2020 2.221% 240,000 237,751 5,330 UBS FHLMC Step 3134G6TD5 04/29/2020 2.088% 1,000,000 994,640 20,880 UBS FHLB 3130A58J7 05/28/2020 2.020% 1,000,000 999,380 20,200 UBS Money Market - 2014 Bonds 0.06% 10,092,915 10,092,915 6,056 UBS Money Market 0.06% 10,192,121 10,192,121 6,115 39,379,340 Sterne, Agee Muni Deb - Smithfield, RI 832322NQ0 01/15/2016 2.40% 275,000 277,720 6,600 Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAS4 02/01/2016 0.85% 1,050,000 1,057,508 8,925 Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - Elmore Cnty AL 28976PAT2 02/01/2017 1.15% 1,000,000 1,012,260 11,500 Sterne, Agee Muni Debt - New York, NY 64966HJS0 04/01/2017 1.20% 500,000 539,650 6,000 2,887,137 Wells Fargo CD - GE Capital UT 36160XC62 01/06/2016 1.70% 240,000 241,625 4,080 Wells Fargo Muni Debt - Fond Du Lac WI Schl 344496JQ8 04/01/2017 1.05% 1,000,000 1,013,080 10,500 Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0NH2 08/23/2017 0.95% 1,000,000 999,910 9,500 Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G04A6 11/21/2017 1.00% 1,000,000 997,100 10,000 Wells Fargo FNMA 3135G0TM5 01/30/2018 1.02% 1,000,000 996,000 10,200 Wells Fargo Fannie Mae 3136G1AZ2 01/30/2018 1.00% 1,000,000 993,630 10,000 5,241,345 GRAND TOTAL 60,813,220 451,632 Current Portfolio Yield To Maturity 0.74% Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Second Quarter Investment Report (April – June 2015)Page 3 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Cityscape Apartments – Special (Conditional) Use Permit Major Amendment & Variances at 5707 Hwy 7 RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The report provides background information regarding the request before City Council is asked to take formal action upon the applications. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council support these applications to resolve the nonconformities on this private property resulting from condemnation of land for public purposes? SUMMARY: Cityscape Apartments, located at 5707 Highway 7, contains 156 residential rental units comprising 75 one-bedroom units and 81 two-bedroom units. In June 2014, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) condemned in fee simple, 1,066 square feet from the parcel on which the Cityscape Apartments is located. A copy of the survey highlighting the land taken by MN DOT is included later in the report. The entire property before the taking was approximately 189,922 square feet (4.36 acres). Through advice from the property owner’s legal counsel and conversations with City staff, the property owner has decided to request a Special (Conditional) Use Permit Major Amendment and Variances in order to ensure and document that the taking does not harm the legal status of the property from the resulting lot size reduction. The variances include an increase in density from 30 units per acre to 36 units per acre and an increase in the floor area ratio from 0.7 to 1.0. Please note that these dimensional requirements are the current zoning code requirements. The degree of changes to the density, floor area ratio and ground floor area ratio from the original approval and existing conditions are much less significant. Also, there are no physical changes proposed to the private building and site improvements, only a reduction in the lot size caused by the taking. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 15, 2015. No one spoke at the public hearing. Staff and Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy Comm. Dev. Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Cityscape Apartments – Special (Conditional) Use Permit Major Amendment & Variances at 5707 Hwy 7 DISCUSSION Location: Comprehensive Plan: RM - Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-4 Multiple-Family Residence Neighborhood: Elmwood Background: This Special (Conditional) Use Permit was approved in 1988 by Resolution 88-139. The development replaced grain elevators that were located on the site. In 1989, the City rescinded Resolution 88-139 and adopted Resolution 89-109 approving the same development with minor amendments to the architectural, landscaping, and utility exhibits. The property remains in compliance with the conditions of approval. MN DOT condemned a 1,066 square feet from the property for its work on Highway 100 reconstruction, which includes the replacing the railroad and trail bridges adjacent to the applicant’s property. These bridges are also within the corridor of the proposed Light Rail Transit (LRT) Green Line extension. The following comparison table shows the affected property characteristics related to zoning and the results from the taking. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Cityscape Apartments – Special (Conditional) Use Permit Major Amendment & Variances at 5707 Hwy 7 Comparison Table. Factor Original Approval Current Zoning/Guidance Existing Condition Resulting Condition Lot Area 189,922 sq. ft. (4.36 ac.) N/A 189,922 sq. ft. (4.36 ac.) 188,856 sq. ft. (4.33 ac.) Density 35.8 units per acre 30 units per acre 35.8 units per acre 36 units per acre Floor Area Ratio* 1.00 0.7 1.00 1.01 Ground Floor Area Ratio* 0.2512 0.25 0.2512 0.2526 *The City rounds FAR to the nearest tenth and GFAR to the nearest hundredth. Recent Survey. The permanent taking is highlighted in yellow and outlined in red. Conclusion: The site has operated well for 25 years. As shown in the survey above, the taking has little or no impact to the property conditions. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested Special (Conditional) Use Permit Major Amendment and Variances. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Shared Services Agreement with City of Golden Valley for Central Park West RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. City Council will be asked to consider a revised version of the agreement at a future regular meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does City Council support entering into a shared service agreement with the City of Golden Valley for permitting, plan review, licensing and inspections for certain buildings in the Central Park West development? Are there any concerns with the terms of this agreement? SUMMARY: The Central Park West development received zoning approvals from the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley in April 2015. The site is located southwest of the intersection of I-394 and Highway 100 and straddles the municipal border. The development includes five new buildings. It includes two 6-story multiple-family residential buildings, a 6-story limited service hotel, two 11-story office buildings, a 2,534-stall parking ramp, and a central gathering space. At full build-out, the multi-phase development proposes 363 residential units with eleven affordable units, up to 150 hotel rooms, and 706,706 sf of class A office space. The project also includes reconstruction of Utica Avenue along the west boundary of the development. Two of the structures, the 199-unit apartment building (“Residential Building”) and the future office parking ramp (“Parking Ramp”) will partially lie in both cities. This results in administrative complications for providing municipal services. The Golden Valley and St. Louis Park city staff have been working to identify, prepare for, and resolve these issues. City staffs from both cities have outlined an agreement for the City Councils’ consideration. The scope of this agreement covers permitting, plan review, inspections, and licensing. This agreement is designed to be ongoing, unless and until one of the cities chooses to terminate the agreement. Representatives of the Inspections, Community Development and Fire Departments participated in these discussions. Police and Fire Department representatives from both cities are meeting to discuss coordination of public safety and emergency services for the property. This Shared Services Agreement does not include emergency services in the scope, except to note that none of the provisions of the agreement conflict or alter existing mutual aid agreements. Staff will report the outcomes of those decisions at a future Council meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. The agreement does include allocating revenue from permit fees that are received for construction. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Site Plan Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy Comm. Dev. Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Shared Services Agreement with City of Golden Valley for Central Park West DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Coordination between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park has been ongoing throughout the planning of the West End/Central Park West redevelopment area. The cities have previously discussed a broader approach to a joint powers agreement. This agreement represents a narrower scope and practical approach to assigning responsibilities for permitting, plan review, inspections and licensing for the development. The agreement is designed to be ongoing, unless and until either City chooses to terminate the agreement. There are two structures on the property that cross the cities’ borders. The first phase of the development is a 199-unit Residential Building. The Residential Building at is 57.6% in St. Louis Park and 42.4% in Golden Valley. The municipal boundary passes through the building along a demising wall, so that none of the apartment units will be divided by the borderline. A Parking Ramp that will serve the future office towers in the development will also cross the border. The plans for the ramp have not been finalized, but the approved plan shows that the majority of the Parking Ramp will be in Golden Valley, with only 5% to 10% of the Parking Ramp being located in St. Louis Park. 1. Permits. Under the proposed agreement, St. Louis Park would issue the construction- related permits, performs plan review and inspections, and receives permit fees for the Residential Building. Golden Valley would assume those responsibilities for the Parking Ramp. 2. Record Keeping. Both cities will keep records on the construction permits, plan review, inspections and licensing in the building. 3. Building Fees. Permit fees will be collected based upon the fee schedule of the City issuing the permits. 4. Building Fee Sharing. The City that issues the permits would receive the permit revenue that is collected, except a portion of the Building Fees for these two buildings would be shared to help defray the administrative costs for the other city. a. Residential Building. Golden Valley’s Share of the Residential Building Fees would be the product of the following formula: The amount of Residential Building Fees received by St. Louis Park, multiplied by 42.4%, multiplied by 25%. In other words, Golden Valley will receive 25% of the permit revenue for only that percentage of the Residential Building within Golden Valley. b. Parking Ramp. St. Louis Park’s Share of the of the Residential Building Fees would be the product of the following formula: The amount of Parking Ramp Fees received by Golden Valley, multiplied by the Percentage of the Parking Ramp in St. Louis Park, multiplied by 25%. St. Louis Park will receive 25% of the permit revenue for only that percentage of the floor area of the Parking Ramp building within Golden Valley. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Shared Services Agreement with City of Golden Valley for Central Park West 5. The City responsible for issuing permits for these two buildings will notify the other City when it receives a permit application and provide the documentation it receives regarding the valuation of the work. The other City will review the valuation information, and if it disagrees with the valuation, then both cities will cooperate with the property owner to arrive upon an acceptable valuation of the work. 6. The City that issues permits will report and share its records relating to permit activity to the other City (i.e. provide copies of approved plans, inspections reports, etc.). 7. Each City will have the right to participate in the final walk through for the certificate of occupancy. 8. Each city will enforce its own rental licensing and inspections program on its portion (units) of the building. This includes the crime-free housing provisions. 9. The City issuing permits will enforce its other licensing and maintenance provisions on the structure (i.e. St. Louis Park will license the structured parking in the Residential Building, not the Parking Ramp). 10. The agreement will be ongoing, with six months’ notice for either party to terminate. It also requires three months’ notice to property owner(s) if the agreement is to be amended or terminated. NEXT STEPS: Staff hopes to present an agreement in final form for City Council consideration in August relating to the permits, plan review, inspections, and licensing. Staff will report the outcomes of the discussion related to emergency services (including police, fire, and medical) at a future Council meeting. Site PlanCentral Park WestParking RampResidentialBuildingStudy Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 7) Title: Shared Services Agreement with City of Golden Valley for Central Park WestPage 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report presents the proposed business terms that will serve as the basis for a Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC (Bader Development) related to its proposed Shoreham project. The terms are consistent with the discussion held at the June 1st Special Study Session. Staff would like to receive feedback on these terms as soon as possible. If generally acceptable, staff will have the EDA’s attorney incorporate these terms into a formal Redevelopment Contract with the Redeveloper which will be presented for formal consideration at the August 17th EDA meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the proposed business terms for providing financial assistance to The Shoreham project consistent with the direction provided at the June 1st Study Session and does the EDA/City Council continue to support the project as it has been refined? SUMMARY: Bader Development is proposing to construct a multi-story, mixed-use building at the SW quadrant of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Ave. During its due diligence, Bader discovered that there are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the proposed site such as contaminated fill material, underground storage tanks and structurally unstable soils which make the project financially infeasible. Consequently Bader applied to the EDA for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the proposed project to proceed. The Redeveloper’s application was reviewed at the June 1st Special Study Session where it received favorable support. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to construct the proposed Shoreham project is projected at $45.1 million. It is estimated to have a total taxable market value of $32.6 million upon completion. The proposed mixed-use project is not financially feasible due to more than $7.8 million of extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the site. In order for the project to proceed, it is proposed that the EDA consider reimbursing the Redeveloper for qualified costs up to $1,700,000 in pay-as-you-go tax increment generated by the project. A TIF Note in this amount would likely be retired within approximately 5 years. Once the TIF Note is retired the additional property taxes generated by the project would accrue to the local taxing jurisdictions. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy EDA Executive Director and Deputy City Manager Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Bader Development (Shoreham Apartments, LLC and “Redeveloper”) has option agreements to acquire five properties at the SW quadrant of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Ave. These include two commercial properties located at 3907 & 3915 Highway 7, two single-family homes located at 3031 Glenhurst Ave. and 3914 31st St. and a townhome duplex located at 3918 31st St. The land assemblage creates a 2.23-acre redevelopment site. The Redeveloper proposes to raze the current commercial buildings and residences, remove the contaminated fill material and soils as well as underground storage tanks and timber piles impacting the site, and construct a multi-story, mixed-use development called The Shoreham. The proposed building would consist of approximately 150 residential units (of which 20% would be designated for households earning 50% of area median income) and 20,000 square feet of office space (split between Bader Development/Steven Scott Management and a medical office tenant). Also included would be structured underground and surface parking. The cost to construct the proposed Shoreham project is projected at $45.1 million. It is estimated to have a total taxable market value of $32.6 million upon completion. However, environmental investigations revealed that soil on the subject site is impacted with petroleum, lead, pesticides and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Also impacting the soil is various fill debris including glass, brick, ash, concrete, wood and asphalt which varies in thickness from 3 feet (south side) to as deep as 15 feet (north side). Groundwater below the site is also impacted with petroleum compounds. The northern and western portions of the site were historically marshy areas with