The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014/01/13 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA JANUARY 13, 2014 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 27, 2014 2. 6:35 p.m. TH 169 – Noise Wall Project 3. 7:05 p.m. 2014 City Council Workshop 4. 7:50 p.m. Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods 5. 8:35 p.m. Review of 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities 8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 8:55 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 6. 2013 November Financial Report 7. Arts and Culture Grant Guidelines 8. Update on PLACE Redevelopment Concept for Former McGarvey Site 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: January 13, 2014 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 27, 2014 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on January 27, 2014. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda 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 January 27, 2014. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 27, 2014 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 27, 2014 Study Session, January 27, 2014 – 6:30pm (Councilmember Sanger Out) Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. 2014 Annual Legislative Update – Administrative Services (75 minutes) Senator Ron Latz, Representative Ryan Winker, Representative Steve Simon, Commissioner Gail Dorfman, and Met Council Representative Jim Brimeyer have been invited to discuss the outlook for the 2014 legislative session, which convenes February 25, 2014. 3. Work Plan Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP – Operations & Recreation/Administrative Services (45 minutes) Staff liaisons and commissioners from the Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP will be present to discuss their work plan with Council. 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 4. 2013 December Financial Report 5. 4th Quarter Investment Report Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 13, 2014 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: TH 169 – Noise Wall Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. The purpose of this item is to allow MnDOT to provide Council with an introduction to their proposal to install a noise wall along the east side of Highway 169 between 14th and 16th Street West. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff and MnDOT desire feedback from the Council regarding the noise wall proposal and any other initial thoughts on the information provided in this report. SUMMARY: In March 2011, MnDOT presented the City Council with various options for future noise walls and access closures along Highway 169. The locations were based on noise abatement studies and traffic safety initiatives. The plan that was presented included the proposed noise wall along the east side of Highway 100 from 14th to 16th Street W. (Figure 1). MnDOT staff would like to begin the public process to understand the level of resident and council support for the installation of noise wall in this location. To kick off the process, MnDOT will hold an open house for this project at the end of January. They would return to the City Council in February to share the feedback received and ask for a resolution of support for the project. If approved, construction would begin in late summer 2014. As a separate public process, and as part of MnDOT’s long term safety initiative for Highway 169, they would like to close access from 16th Street W. to northbound Highway 169. This proposal could include the installation of a visual barrier wall along the east side of Highway 169 from 16th Street south to the edge of wetland/City property (Figure 1). This would be similar to the closure that occurred at 22nd and 23rd Streets along Highway 169 in 2012. Both the ramp closure and the visual barrier wall would be fully paid for by MnDOT. Staff has begun a traffic study to understand the traffic impacts to the closure of 16th Street at Highway 169 and will have the study complete in time to share with residents and Council at upcoming meetings. The potential access closure at 16th Street would require a separate study session, open houses and Council consideration prior to moving forward (if at all). The timeline MnDOT has provided for this closure proposal is approximately one month behind the schedule for the noise wall but if approved would be implemented at the same time as the noise wall north of 16th Street. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The noise wall north of 16th Street is a MnDOT led project with an estimated cost of $434,000. In accordance with MnDOT’s noise wall policy the City is responsible for 10% of the project cost, approximately $43,000. The City would use State Aid funding for this project. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Figure 1 - 16th Street Graphic Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager ÑÐ TEXAS AVERH ODE ISL AND AVEWAYZAT A B L V D2 8 T H S T F O R D R D S HELARD PKWY 31ST ST CLUB RD 26TH STMELROSEA V E F R A N KLINAVE VIRGINIA CIR 22ND ST 2 9T H S T 25TH S T18THST QUEBEC AVEUTAH AVESUMTER AVEAQUILAAVE2 2NDS T WAYZATA BLVD TEXAS AVEFL A GAVE FORD RDCEDAR LAK E R D 16T H ST 32ND STWESTWOODHILLSDRWESTWOOD HILLSDR30 1/2 ST 14TH ST BOONEAVEBOONEAVE WESTM ORELANDLN UTAHDRQUE B E C A V E QUEBECAVEXYLONAVEXYLON AVEXYLON AVE22ND LNJORDAN AVEUTAH AVEUTAHAVESUMTERAVEBURDPL S T A NLEN RD CAV E L L AVECAVELL AVECAVELL AVEKILMER AVEKILMERAVEP ARKERRD 13TH LN13TH LN WYOMINGAVE13 1/2 ST FORD LN INDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCEAVEINDEPENDENCE AVE24TH ST W VIRGI NIAA V E VIRGINIAAVEVIRGINIA AVEY UKONAVEGETTYSBURGAVEHILLSBOROAVEHIL L S BOROAVEHILLSBOROAVELANCASTERAVEDECATURAVEDECATUR AVELNFAIRWAYLNENSIGNAVETE X ATONKAAVEPRKR24THLN WESTWOODHILLSCRV BOONECTTEXAS CIR FORDCIR 28TH STAQUILAAVE 31STSTAQUILAAVEFLAG AVE24TH ST22NDST 14T H S T FLAG AVE16T H ST ZINR AN AVE31STST 23 RDST 18TH ST 25TH ST 1 8 T H S T 24THST 23RD ST 23RDST FR A N K L I N A V E 16TH ST COBBLECREST CTProposed MNDOT Highway 169 and 16th StreetNoise Wall, Visual Barrier Wall, and Ramp Closure Created 1/7/14by Luke Ingram M 0 840 1,680 2,520 3,360Feet MNDOT Proposed Projects ÑÐ 16th St. Northbound Ramp Closure 16th St. Visual Barrier Wall 16th St. Noisewall HWY 394 HWY 169Cedar Lake Rd MinneapolisGolf ClubGeneral Mills Blvd.Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: TH 169 – Noise Wall Project Page 2 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 13, 2014 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2014 City Council Workshop RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to discuss the results of the questionnaire completed by the Council as a means to allow further planning to occur on the annual workshop. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What would the Council like the focus of the workshop to be, particularly relating to the full day on February 28th? SUMMARY: The City Council is scheduled to meet the afternoon/evening of February 27 and all day February 28. Based on previous feedback, the general focus of the workshop will be to undertake relational learning the evening of February 27, and to discuss housing related matters on February 28. To help plan for the retreat each councilmember completed a questionnaire to provide more detailed feedback on the workshop. Attached is the following related to the questionnaire: • Summary of City Council Survey Results – this document is intended to summarize/encapsulate all of the actual answers provided by the seven councilmembers. • The actual aggregated responses provided by the Council as a whole. Staff proposes that at the study session the Council reach consensus on what it would generally like to accomplish at the workshop. Based on this feedback, I would then propose that Council direct staff and a committee of two or three councilmembers to develop a specific set of outcomes for the workshop and the details of an agenda for the two days that will deliver on those outcomes. This information would then be brought back to the Council at a subsequent study session (and before the workshop) to make sure there is overall buy in to what is proposed to be done at the workshop. This process was successfully used in planning for the 2007 workshop that resulted in the Council adopting its four Strategic Directions. Like then, buy-in and commitment by the entire Council to specific outcomes and the agenda will be very important to the success of the workshop. To assist with the workshop staff also proposes that an outside facilitator be used. In this case staff has interviewed and selected Jennifer Welch to be the facilitator. I have asked Ms. Welch to be at the study session so that she may be introduced to you. I have also attached her resume. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The practice of the City Council has been to use a local (and free) off-site facility for the workshop to keep meeting place costs to a minimum. The location of the workshop is still being determined. The expense for the facilitator is included in the City’s budget SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Results of Questionnaire Resume of Jennifer Welch Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Summary of City Council Survey Results RELATIONAL LEARNING • Getting to know a little bit about each other • Knowing each other’s style and going deeper – understanding how to communicate with each other in the most effective ways possible • Carver Governance • Norms/Unwritten Rules • Appropriate Roles for City Council Members • Ethics and expectations HOUSING • 5 members selected ADOPTED HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES • 4 members selected HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE SWLRT CORRIDOR • 3 members selected HOUSING DENSITY • AFFORDABLE HOUSING, HOUSING MARKET, RECENT HOUSING STUDY RESULTS, CURRENT OR FUTURE HOUSING PROGRAM AND INITIATIVES each got 2 votes of interest. COMMENTS ON HOUSING SUMMARY SWLRT: • Clear goal and vision about density at transit nodes (LRT) • Determine why we would choose density around LRT stations, smart growth, walkable communities etc. – what are the high level strategies and policies that underlie this assumption. • Look at special zoning districts around SWLRT that will promote and/or preserve affordable housing • Fresh food outlets near LRT. HOUSING • Learn how to determine why people move here and what makes them stay • Twin Cities is changing – how do we stay ahead of that change? • When we come up with an objectives we might want to lay hour units of single family, condos/townhomes, and apartments • Set a policy so that every proposal that comes across the desk of planning and economic development uses this policy. One person suggested that we might want to add basic legal principles that City Council members need to know and apply to our decision making, combined with the discussion of the differences between legal principles and policy preferences. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 2 Introduction To ensure the annual workshop is as productive as possible it is important that the City Council participate in the setting of the agenda and related topics for the workshop. This survey is intended to collect ideas from you that can then be used by staff and the entire Council to develop the workshop agenda. Agenda Planning Staff would suggest there are at least a couple of themes for this council workshop that are important to incorporate into the agenda – These are: 1) City Council as a High Functioning Team/Relational Learning; and 2) Housing. City Council as a High Functioning Team/Relational Learning: We have new City Council members. When new members arrive in a group it is critical to spend time together so that the Council can become a highly functional team. It is important to understand the dynamics of being on the Council and spend some reflective learning time on developing relationships, understanding roles, written and unwritten rules, and learning (or reinforcing learning) about the City’s approach to Governance. It is proposed that these topics be discussed late Thursday afternoon/evening, February 27th. The attached survey requests your input on anything specific you would like discussed that evening. Housing: Based on previous input from the City Council, on Friday, February 28th it is proposed that the day be spent discussing the topic of “Housing”. Given that this can be a broad topic area, it would be helpful in planning the agenda if the Council could provide more specific input as to what it would like to discuss regarding “Housing”. The attached survey asks for your input on what these topics should be. Instructions We ask that you fill out the following survey and return it to Bridget Gothberg. The survey is being provided in both WORD and PDF typeable formats. The results of the survey will be presented to the Council for discussion at the January 13 study session in aggregate, and not attributed to any specific Council member. Please return your completed survey to Bridget Gothberg by December 31, 2013 via Email bgothberg@stlouispark.org, fax (952) 924-2170 or mail (5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416). Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 3 SURVEY 1. Please identify any specific topic or issue you would like discussed during the late afternoon/evening session on Thursday relating to the “Council as a High Functioning Team/Relational Learning”. • How can we stay focused on policy level things and avoid too many details both from staff and council. • I would find it useful to understand the personalities of my colleagues, their strengths, and what motivates them in their role. I have heard great feedback from current Councilmembers on the use of assessments in these areas for the group – and the subsequent discussion. • I would also like to hear what has worked, and what has not worked in the past in developing high functioning relationships and dynamics on the Council. • By the end of the workshop, I would like to see that we are working toward being a high functional council. That the new members feel comfortable, speak up, and feel welcomed as members of council. • Typical list of items – council norms, expectations, direction to staff (and later votes – not making staff spend time on something that won’t pass). • Maybe an exercise or two to practice active listening or simply to learn about each other - maybe a mini global café style or speed dating, where we have a couple questions or prompts and go round with each other (and senior staff) to quickly get a sense of each of our styles, values, priorities, motivations, etc. • It would be valuable to spend some time not just covering how we are different but how those differences need to be understood and valued by the team. For example on occasion I've had people tell me "I understand why you think this way, because you are a _____________ personality type." That's good that they recognize that but in the end it still places the responsibility of adapting the message to be understandable on the listener, not on the producer of the message. I think if we could spend some time discussing how we as producers of messages and colleagues of one another need to better adapt our message to be understood by the listener/audience that would be good. I also think that if we are going to move forward, some of us on the council need to understand that everyone deserves a chance to be heard. • Questions on scope of participation of Council Members in related political activities – such as appearing at public meetings on SWC LRT and speaking publicly, or participating in ISAIAH events as a public office holder. Council member participation in private enterprises that might benefit from future LRT development. • Would like to discuss the Carver Governance Model which I think we will be doing. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 4 2. Using the following examples listed below, please identify the top three or four topics you would like covered in the workshop relating to the “Housing” discussion on Friday. Remember, these are examples. Please suggest those topics that you feel would be most useful for the Council to discuss. Please T check (double click box & select “checked”) or fill in below under “Other”. xx Recent Housing Study Results xxxxx Adopted Housing Goals and Policies xxxx Housing Development along the SWLRT Corridor xx Affordable Housing xx Current or Future Housing Programs and Initiatives xxx Housing Density xx Housing Market Other topic ideas or comments regarding the “Housing” discussion? • Housing and business development along SWLRT – assuming it happens. Also what happens if it does not go forward – what then? • The outcome I’d like to see, is a clear goal and vision about density at transit nodes (esp. LRT), about recognizing the growth that will be occurring and an agreement on a vision on how we manage that growth, and maybe priorities on the approaches to development - when do we lead with an RFQ and work with a developer vs. when do we react to the market? I’d personally like to see more townhomes and creative buildings and not sure how to set that up as policy so staff can guide developers that way (if that’s what the council agrees to). • Assessment of current “move up” housing initiatives and programs. • Spending 6 hours on housing seems too much. Add to workshop: basic legal principles that CC members need to know and apply to our decision-making, combined with discussion of the differences between legal principles and policy preferences. This suggestion is prompted by comments made at a recent CC meeting regarding a liquor license application, but the same issue has arisen previously. • Studies need to provide background, but I don’t want to spend TOO much time only on data – we don’t want to be talked AT that much – we can summarize relatively quickly about our naturally occurring affordable housing, our ratios and trends on ownership/rental and single family/multifamily. Maybe economic equity and race and school – related implications for our choices. Maybe understand a bit about the big picture context about why we would choose density around LRT stations, smart growth, walkable communities, etc – the high level strategies and policies that underlie this assumption. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 5 • The reason I pressed on the issue of housing was two fold: first, (and I don't know if we have the data for this but maybe we do) we need to know why people have moved to SLP so we can know what our current population saw in us so we can keep them. My guess is it was good schools, safe streets, proximity to mpls. • Second, the twin cities is changing (As evidenced in today's Strib article) and we need to be ahead of that change or we will end up filled with 1950's houses and 1960's apartment buildings (some of my colleagues and constituents like to point to Richfield as an example of what I'm talking about). • Third, once we know all this, we need to come up with an objective - probably a series of numbers that lays out how many units of single family, condos/townhomes, and apartments we want because I think there's some fatigue related to having the same old discussion every time about what's "best" for our community. Let's set a policy and THEN let's begin marketing ourselves to that policy instead of simply responding to each and every proposal that comes across the desk of the team in planning and economic development. • Related: identifying opportunities for senior affordable housing projects, including locating desirable tracts of land; desire and/or ability of Council to reach out to developers of affordable housing; establishment of special zoning district(s) around SWC LRT Stations that will promote and/or preserve affordable housing (including specifically protecting Meadowbrook Manor from gentrification); reduced parking requirements for high density projects adjacent to mass transit options (LRT, major bus lines); local bus services relating to housing, shopping and transit; establishment of fresh food outlets near LRT stations and major intersections (like Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana.) Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 6 Jennifer R. Welch Collective Wisdom, LLC. 2407 39th Ave NE, St Anthony Village, MN 55421 (612) 240-4433 welch.jenny5@gmail.com Seasoned leader with experience in human resources, legal, marketing, medical, financial services, banking, and retail industries demonstrating success in team building, facilitation, process improvements, project management, infrastructure, application systems implementations, mentoring, and outstanding leadership and communication skills. Results-oriented leader and executive coach adept at empowering cross-cultural teams through conflict resolution and consistent communication processes. • Facilitator and coach for small and large organizations with creative conversations around alignment, planning, and execution of departmental, organizational, and cultural change. • Leadership and life coaching services to teams and individuals focusing on desired changes and outcomes for their organizations and personal lives. • Provided mentoring to potential leaders using existing projects as a forum for modeling communication, conflict resolution, and planning behaviors. • Worked with executive teams to create, develop, and execute their own alignment processes to be utilized in the midst of confusion or conflict. • Facilitated numerous status and working conference calls for 50+-virtual/global team representing multiple sub-teams or streams of work. • Managed teams of managers/leaders impacted by proposed outsourcing deals. Required sensitivity and open dialogue around issues of corporate and personal change. • Initiated and facilitated communication between various departments in order to resolve conflicts and improve communication and inter-departmental project processes. Problem solving facilitator whose hands-on approach assists in building or improving corporate infrastructures. • Coordinated Project Management Capacity and Planning Steering Committee established to assist