layers of peat and were contaminated due to urban fill material and debris deposited in these areas. In addition there is evidence of underground storage tanks and timber piles treated with creosote on the site. Furthermore, the project requires structured underground parking, reconstruction of a portion of France Avenue and construction of a multi-use trail between 31st Street and France Avenue. The Redeveloper therefore determined that the proposed mixed-use project is not financially feasible due to more than $7.8 million of extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the five properties. In order to offset a portion of the above costs Bader Development applied for tax increment assistance from the Economic Development Authority (EDA). Bader’s preliminary sources and uses statements, cash flow projections, and investor rate of return (ROR) related to Shoreham were reviewed by Staff and Ehlers. The estimates were found to be reasonable and within industry standards for this type of redevelopment. Staff and Ehlers also concurred that constructing The Shoreham was not financially feasible without some financial assistance from the EDA. Level and Type of Financial Assistance Upon discussion with Bader Development, it was determined that up to $3,050,000 in tax increment assistance would allow the project to move forward financially and achieve a standard return. Providing assistance would make it possible to construct a high quality project consistent with the Livable Communities Principles and many other objectives listed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This proposed amount of assistance is in-line with other similar mixed-use developments the EDA has aided in the past. Upon project completion, tax increment generated from the increased value of the property would be provided to Bader Development on a "pay-as- you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing method under the City's TIF Policy. The Shoreham meets the requirements of a Redevelopment TIF District which has a maximum term Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC of 25 years. If this type of district were created, the proposed project would generate the above amount of tax increment in approximately 9 years. Request for TIF Assistance and Grant Update At the June 1st Special Study Session the EDA/City Council reviewed Bader Development’s application for TIF assistance. Following discussion there was consensus to favorably consider reimbursing the Redeveloper for qualified costs up to $3,050,000 in pay-as-you -go tax increment generated by the project for a term of 9 years. The TIF amount could be further reduced based upon any grant awards. In subsequent weeks, it was announced that the project had been awarded contamination cleanup grants from DEED in the amount of $625,075; from the Metropolitan Council in the amount of $594,000; and from Hennepin County in the amount of $200,000. The project was also awarded a TOD grant from Hennepin County in the amount of $430,000. As a result, the proposed amount of TIF assistance needed to address the project’s extraordinary costs was reduced to $1.7 million. A TIF Note in this amount would likely be retired within approximately 5 years. Proposed Business Terms The following are proposed Business Terms between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) and Shoreham Apartments, LLC (“Redeveloper”) and are consistent with EDA Policy, past practices and previous discussions with the EDA/City Council of the City of St. Louis Park (“City”). Upon mutual agreement, these terms will be incorporated into a contract for private redevelopment (“Redevelopment Contract”) for the Shoreham mixed-use development to be constructed at the SW quadrant of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Ave, St. Louis Park. 1. Redeveloper agrees to close on the acquisition of the properties (“Closing”) located at the SW quadrant of the CSAH 25 Frontage Road and France Ave. (specifically 3907 and 3915 Highway 7, 3031 Glenhurst Avenue, and 3914 and 3918 31st Street West in St. Louis Park (“Redevelopment Property”) within 60 days of obtaining financing for the project. 2. The parties acknowledge that MPCA has approved a voluntary response action plan (“VRAP”) providing for remediation of hazardous wastes and contaminants on the Redevelopment Property. Promptly following the Closing, Redeveloper shall undertake remediation and any other actions required under the VRAP. Redeveloper expressly agrees to perform any task or obligation imposed under the VRAP and the Declaration, including any emergency procedures. 3. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the EDA makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements (as defined in paragraph 11) or any other purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to the Redeveloper neither implies any responsibility by the EDA or the City for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC 4. The Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the EDA, the City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees (“Indemnitees”), from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on the Redevelopment Property, unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the actions or omissions of the Indemnitees. 5. To finance a portion of the extraordinary costs of environmental remediation on the Redevelopment Property (the “Grant-Eligible Costs”), the EDA has been awarded grants from DEED in the amount of $625,075; from the Metropolitan Council in the amount of $594,000; and from Hennepin County in the amounts of $430,000 and $200,000 (the “Grants”). (a) The EDA will reimburse the Redeveloper for Grant-Eligible Costs from and to the extent of the grant proceeds under such Grants in accordance with the terms of the applicable grant agreement(s). If Grant-Eligible Costs exceed the amount to be reimbursed under such grant agreements such excess shall be the sole responsibility of the Redeveloper (except to the extent reimbursable under the Note described in Section 6 of these Terms). (b) The Redeveloper agrees to submit to the EDA written reports so as to allow the EDA to remain in compliance with reporting requirements under state statutes and agency requirements. The EDA will consult with the Redeveloper regarding the required information needed to complete the forms. 6. The EDA has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of the cost of: building demolition, environmental contamination cleanup, site preparation, stormwater management, road improvements, trail extension, and structured parking related to the Minimum Improvements (the “Public Redevelopment Costs”). The tax increment from the Shoreham TIF District will be payable to Redeveloper in the form of one “TIF Note” (described below as the “Note”), which would be structured on the following basis:  Issue total: Not to exceed $1,700,000  Type: Pay-as-you-go  Term: Until full repayment – approximately 5 years  Interest Rate: 4% (tentative)  Admin Fee: 5%  Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district Note Provisions: • The Redevelopment Contract would provide for one pay-as-you-go Note in the maximum principal amount of $1,700,000 to reimburse Redeveloper for such eligible costs as: building demolition, environmental contamination cleanup, site preparation, stormwater management, road improvements, trail extension, and structured parking related to the Minimum Improvements, secured by Available Tax Increment generated by the Minimum Improvements. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC 7. The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the date when 93% of the apartments units (“Apartments”) are leased; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the Apartments; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the project. The Redeveloper must submit evidence of its actual annualized cumulative internal rate of return (the “IRR”) from the Apartments, calculated as of the applicable lookback date, along with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the Apartments assuming a sale in the tenth year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Apartments. The amount by which the IRR exceeds eighteen percent (18%) is considered Excess Income. If the EDA determines that there is Excess Income, it will apply fifty percent (50%) of that amount toward prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Note. 8. Both parties agree that any assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Redevelopment Contract is not expected to constitute a “business subsidy” under Minnesota Statutes because the assistance is for redevelopment (subject to verification: Redeveloper’s cost of acquisition and site preparation of Redevelopment Property, net of site preparation costs reimbursed by the EDA, must equal at least 70% of the County assessor’s finalized market value of the Redevelopment Property for the current assessment year). 9. Redeveloper agrees that it will pay the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys retained by the EDA in connection with the preparation of the TIF Plan, the establishment of the TIF District, the negotiation and preparation of the Redevelopment Contract and other incidental agreements and documents. Upon termination of the Redevelopment Contract the Redeveloper remains obligated for costs incurred through the effective date of termination. 10. Before commencing construction of the Minimum Improvements (defined in paragraph 11) or Redeveloper Public Improvements (defined in paragraph 12), the Redeveloper must submit plans and specifications regarding the Redeveloper Public Improvements for approval by the City Engineer (“Construction Plans”), and must submit Construction Plans regarding the Minimum Improvements for approval by the EDA. Plans related to the soil remediation however do not require approval by the City or EDA. All work on the Redeveloper Public Improvements and Minimum Improvements shall be in accordance with the approved Construction Plans and shall comply with all City requirements regarding such improvements. The parties agree and understand that the City will accept the Redeveloper Public Improvements in accordance with City procedures as specified in the Planning and Development Contract between the City of St. Louis Park and Shoreham Apartments, LLC. 11. Redeveloper agrees to undertake the Minimum Improvements and Redeveloper Public Improvements as shown in the Official Exhibits to Ordinance 2471-15 (“Approvals”). In summary, the Redeveloper agrees to remediate the site in compliance with MPCA requirements, construct the Redeveloper Public Improvements, and construct a building in accordance with Ordinance 2471-15. Specifically, the Minimum Improvements shall include a multi-story, mixed-use building consisting of approximately 150 units of multi- family housing with 20,000 square feet of ground-floor office space along with associated underground structured parking and surface parking. Redeveloper intends that the office space shall be initially leased by Bader Development/Steven Scott Management and another office/retail tenant, currently anticipated to be a medical office tenant. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 6 Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC 12. Redeveloper is responsible for the construction of the following Redeveloper Public Improvements in accordance with the Official Exhibits and specifications in Ordinance 2471-15: a. Installation of public sidewalks and boulevards adjacent to all streets abutting the Redevelopment Property; b. Reconstruction of France Avenue. c. Installation of a multi-use trail between 31st Street and France Avenue. 