in the standardization of project management processes, to facilitate communication between managers regarding current issues and project interdependencies, and to establish, prioritize, and budget for new project initiatives. • Assisted in the facilitation of processes and establishing structure and guidelines for project planning with business partners. • Led process and quality improvement activities for the marketing, sales and production departments of a national legal research corporation and an alternative dispute resolution subsidiary. Identify and guide implementation of emerging methodologies and technologies to reduce client expenses, improve operations and enhance competitive advantage. • Project Lead for due diligence project team in $300M/Annual Outsourcing Deal. Coordinated research effort in support of evaluation of outsourcing contract representing data center consolidation, network engineering and NOC Operations Support. • Led finance team for $570M/Annual Outsourcing Deal. Coordinated delivery of financial components in support of evaluation of outsourcing contract representing the transition of all operations technologies to a potential out-tasking supplier • Led application development team(s) on multiple batch improvement projects realizing 2-hour reduction in nightly batch processing times and increased on-line availability. • Led numerous application development projects; legacy and third party software. Examples: Rewrite of DOS based collections system to J2EE/Oracle environment, Data Extraction/Replication and Disaster Recovery software implementation, RMS - Tandem Testing and Version Control Software, Batch Upload Improvement project, Needs Assessment for Transmission Enhancement Project. Professional Experience COLLECTIVE WISDOM, LLC Owner, Facilitator, Mediator, and Coach – 2001 - Present Provide facilitations and large group mediations (for both large and small organizations) covering strategic planning, creativity and innovation exercises, communication models and planning. All sessions result in alignment around organizational values, vision and mission statements, objectives, goals, and actionable plans. Provide life and leadership coaching for executives. Facilitate creativity and innovation sessions. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 7 AERITAE CONSULTING GROUP, LTD, Director of Business Operations, Technical Resource Manager, Facilitator, and Senior Consultant, 2005 - Present Director of Business Operations – 2012 - Present Member of the Executive Leadership team accountable for the Human Resources, Financial, Operations, Information Technology, and Marketing and Communication functions for a leadership consulting firm. Moderator/Facilitator – 2005 - Present Provide facilitations and/or mediations. Moderate and facilitate quarterly Chief Security Officer Summit for the State of Minnesota with an objective of creating a networking environment for busy executives that provides meaningful and focused interactions, a forum for a creative and open dialogue, and ongoing and interactive conversions around a very dynamic area of technological expertise. Moderate round tables for networking associations on various topics including Business Relationship Management, Health Care, Data Center hosting, etc. St. Jude Medical (Client of Aeritae) Program Leadership Consultant – Enterprise Information Technology and SAP Teams, 2009 - 2010 Providing creative execution strategies to deal with immediate capacity issues (infrastructure, data center, people and task resources) within a disparate technical and leadership environment. The focus was on the development of alignment between different leaders that required collaboration in order to meet immediate and strategic needs. Led the “Safety Net” program as an interim solution while long term strategic programs may be organized, launched, and executed. Accountable for ongoing alignment between multiple infrastructure and application teams in order for tactical work to consistently meet long term objectives. Technical Resource Manager (Internal) – 2008 - 2012 Providing management and leadership for leadership, architecture, infrastructure and service management consultants including recruiting, resource planning and allocation, training and development, and day to day HR management. St. Jude Medical (Client of Aeritae) Program Leadership Consultant – SAP Team, 2007 - 2008 Providing day to day and program leadership for two SAP teams – Infrastructure System Administrators and BASIS developers. Ensure that the operational deliverables required for St Judes' next two SAP releases are provided in a thorough and timely manner. Accountable for establishing and maintaining audit validation documents relative to the sale of medical devices. Ameriprise Financial Incorporated (Client of Aeritae) Leadership and Project Management Consultant – Technical Utilities, 2005- 2007 Responsible for identifying, creating, and documenting the processes required to support the Single Sign On and Directory Services environment for Ameriprise Financial as a part of their corporate separation from American Express. Responsible for staffing models for on-shore and off-shore resources. Developed the ‘To Be’ resource environment using 80% outsourced model and conducting knowledge transfer amongst AXP resources, the AMP project team, to the AMP team. Responsible for formulating communication regarding change freezes, process alignment, and issue/conflict management due to rapidly changing plans and environment. Responsible for and managed the development of standard engagement and intake processes for the 30 different utility groups. Developed alignment and shared understanding amongst the utility teams of common project set up and execution, funding models, internal SLAs and customer service guidelines. Currently managing the development of a shared intake database utilizing the common processes and integrating the different teams into the technical solution in an iterative fashion. Responsible for planning and facilitating quarterly sessions with the AMP Service Management and AMP Technical Utilities teams regarding leadership alignment around goals and employee satisfaction activities. WELLS FARGO Technology Manager – Secure Engineering & Implementation, 2005 Responsible for the management and execution of Firewall/ Security projects which were supported by two engineering teams for the Lending and Retail Lines of Business. 45 Team Members were located in five different geographic locations. Tasks included staff management, budget and resource planning, escalation and change procedures, and performance measurements for technology and resources. Managed teams through multiple iterations of leadership and service direction changes. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Director of Technologies – Business Application Delivery, 2003- 2005 Reported to CIO. Responsible for the management and execution of Business Application Delivery projects supported by four application development teams: Mainframe, UNIX (Power Builder & C), Web and DOS. Tasks included staff management, budget and resource planning, escalation and change procedures, performance measurements – both personal and systemic. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 8 Responsible for project to rewrite DOS based collections system in J2EE and Oracle and Database conversion project from Informix to Oracle. Responsible for negotiating a 2 year, 7M contract with external vendor to rewrite the mainframe application(s) in J2EE and Oracle. Provided ongoing mentoring and coaching for identified leaders and developers in project management methodologies and best practices. Had primary responsibility for maintaining positive and productive relationships between the development area and our business partners. COMPUWARE CORPORATION Employee in Project Management Line of Business of Professional Services Division, 1997 – 2002 Educational Credit Management Corporation (Client) Mentor & Project Manager Consultant, 2001 - 2002 Responsible for mentoring and coaching identified leaders and developers in project management methodologies and best practices. Facilitated conversations and relationships between technologies and business partners. Responsible for leading development projects in support of student loan, collection, and financial reporting applications, IT infrastructure on multiple platforms and systems. American Express (Client) Project Manager Consultant, 1999 – 2001 Responsible for planning and managing all phases of third-party software implementation and batch improvement processes. Responsible for managing due diligence and finance teams for potential contract(s) representing the reduction of operating expenses by out-tasking networking services and all operations technologies to an experienced and global vendor/partner. Led large project teams to deliver infrastructure requirements and operational process improvements. Dayton Hudson Corporation (Client) Developer/Coordinator Consultant, 1997 - 1999 Participated in the development of mainframe integration test environment modeled after production. Responsible for tracking status of completed and remaining tasks for team, documenting conversion processes for outside system teams, writing procedure manual for test team, system teams and end users. Participated as developer in Global Merchandising System Project using MVS/XA, TSO-ISPF, COBOL, JCL, DB2, CICS, Eazytrieve, Telon, VSAM, Panvalet, Endevor, CA7, Expediter, File-aid. LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER, INC. Project Manager, HR Manager, Office Manager, 1995 – 1997 Responsible for Human Resources Department including interviewing, hiring, training, coaching, performance tracking, benefit administration, termination of direct reports, mediating and managing of conflict. Responsible for process and quality improvement activities for the marketing, sales and production departments of a national legal research corporation and an alternative dispute resolution subsidiary to reduce redundant and obsolete tasks, data entry errors, and increase service capabilities for expanded client base. Created IT infrastructure, roles and processes during re-organization and re-engineering transition from private to public company. Education and Associations Executive and Life Coaching Certification, Ideal Coaching, Minneapolis, MN ITIL Foundations Certified BA Marketing Management, Concordia College, St. Paul Conflict Resolution Center, Certified Training for Community, and Family Mediation Member, Institute for Cultural Affairs – ‘Technology of Participation’ (TOPS) Facilitation Training Network Member, Minnesota Facilitators Network Minnesota Center for Grief, Certified Grief Group Facilitator Member, Project Management Institute (PMI) Expert in Facilitation techniques ranging from brainstorming and alignment, values identification, development, and communication, strategic planning, Expert in mediation techniques allowing alignment between differing individuals, groups, and organizations. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 3) Title: 2014 City Council Workshop Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 13, 2014 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is for informational and discussion purposes. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to explore options for modifying the City’s current building controls to include enhanced design standards for new and remodeled homes in existing neighborhoods? If Council does wish to pursue this further staff would suggest that this study include an assessment of how such controls might impact the City’s policy of promoting larger single family homes in the community via new construction or remodeling SUMMARY: The City Council has requested a study session discussion regarding whether to establish enhanced architectural design standards for new and remodeled homes in existing neighborhoods. The concern is that new homes, which are often larger than the existing neighboring homes, fit into the character of the neighborhood. Since 2000, the City has averaged 9 new single family homes annually. These homes resulted from a combination of demolishing existing homes and rebuilding and building on vacant land parcels. The City also averages 105 major remodels annually, 65 of which include additions/expansions. Currently, St. Louis Park (SLP) residential use of land and structure building design is directed through official controls and supported through incentives. Official controls include the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The City also has a number of programs that not only provide incentives to homeowners to maintain, improve and expand their homes, but also to do so utilizing good design. Examples of design incentive programs offered by the City include the Remodeling and Architectural Design Services, the annual Home Remodeling Fair and annual Remodeling Tour. Other than in historic neighborhoods, a search/survey of other communities and industry agencies resulted in very few examples where architectural design standards for single family homes have been adopted by a municipality. We did locate several communities that have design guidelines for multi-family and commercial development. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. If the Council would like to move forward, consideration may be given to hiring a consultant for the project. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion City of St. Louis Park Housing Goals Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: As a fully developed City, construction of new single family housing units in SLP typically results from either demolition of an existing home, subdividing an oversized single family parcel, or in a few cases, development of a vacant lot. The new homes being constructed in SLP are typically larger with more amenities and are more consistent in size with homes being built in developing suburban communities. The size of these new and remodeled homes has raised the concern of whether the City needs to establish additional Design Standards to ensure that they fit into the character of the existing neighborhoods. A significant number of SLP homeowners are also remodeling and expanding their existing homes to obtain a more “family size” home with greater space and amenities. Because the majority of SLP’s existing homes are older, they also tend to be smaller in size. Approximately 88% of the single-family homes were built in 1960 or before. The most common housing type built during the housing explosion which occurred after 1939 was the Cape Cod and the small rambler. Nearly 70 % of SLP single-family detached homes are less than 1,400 square feet in size – the national average for new homes is over 2200 square feet. Since 2000, the City has averaged 5 housing unit demolitions and 9 new single family homes per year. The City also averaged 105 major remodels annually, 65 of which include additions/expansions. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The City has regulations and guidelines that direct residential use of land and structures in the City. The official controls tend to dictate form versus architectural style and include: • Zoning Ordinance; sections related to single-family design standards include: Residential District Regulations: The purpose of the R-1/R-2/R-3 residential districts is to provide appropriately located areas for one and two family dwelling units on parcels of reasonable size ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit and to protect residents from objectionable influences that would result from non-residential land use. The zoning ordinance specifies the dimensional standards and densities allowed in each district including set-backs, total lot coverage and height restrictions. The zoning ordinance was amended in 2006 to revise some dimensional standards in the residential districts. The most notable changes were to allow for a small increase in building footprint (from 30% lot coverage to 35%), and the front setbacks were changed to require minimum setbacks that are consistent with other homes on the block. Architectural Design: The purpose of this section is to promote a high standard of development in the City through a more comprehensive review of both functional and aesthetic aspects of new development. Although the focus of this section is more related to properties utilizing a PUD, the section does include architectural design element requirements for single family homes related to the use of exterior materials, paint color and wall deviations. • Building Code: The building code covers the construction, reconstruction, alteration and repair of buildings and other structures including single family homes. The code provides basic and uniform performance standards that establish reasonable safeguards for health, safety, welfare, comfort and security of residents through the built environment. Examples of subjects regulated under the code include soils, foundations, wall, floor and roof framing, smoke Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods detectors, safety glazing, fire protection, structural design, snow loads, egress windows, stairways, handrails, building materials, weather resistance, and many others. The code does not dictate architectural design. • Comprehensive Plan: The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to carry out the City’s Vision by setting goals, policy and direction in a comprehensive manner. The Plan functions as a framework for achieving the City’s goals consistent with the City’s Vision and adopted Strategic Directions. Vision Statement: The City’s adopted Vision Statement and Strategic Directions support the City’s efforts to encourage the construction of large family sized homes and to expand existing homes to include more bedrooms and more amenities. • One of the four major Strategic Directions adopted by Council is: “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock.” • One of the Focus Areas under this strategy states: “Remodeling and expanding move-up, single family, owner-occupied homes.” Housing Goals and Strategies: The City Council adopted City Housing Goals and Strategies in 2005 following a Housing Summit at which the City’s policy makers revisited the City’s housing policies. A key issue identified at the Summit was the lack of large single family homes suitable for families with children. In response to this concern one of the goals adopted promotes the creation of large homes through both expansion of existing homes and construction of new homes. Several of the other goals support the creation of large single family homes through expansion of existing homes. (Attached) Impact: For housing in SLP, the adopted housing policies, goals and strategies have promoted the provision of a range of housing choices to meet the needs of its residents through all stages of life including the creation of large homes suitable for families with children. Programs have been developed that provide financial incentives to expand existing homes but also to do so utilizing good design. Examples of design incentive programs offered by the City include the Remodeling and Architectural Design Services, the annual Home Remodeling Fair and the annual Remodeling Tour. The design remodeling services have continued to experience significant use and the Fair and Tour have proved to be popular events and are heavily attended by SLP residents. Other than in historic neighborhoods, a search/survey of other communities and industry agencies resulted in very few examples where architectural design standards for single family homes have been adopted by a municipality. The cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka stated that they had explored creating Design Standards for single family homes but they decided against moving forward. The creation of Architectural Design Guidelines would set forth design expectations beyond what is currently required in the City’s official controls. Given the City’s past and ongoing policy and commitment to promoting larger single family homes via new construction and remodeling, consideration should be given to what impact such guidelines might have on achieving this goal. NEXT STEPS: Staff will take direction from Council based on the outcome of the discussion at the meeting. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods Housing Goals and Strategies St. Louis Park reviewed and updated its housing goals and strategies during the 2004-2005 Housing Summit. The Housing Summit involved a broad base of stakeholders that evaluated how existing policies meet the needs of current residents and neighborhoods. As a result of this process, the following housing goals and strategies were developed and approved by the City Council. Housing Production Goals 1. Promote and facilitate a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs both today and in the future. 2. Establish target numbers of units for each housing type needed to ensure life-cycle housing options are available for residents, with housing types disbursed throughout the city. 3. The City acknowledges that there is demand for different types and sizes of housing units, but due to limitations of available space and other resources, all demands cannot be fully satisfied. At the present time, the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and maintenance of detached, owner-occupied single-family housing which are large enough to accommodate families. City housing efforts and resources should primarily address this need. Strategies 1. Develop matrix of existing housing types including detached/attached, owner/rental, family/senior; and affordable/market rate with production goals for each. Use this matrix as guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. 2. Negotiate Livable Communities goals with the Metropolitan Council to include production type and benchmark affordability percentages that reflect the average percentages of other first ring suburbs. (note: should this be kept if livability community goals have changed format) 3. Develop public/private partnerships and create incentives for the development of a variety of new housing stock. 