13. Redeveloper is responsible for paying all costs associated with the Redeveloper Public Improvements specified in Ordinance 2471-15. 14. Redeveloper shall install dedicated wired connections from each building’s point of presence to each internal wiring closet, thence to each living and working unit. Each living and working unit shall have at least two (2) connections, each capable of supporting at minimum a one-gigabit connection. The Redeveloper shall wire the building to include 2 CATV and 2 CAT-6 connections. To provide for future high-speed broadband service, the Redeveloper shall install one empty 2-inch conduit from within a new or existing handhold in proximity to its existing telecommunications services (typically in public Right-of-Way) to a point of presence within each building in proximity to its existing telecommunications services. 15. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its approval. The term “material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $500,000 or more. 16. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, Redeveloper agrees to commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by October 31, 2015 and substantially complete them by March 1, 2017. If the Redeveloper anticipates that the above timetable will not be met, Redeveloper shall provide a written and oral presentation to the City Council of the City at a regular City Council meeting prior to the Required Commencement Date or Completion Date. The report must describe the reasons for the expected failure to meet the schedule, evidence of Redeveloper’s due diligence in working toward construction of the relevant Phase, and a detailed revised schedule. Failure to timely provide such written and oral report is an Event of Default. 17. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Green Building Policy adopted 2-16-10. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper will submit to the EDA a detailed list of the specific energy- efficient/sustainable features or components implemented in the construction of the Minimum Improvements. 18. Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements, the EDA Representative will deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion. The construction of the Minimum Improvements will be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the EDA Representative that all related site improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in accordance with approved Construction Plans, subject to landscaping that cannot be completed until seasonal conditions permit. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 7 Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC 19. Redeveloper shall undertake all work related to the Redeveloper Public Improvements and the Minimum Improvements in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, including without limitation all applicable state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations. Any subcontractors retained by Redeveloper shall be subject to the same requirements. 20. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy adopted 6- 1-15. In particular: A. Redeveloper agrees to reserve 20% of the apartment units in the Minimum Improvements for households earning 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) (“affordable dwelling units”) for at least 15 years following building occupancy. For the next 10 years, Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 10% of the apartment units for households earning 60% of AMI or at least 8% of the apartment units for households earning 50% of AMI. B. The monthly rental price for affordable dwelling units shall include rent and utility costs and shall be based on fifty percent (50%) and/or sixty percent (60%) for the metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size and calculated annually by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit Program. C. The size and design of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units in the rest of the project and is subject to the approval of the City. The Affordable dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the building. D. The affordable dwelling units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion as the market rate units. E. Redeveloper agrees to prepare an Affordable Housing Plan as described in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan shall describe how the Redeveloper complies with each of the applicable requirements of Inclusionary Housing Policy. Such a Plan shall be prepared and must be approved by the City prior to or in conjunction with the Redeveloper receiving its Certificate of Occupancy from the City. 21. Prior to the demolition of any existing structures, the Redeveloper must complete on-site historic documentation according to the “Scope and Fee Budget” from Preservation Design Works, LLC, provided to the City, dated December 1, 2014. 22. Upon execution of the Redevelopment Contract, the Redeveloper and EDA will execute an Assessment Agreement specifying an assessor's minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property and Minimum Improvements constructed thereon. The amount of the minimum market value will be negotiated by the EDA and Redeveloper with input from the City Assessor. Based on current assumptions of the construction timeline, the Assessment Agreement will most likely reflect a minimum market value based on partial completion of the Minimum Improvements as of January 2, 2017 and final completion of the Minimum Improvements by January 2, 2018. Study Session Meeting of July 27, 2015 (Item No. 8) Page 8 Title: Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC 23. If Redeveloper requires mortgage financing for the development of the Project, the EDA agrees to subordinate its rights under the Redevelopment Contract to the Holder of any Mortgage securing construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a mutually-approved subordination agreement. 24. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer the Redevelopment Contract or the Redevelopment Property (except to an affiliate) prior to receiving a Certificate of Completion without the prior written consent of the EDA, except for construction mortgage financing and/or permanent financing. The EDA's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. The EDA agrees to provide its consent or refusal to consent to Redeveloper in writing within 10 days after a request for such consent from Redeveloper. 25. Redeveloper agrees that the EDA and the City will not be held liable for any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements. 26. The Redeveloper agrees not to discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the construction and maintenance of the Minimum Improvements and Public Improvements as well as lease, rental, use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected thereon. The above terms will serve as the basis for and be incorporated into a Redevelopment Contract with Shoreham Apartments, LLC. NEXT STEPS: Staff will work with legal counsel to prepare a formal Redevelopment Contract with The Shoreham Apartments, LLC based on the proposed business terms and any input provided by the EDA. Such a contract is expected to be brought to the EDA for formal consideration on August 17th; the same evening as the public hearing for the proposed The Shoreham TIF District. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Dementia Training Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform City Council of the upcoming Dementia Training. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have any questions or concerns regarding the upcoming Dementia Training? SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to provide Council background and next steps with training. At the April 20th Council meeting, Annette Sandler provided background information regarding ACT on Alzheimer’s and stated the mission of the project was to inspire all citizens to take action to create an inclusive, supportive and dementia-friendly community by increasing awareness of Alzheimer’s. She stated that ACT on Alzheimer’s is a statewide, volunteer-driven initiative and St. Louis Park was recruited to serve as one of the pilot communities. The St. Louis Park Task Force was instrumental in creating an analysis tool to create an action plan toward becoming more dementia-friendly by raising awareness about Alzheimer’s. Council gave thanks and recognized the ACT on Alzheimer’s – St. Louis Park Task Force for its volunteer efforts in service to the City. Council supported bringing training on this topic to staff and others as follows: Training Schedule • Dementia Training: August 11, 2015, St Louis Park City Hall • 8:30-9:30AM and 2:00-3:00PM • Attendees will receive a certificate of completion following the training. Additional Training Option • The City of St. Louis Park currently employs staff that work various 24 hour shifts and need to accommodate training for this schedule as well as other scheduling conflicts. To make it available to others, the live presentation will be recorded and made available on the City’s website to City Council, City staff and the public. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Not applicable. Prepared by: Anisha Murphy, Administrative Intern Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/ HR Director Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: July 27, 2015 Written Report: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: SWLRT Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the SWLRT project. SUMMARY: Municipal Consent On July 23rd a new set of plans for SWLRT will be distributed for Municipal Consent review from the cities and the County. These plans will reflect the project approved by the Metropolitan Council on July 8, 2015. The current schedule is to consider the Municipal Consent at the City Council meeting on September 21, 2015. An Open House would be held prior to the City Council meeting at City Hall. For St. Louis Park, the Municipal Consent plans will include the reduced Beltline Park & Ride from 541 spaces to 268 spaces and adding approximately 130 parking spaces in the Louisiana station area. At this time the plans will not show the trail underpass at Louisiana, however it is expected it will be noted on the plans that the underpass will be added as approved by Council resolution on July 20th. Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs) Additional discussion with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) on the Beltline area circulation has taken place. The new parking lot plan at Beltline creates awkward circulation in the base SWLRT plans. Remedies to the circulation are being considered. This includes looking at incorporating the Lynn backage road LRCI or a portion of it into the project. If so, it would solidify the project plans and make it much easier to move forward with certainty for the area. Additional information will be forwarded as it is developed. Joint Development At the Beltline Station area staff and SPO staff are continuing to explore the possibilities and opportunities to pursue Joint Development under the Federal Transit Administration’s program. The intent is to utilize the federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant we received to build a parking ramp that could serve as a park & ride lot and also serve development on the site. Additional information on this program and planning will be discussed with the Council at a study session in the near future. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director