4. Identify unused public land and explore selling these properties for new housing. Housing Condition and Preservation Goals 1. Ensure housing is safe and well maintained. 2. Preserve and enhance housing quality through proactive promotional and educational activities and housing programs related to home rehabilitation, code, design and safety issues. Strategies 1. Continue implementation of Property Maintenance Code, i.e. inspections, licensing requirements and enforcement to encourage well-maintained housing. a. Continue regular cycle of citywide identification of deteriorated homes and implement effective programs to motivate compliance. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods 2. Strengthen the City’s single- and multi-family home maintenance and rehabilitation programs. a. Implement promotional and education activities on building maintenance for owners of single-family homes and multi-family buildings. For example: i. City and Community Education offer housing maintenance and code requirement information and provide effective city code education, ii. Provide technical and design assistance for single-family home maintenance improvements, and iii. Create and distribute a list of the top ten things cited by Point of Sale Inspections. b. Encourage public/private partnerships for home maintenance to develop financial incentives or to facilitate private reinvestment in the City’s private housing stock, both single and multifamily. i. Continue the partnership with the rental coalition to promote quality multifamily housing in St. Louis Park. ii. Partner with neighborhood associations to identify target neighborhoods for improvements and to encourage and promote housing preservation. c. Develop and implement a strategy for using the Housing Rehabilitation Fund and other financial resources. (note: used to be a “General” strategy) d. Strengthen neighborhoods and neighborhood amenities to encourage residents to stay and reinvest in St. Louis Park. (note: used to be a “General” strategy) Owner / Rental Ratio Goals 1. The ratio of owner/rental housing should be approximately 60% owner-occupied and 40% rental. 2. Explore traditional and non-traditional owner-occupied housing options such as, but not limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises, 3-story homes, multi-generational housing, etc. Strategies 1. Continue promoting first time home buyer, homeownership counseling and down payment assistance programs. 2. Promote affordable ownership opportunities: a. Explore a partnership with Land Trust b. Consider Section 8 homeownership program 3. Continue using and analyzing the data collected in the “Move-Out Survey” to determine why homeowners move out. Develop an application for data gathered. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods Affordable, Workforce and Supportive Housing Goals 1. Promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households. Future affordability goals negotiated with the Metropolitan Council should reflect the average percentages of other first ring suburbs in Hennepin County. 2. Mixed income units should be disbursed throughout the City and not concentrated in any one area of the City or any one development. Strategies 1. Explore partnerships to encourage the private development of housing for employment growth related to expansions such as Park Nicollet and Methodist Hospital. 2. Continue acceptance and limited financial support of transitional and supportive housing programs for specialized groups and affordable multifamily housing providers. Large Homes for Families Goals 1. Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing homes through remodeling projects which add more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities. 2. Promote and facilitate construction of large family-size homes with more bedrooms and more bathrooms, (e.g. minimum 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms, 2+ car garage and additional amenities such as den/fourth bedroom or porch or superior architecture) suitable for families with children. Strategies 1. Create new large family housing with more bedrooms and baths. a. Promote opportunities for new construction of large family homes where feasible and appropriate. b. Identify and acquire blighted and vacant properties for housing redevelopment and or rehabilitation. 2. Develop a strategy to create more large family housing by expanding existing homes. a. Implement ordinance amendments to allow home remodeling or housing redevelopment on smaller lots. b. Encourage quality remodeling and home additions through technical and design assistance programs, etc. c. Explore tools to incorporate major remodel project costs into the primary mortgage for new buyers at all income levels and promote refinancing options for existing owners who remodel. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 7 Title: Architectural Design Standards for New and Remodeled Homes in Existing Neighborhoods Senior Housing Goals 1. Promote and facilitate more housing options for seniors. Strategies 1. Develop alternative housing options (both affordable and market rate) for seniors/empty nesters within St. Louis Park that provide lateral financial movement to increase existing single-family home supply for families with children. Land Use Goals 1. Planning Goals: a. Use infill and redevelopment opportunities to help meet housing goals. b. Promote higher density housing near transit corridors & employment centers. c. Encourage housing density in commercial mixed use districts. 2. Explore and, if appropriate promote ordinances to allow development of non-traditional housing types and increased density in single family neighborhood that is compatible with surrounding neighborhood. 3. Explore and promote reclassification of non-residential properties and designate for housing and other purposes. Strategies 1. Explore how zoning modifications can allow development of non- traditional owner- occupied housing options such as, but not limited to: row houses, courtyard housing, alternative housing, cluster housing, hi-rises, three-story homes etc. Revisit height restrictions for multi-family buildings. 2. Explore how zoning requirements for setbacks, lot coverage, and building height can be made more flexible to allow expansions of existing single family homes. Explore allowing three-story and mother-in-law apartments in single-family homes. a. Continue the discussion regarding useable open space requirements as a means to allow expansion of single-family homes in residential districts 3. Educate residents about land use issues, especially those involving increased density in single-family neighborhoods. 4. Explore re-use of non-residential properties for housing redevelopment. 5. Assess infrastructure and traffic impacts of new development proposals. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 13, 2014 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Review of 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has prepared a draft list of legislative issues and priorities which ultimately are intended to be reviewed on January 27th with Senator Ron Latz, Representative Steve Simon, Representative Ryan Winkler, Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman, and Metropolitan Council representative Jim Brimeyer. In preparation for that meeting staff desires Council feedback on the attached draft document. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the Council agree with the issues included in the draft document? • Is there anything else the City Council would like staff and our legislative delegation to pursue? • Does the Council wish to continue retaining legislative consulting assistance for 2014 to help promote the city’s legislative agenda? SUMMARY: Staff has prepared the attached preliminary list of legislative issues for the discussion with our legislators and representatives. As has been the case in previous years, as the 2014 legislative session progresses, additional issues may come to light. It has been our practice to retain lobbying services to help us with legislative and regulatory issues. Administrative Services has utilized the legislative services of Doug Franzen and Vic Moore, Franzen & Associates, and Dennis McGrann and Emily Tranter of Lockridge, Grindal, and Nauen. Staff requests direction as to continuing on with these services for 2014. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funding for our lobbyists is included in the budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities (Draft) Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Review of 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities City of St. Louis Park 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities (Draft) Transportation Issues and Priorities A. Southwest LRT Issue: The Southwest LRT project is of major interest to the City of St. Louis Park. The past year has been one of significant progress on engineering plans and a “base” design with a cost estimate of $1.55 billion. The project, however, was put on pause by the Governor this past fall in order to provide additional study and public input. Assuming the base plan moves forward, the project needs $155 million from the State or 10% of the $1.55 billion project. Thus far the state has contributed $44 million toward the project. Position: The City supports the Southwest LRT Project Office and Corridor Management Committee’s recommended freight rail option that co-locates freight rail in the Kenilworth corridor with LRT in a shallow tunnel. The City also strongly supports and urges the State to provide the remaining funding commitment to the project. B. Street Improvement District Issue: The existing special assessment law, Minn. Stat. ch. 429, does not meet cities’ financing needs because of the requirements for proving a direct benefit between the public improvement and the value of the property being assessed. This “benefit test” requires that the assessment amount is less than or equal to the amount of increase in property value that the property receives as a result of the improvement. In practice, however, proof of increased property value from regular repair or replacement of existing infrastructure such as streets is difficult to prove to the levels necessary to fully fund a comprehensive pavement management program. Analysis: Successful economic development efforts and community stability are dependent upon a city’s ability to make infrastructure investments. Current infrastructure funding options available to cities are inadequate and unsustainable. In the past, funding pressures have been exacerbated by levy limits, as well as reductions in local government aid and the market value homestead credit programs. Alternatives to the Minn. Stat. ch. 429 methods for financing infrastructure improvements are nearly nonexistent. The Legislature has given cities the authority to operate utilities for waterworks, sanitary sewers, streetlights, and storm sewers. The storm water utility authority, established in 1983, set the precedent as enabling legislation for cities to charge a use fee on a utility bill for city infrastructure that benefits everyone in a city. Also, special service districts are allowed for streetscape and sidewalks. Similar to the storm sewer and special service district authority, a Street Improvement District would use technical, well- founded measurements and could equitably distribute the costs of street maintenance and reconstruction to property owners. Position: The City supports the legislative authorization for cities to create a Street Improvement District. Community Development Issues and Priorities A. TIF District Statutory Modifications Issue: First, current TIF law requires more than 50% of the buildings in a project area be found to be substandard to qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. In redevelopment situations Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Review of 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities involving only a small number of parcels, this can be an insurmountable standard to meet thus preventing new investment from occurring. Second, establishing new forms of TIF districts could facilitate additional future redevelopment projects in the City of St. Louis Park. Third, current TIF law does not allow TIF districts to extend beyond municipal boundaries; this prevents the sharing of public improvement costs in areas where there is a broader public benefit. Multi-jurisdictional TIF districts could facilitate redevelopment along the SWLRT corridor. Position: First, the City supports a minor modification of the Redevelopment TIF District statute requiring 50% or more of buildings within project areas be found to be substandard. Second, the City supports the establishment of Compact Development TIF Districts and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) TIF Districts, which could assist qualified redevelopment projects in proximity to the future LRT stations. Third, the City supports the establishment of multi- jurisdictional TIF districts across municipal boundaries to facilitate redevelopment along transit corridors. B. DEED Transit Improvement Districts Issue: The state allowed DEED to create Transit Improvement Areas (and each of the St. Louis Park stations were qualified) but these TIAs lack any funding or authority. Position: The City supports state funding for TIAs through grants administered by DEED. The City also supports granting TIAs authority to fund various transit-related public improvements and redevelopment projects. The City further supports designating the entire SWLRT corridor as a transit improvement district and granting it certain common powers to fund various transit related public improvements and redevelopment projects. C. Special Service Districts Statutory Authority Issue: In 1988, cities were granted general authority under Minn. Stat. § 428A.01 to § 428A.101 to establish Special Service Districts. As currently written, only commercial properties can participate within Special Service Districts. This is financially challenging for funding additional services within mixed-use project areas. The City of St. Louis Park has established 6 Special Service Districts, including multiple sections of Excelsior Boulevard. There will also be a need to provide infrastructure improvements and on-going maintenance at the LRT station areas. Position: The City supports allowing multi-family developments to be included within Special Service Districts and allowing Special Service Districts to be created around LRT station areas. Public Safety Issues and Priorities A. Marijuana Legalization Issue: Decriminalization and legalization of marijuana have been addressed in legislatures around the country during recent years with the first being medicinal marijuana, and more recently the legalization of general possession and consumption in states including Colorado and Washington. Marijuana continues to be a Schedule 1 controlled substance under federal law, which creates conflict between federal law and more relaxed laws in some states. These conflicts may lead to confusion for both law enforcement and residents as to the current state and application practices of these laws. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 4 Title: Review of 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities Position: This is an area of concern for the Police Chief. Experiences now documented in places like California, Washington, and Colorado identify issues such as no reliable standard for metrics and measurement of driving under the influence of marijuana. California law enforcement officials often refer to marijuana “huts” as magnets for crime and disorder, and there continues to be no uniform standards regulating the preparation and potency (labeling) of marijuana as it is produced and distributed. Finally, the elementary and junior high DARE curriculum in St. Louis Park schools identifies marijuana as a gateway drug and as addictive. It is many times more potent than the marijuana of the 60’s and 70’s. Staff seeks direction as to the Council’s position on this matter. B. License Plate Readers Issue: Current law classifies information collected by Automated License Plate Readers as public data and subject to public data requests. An administrative ruling sought by Minneapolis temporarily provided relief from this position; however, legislation permanently classifying this data as private would resolve an issue which will otherwise complicate and compromise the ability of police agencies to collect and retain data for a reasonable time (6 months). There are several examples of serious crimes being solved due to the ability of police agencies to collect and retain this information as private data for up to 6 months before destroying. In these cases public data classification or a 30 day destruction timeline would have prevented suspects from being identified and cases being solved. Position: Staff requests support of a permanent resolution to this issue from the legislature. This would provide an effective tool for police and protect the public’s safety and privacy and, in particular, our more vulnerable residents who may become targets if this information becomes public data. C. (Placeholder for Fire Dept. issues that are still being compiled. Draft will be provided to you no later than Monday night) Financial Issues and Priorities A. Fiscal Disparities Issue: The City has been a net contributor to the fiscal disparities program for some time. Given extensive redevelopment and stronger commercial/industrial property values than most other metro area communities, the City’s net contribution to the fiscal disparities pool has increased substantially. Analysis: Below are some statistics related to St. Louis Park, which denotes the increase in the City’s net tax capacity contribution over the years: Pay 2009 1,635,724 Net Contribution Pay 2010 1,231,482 Net Contribution Pay 2011 2,775,483 Net Contribution Pay 2012 3,220,881 Net Contribution Pay 2013 2,940,678 Net Contribution Pay 2014 3,670,487 Net Contribution Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 5) Page 5 Title: Review of 2014 Legislative Issues and Priorities From 2009 to 2013, the city has seen a 79.8% Increase in the Net Contribution by St. Louis Park. Other communities have seen much less volatile changes in the same timeframe, for example: Bloomington -16.5% Net Contribution Change Eden Prairie -6.6% Net Contribution Change Edina -12.4% Net Contribution Change Maple Grove -12.4% Net Contribution Change Minnetonka +14.7% Net Contribution Change Plymouth -1.9% Net Contribution Change St. Louis Park +79.8% Net Contribution Change For the Payable 2014 Tax Period, the net contribution by St. Louis Park is an increase of 124.4% versus 2009. Position: While the Fiscal Disparity program has many good points, the City asks its legislators to continue to be aware of the financial implications it represents to St. Louis Park. The City’s tax rate is higher due to reduced Net Tax Capacity, creating additional burdens on local property tax payers to pay for local services. The City supports changes to this program that are prospective in nature and that recognize aggressive redevelopment efforts that cities undertake using tax increment financing. B. Legal Notices – Eliminate Requirement for Paid Publication Issue: Current law requires print ads for “proceedings, official notices, and summaries” in local newspapers. In the 2011 Session, House File 162 called for allowing political subdivisions (cities, counties, school boards, etc.) to replace the print ads with a single annual notice stating that all such notices would appear on the political subdivision’s website (i.e. the city website). Position: The City continues to support the elimination of this requirement. In addition to saving cities thousands of dollars in annual publishing costs, the notices would have the potential to reach a much greater audience than they currently do in St. Louis Park, where the local newspaper only reaches about half of the community. Additionally, businesses working with the city or bidding on city projects find it cumbersome to monitor many different publications. C. Sales Tax Exemption Relating to Joint Powers Associations Issue: Some JPA’s are not sales tax exempt per 2013 legislation. For example, purchases by LOGIS are reimbursed to LOGIS by member cities, which are exempt. Right now, LOGIS will pay sales taxes and it can translate into tens of thousands of dollars when buying, for example, big software applications. Cities like St. Louis Park and many others then pay that tax in member reimbursements. Staff is not clear if this was intended or just an oversight. Position: All JPA’s comprised of member cities, counties, other JPA’s, and other sales tax- exempt members should be treated like their tax-exempt members. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 13, 2014 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: November 2013 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. This report is typically presented at the second study session each month, but due to the cancellation of the second study session in December, the November report was moved to the first study session in January. The December report will be presented as scheduled in two weeks at the second January study session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of November, General Fund expenditures total 89.8% of the adopted annual budget, which is approximately 2% under where expenditures would normally be at the end of November. Please see the attached analysis for more details. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Summary of Revenues & Expenditures Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: November 2013 Monthly Financial Report DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. The format of this report was changed part way through the year to reflect the reorganization of the former Park & Recreation and Public Works Departments. According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the reorganization made it necessary to consolidate the Park & Recreation Fund into the General Fund. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Actual expenditures should generally run at about 92% of the annual budget in November. General Fund expenditures are at 89.8% of the adopted budget in November, approximately 2% under budget. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments, such as Police & Fire Aid and DOT/Highway User Tax. A few brief comments on variances are explained below. Revenues: • License and permit revenues have been running ahead of budget all year, and in September began to exceed the total annual budget. Through the end of November, total license and permit revenues were approximately 18% or $441,000 greater than the total annual budget. Building permit activity for alterations and remodeling projects to existing commercial buildings has been much higher than expected this year. Additions and improvements to residential properties have also been strong. While some of the larger permits for projects such as the Wooddale Flats won’t occur until 2014, it is still likely that license and permit revenues could exceed budget by as much as $570,000- $590,000 when end of year revenue numbers become final. Expenditures: • Human Resources is exceeding budget at 96.6% because of recruitment expenses incurred to fill positions due to retirements. • The Engineering Department is at 118% of budget in November. End of year entries to allocate consulting costs to capital project funds will be made, which will eliminate a large part of this overage. Consultants were utilized for capital project engineering work beginning mid-year due to staff vacancies that included a Senior Project Engineer, the City Engineer, and the Director of Public Works. Engineering services relating to sidewalks and trails will also be moved from the General Fund Engineering Budget to a project fund. • The Organized Recreation Division is back on budget at 91.7% in November after running a temporary variance for the past few months due to seasonal expenses that occur for recreational activities over the summer and early fall months. • Expenditures in the Rec Center Division are exceeding budget at 95.6%. Building and equipment maintenance expenses have gone over budget due to repairs that included the boiler, air conditioning, water slide, pool vacuum, and concession equipment. Temporary salary expenditures are exceeding budget because of an added life guard and additional maintenance staffing needed to help with projects and cover vacations. Operating expenditures were also incurred for several non-routine items, including studies and assessments and to replace chairs in the gallery room and around the pool. Staff has Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: November 2013 Monthly Financial Report reviewed expenses in this division and reclassified where appropriate to capital or contingency. It is anticipated that there will be an end of year overage in this division of 3% to 5%, which would be approximately $43,000-$72,000. • The Vehicle Maintenance Division is running a very small overage at 92.5% caused by expenditures in a few areas, including fuel, tires, and equipment maintenance/repair service. As end of year numbers are finalized, this division could exceed budget slightly based on the typical winter expenses related to plowing and equipment repairs. NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time. Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of November 30, 2013 20132013201120112012201220132013 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual BudgetActual Budget Nov YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes19,426,633$ 19,372,637$ 20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 10,804,834$ 9,852,890$ 52.30% Licenses and Permits2,352,510 2,797,698 2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 2,922,374 (440,771) 117.76% Fines & Forfeits328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 263,541 71,609 78.63% Intergovernmental1,213,839 1,452,030 1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 1,273,891 26,300 97.98% Charges for Services2,247,893 2,159,300 2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,589,302 248,674 86.47% Miscellaneous Revenue1,037,550 1,164,452 1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 837,285 255,096 76.65% Transfers In2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,640,387 176,176 90.30% Investment Earnings200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00% Other Income19,750 101,588 45,600 276,273 36,650 10,311 26,339 28.13%Total General Fund Revenues29,416,251$ 30,085,699$ 29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 19,341,925$ 10,366,313$ 65.11%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 808,078$ 69,021$ 92.13% Accounting612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 827,320 749,626 77,694 90.61% Assessing500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 496,737 47,118 91.34% Human Resources652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 656,029 22,959 96.62% Community Development1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 997,283 97,234 91.12% Facilities Maintenance1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 879,234 195,686 81.80% Information Resources1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,405,539 365,338 79.37% Communications & Marketing294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 159,075 42,247 79.02% Community Outreach88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 4,496 3,689 54.93% Engineering846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 303,258 357,487 (54,229) 117.88%Total General Government7,487,653$ 7,203,238$ 7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 6,513,584$ 866,757$ 88.26% Public Safety: Police7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 6,577,666$ 865,971$ 88.37% Fire Protection3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 2,920,931 409,332 87.71% Inspectional Services1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,763,557 164,889 91.45%Total Public Safety12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 11,262,154$ 1,440,192$ 88.66% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 271,653$ 121,401$ 69.11% Public Works Operations2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,379,504 319,366 88.17% Organized Recreation1,239,230 1,266,774 1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,174,338 105,779 91.74% Recreation Center1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,386,642 63,288 95.64% Park Maintenance1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,296,450 135,375 90.55% Westwood502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 520,554 459,219 61,335 88.22% Environment371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 368,448 62,428 85.51% Vehicle Maintenance1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,147,469 92,856 92.51%Total Operations & Recreation9,512,446$ 9,604,023$ 9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 8,483,723$ 961,828$ 89.82% Non-Departmental: General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00% Transfers Out900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 45,067 134,933 25.04%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 45,067$ 134,933$ 25.04%Total General Fund Expenditures29,416,251$ 29,612,097$ 29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 26,304,528$ 3,403,710$ 88.54%Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 6) Title: November 2013 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 13, 2014 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Arts and Culture Grant Guidelines RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is for information purposes. Please advise staff of any questions or concerns you might have POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the grant guidelines consistent with the understanding and expectations of the Council regarding the Arts and Culture Grant Program? SUMMARY: The Arts and Culture Grant Program began in 2006. Grants are solicited for proposals that enhance art opportunities for residents of the City of St. Louis Park. The Arts and Culture Grant Committee reviews grant requests on an annual basis. The City designates up to $16,000 annually from the Development Fund for the grants. While the program has worked very well over the years, more specific guidelines are needed to insure there is a clear understanding of the grant program by all involved and consistency in its application. The proposed guidelines that are attached largely reflect the manner in which the program is administered currently. One change from the current practice relates to the number of people on the grant review committee. There are currently six people on the grant committee. The proposed guidelines suggest there would be nine members representing City staff, Friends of the Arts, Community Foundation, Discover St. Louis Park, and the residents of the City. The program guidelines are attached. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Arts and Culture Grant Program Guidelines Prepared by: Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Arts & Culture Grant Program Guidelines I. Mission The City of St. Louis Park through the Arts & Culture Grant Program will encourage participation, appreciation, growth and viability of the arts in the community. II. Goals A. Provide administrative direction in the allocation of Arts and Culture Grant funding to projects around 3 divisions of arts that include but not limited to: • Visual Arts: Ceramics, Drawing, Painting, Sculpture, Printmaking, Design, Crafts, Photography, Video, Film and Architecture. • Literary Arts: Poetry, Novels and Short Stories. • Performing Arts: Music, Dance, Magic, and Theater. B. B. Support Art as a viable profession. C. Lead a review committee consisting city staff, community organizations, and at- large members who will implement the process of grant review, selection and award processes. D. Promote the arts and grant opportunity through a variety of means including but not limited to media and communication. III. Strategies A. Provide a variety of grant opportunities for artists and patrons, not limited by racial, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds, or disabilities. B. Build artistic partnerships with community leaders, foundations, the private sector, non-profit groups, service organizations and faith communities that support the public art mission in the community. C. Expand opportunities and encourage the public to learn, participate, interact with and enjoy the arts. IV. Actions A. Administer grant application, review, selection and awards process. B. Support and administer funds from partnering organizations. C. Recommend marketing program, materials, and tools to advertise grant program and grantees. D. Promote grant programs and grantees by developing and implementing a marketing program. E. Investigate further opportunities through outside artistic grants and or additional funding from partnering organizations that are approved by the board. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 7) Title: Arts and Culture Grant Program Guidelines Page 2 V. Committees The Arts and Culture Grant Program committee will be made up of 10 individuals representing the City of St. Louis Park, participating community organizations and at- large members. Nine members will have voting rights and one will represent the City of St. Louis Park as a staff liaison who will not hold voting rights. Chair (1 member) Chair- Elect (1 member) Voting (7 members) Liaison (1 member) A voting committee member will have a 1 year term with the opportunity to continue on the board. Chair will be elected by the committee and serve a two year term (Chair-Elect and Chair) Committee members and Chair can be elected for more than one term. Committee will be composed of the following representatives: A. Two City of St. Louis Park Staff Representatives (appointed by City) B. Two Friends of The Arts Representatives (appointed by FoTA) C. Two Community Foundation Representatives (appointed by Foundation) D. Two Community At Large - (recommended by Chair/appointed by committee) E. One St. Louis Park Convention & Visitors Bureau (appointed by CVB) F. One City of St. Louis Park Staff Liaison (appointed staff member) The Arts and Culture Grant Committee will generally meet twice per year. Steering Committee The Arts and Culture Grant Committee will also form a Steering Committee from the group above and will have the responsibility of: A. Guide the grant calendar. B. Review application materials and evaluation processes. C. Establish and evaluate policies, structures, and funding and award mechanisms. D. Develop scoring criteria including a comprehensive list of fundable and non- fundable projects and expenses (See section IX). E. Recommend guidelines for leftover funds and scoring guidelines for non- refundable projects and/or expenses. The Steering Committee will be comprised of the following: A. One City of St. Louis Park Staff B. One Friends of The Arts Representative C. One Community Foundation Representative D. One Discover St. Louis park Visitors Bureau Representative E. The City of St. Louis Park Staff Liaison Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 7) Title: Arts and Culture Grant Program Guidelines Page 3 Staff liaison will prepare a summary of applications, update the past grantee report and compile the prior year grant awards and total holdover funds. Grant steering committee will review all applications and forward those that meet the required criteria. The Steering Committee shall meet as frequently as necessary to plan and implement the program, generally expected to be 4 times a year. VI. Grant Administration Liaison Grant Administration The following are the administrative responsibilities of the Staff Liaison: A. Providing a point of contact for applicants, grantees and community members. B. Facilitate grant application, review, selection and awards process. C. Maintaining program records including: • Meeting agendas and minutes • Summary of applications • Past grantee report • Financial awards and holdover funds • Contacts and Mailing lists D. Preparing grant application materials to adhere to the following timeline: • May: Application available for applicants • August: Application deadline for applicants • October: Application review by committee • November: Council approval of grantees and awards Committee Grant Administration The following are the administrative commitments of the Committee A. Establish and evaluate policies, structures, and funding and award mechanisms. B. Develop scoring criteria including comprehensive list of fundable and non- fundable projects and expenses. C. Promote grant programs and grantees by developing and implementing a marketing program. D. Recommend guidelines for leftover funds and scoring guidelines for non- fundable projects and/or expenses. E. Investigate further opportunities through outside artistic grants and/or additional funding from partnering organizations that are approved by the board. VII. Maintenance, Preservation and Removal The following will be considered and decided upon based on the grant project, City guidelines/polices, and agreed upon between the Arts and Culture Committee Chair, Staff Liaison, Artist and the City of St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 7) Title: Arts and Culture Grant Program Guidelines Page 4 A. Inventory/Catalog B. Ownership C. Preservation D. Maintenance E. Insurance F. Alteration G. Relocation H. Removal VIII. Funding The City of St. Louis Park will provide funds annually for the Arts and Culture Grant Program as approved by City Council. The committee may solicit other sources of funding to add to the program for future opportunities. The Arts and Culture Grant Committee will recommend grant amount awards from the allocated funds to the City Council based on the Arts and Culture Grant criteria and funding available. The Arts and Culture Grant does not fund the following grant areas: A. Multiple applications from the same organization in the same year. B. Food C. Door prizes D. Travel expenses or accommodations E. Projects that begun prior to grant awardee notification F. Organization or affiliated organization has received three grants in a five year period G. Repeat installations or performances of existing projects H. Programs that have lost funding or need replacement funding to be implemented. I. Projects or performances that require a purchase or rental of materials necessary for implementation such as: scripts, displays, photos, etc. that have been used to implement the same project elsewhere The Arts and Culture Grant generally does not fund the following areas, however steering committee may review each application and may make recommendations to the overall committee: A. School Program, including artists-in-residence and school-based events. B. Program put on by City Commissions, City Departments, etc. C. Community Education programs D. Training programs E. Lecture series Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 7) Title: Arts and Culture Grant Program Guidelines Page 5 IX. Scoring Criteria The following criteria are what the Arts and Culture Grant Committee will be using when reviewing all applications. The Committee is under no obligation to give a grant to the highest ranking applicant, or not be able to give a grant to a lower ranking applicant. • Application and budget information • Participants, Audience and Diversity • Frequency, Performance and Durability • New Applicant/Emerging Artist • Probability of Success X. Committee Contacts Supplement to this document is a list of the current Arts and Culture Grant Committee members, the organization they represent and their contact information. For more information or questions regarding the Arts and Culture Grant contact the City Liaison, Lisa Abernathy at 952-924-2539 or labernathy@stlouispark.org Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 7) Title: Arts and Culture Grant Program Guidelines Page 6 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: January 13, 2014 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on PLACE Redevelopment Concept for Former McGarvey Site RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this item is to provide an update of how staff would like to proceed regarding the PLACE project relative to the proposed digester. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support the path forward for the PLACE project relating to the proposed digester? SUMMARY: PLACE, a non-profit developer, has contacted the City to propose building a mixed-income, mixed-use, creative community at the former McGarvey site. The project would incorporate a mix of renewable energy sources, including an anaerobic digester, which would provide heat and power to the development. The project would be developed in two phases with the digester becoming operational in Quarter 3 of 2014 and ground-breaking for the mixed-use development occurring in 2015. After further research and discussion, Staff is proposing Zoning Code text amendments that establish the definitions of organic waste and an anaerobic digester, and that would allow anaerobic digesters by a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the IG-General Industrial District. A draft of the definitions and CUP are below. The following timeline is proposed for the Code amendments: 1-23-2014 Publication of notice of Public Hearing 2-5-2014 Public Hearing at Planning Commission 2-17-2014 1st reading of Ordinance Amendments 3-3-2014 2nd reading of Ordinance Amendments 3-13-2014 Publication of Ordinance Amendments 3-28-2014 Ordinance Amendments are effective PLACE would apply for a CUP for the digester under this scenario. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. There is the potential to consider TIF financing or other public/private funding strategies if the project moves forward. VISION CONSIDERATION: 1. 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. 2. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft Definitions & Conditions Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of January 14, 2013 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: Update on PLACE Redevelopment Concept for Former McGarvey Site DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: PLACE Organization PLACE is a nonprofit developer specializing in sustainable communities for the arts and economic development. Chris Velasco, President and Executive Director of PLACE, cofounded the organization with Elizabeth Bowling in 2005 to bring together the arts, environmental stewardship and social justice. Prior to starting PLACE, Chris was Vice President of Artspace, a national leader in the field of developing affordable space that meets the needs of artists through the adaptive reuse of historic buildings and new construction. Elizabeth has advanced degrees in law and public policy, focusing on community economic development. She has published in the Minnesota Law Review on affordable housing as a tool for metropolitan development, integration and social justice. Elizabeth has also participated in the development of several arts-related facilities, the design and implementation of social services programs and the creation of two charter schools. In addition to PLACE, the partners for the St. Louis Park project include: MSR Architects, Mortenson Construction, Harris Mechanical, SEaB Energy, Sea Hold, Mavitech, Siemens, Allianz, and Winthrop and Weinstein. Anaerobic Digester The anaerobic digester is an unanticipated use in the City of St. Louis Park. There are many attributes of a digester that are industrial in nature but there is not a definition in the existing zoning code that captures the function and potential externalities of this type of operation. City staff have spoken with staff at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), planning staff in other cities, an environmental planning specialist, Hennepin County organics/recycling staff and professors at the University of Minnesota. These conversations have regarded concerns such as: controlling odors, vehicular traffic, the process of energy production and how end- products of the process like bio-gas and fertilizer are handled. In the U.S. there are over 190 anaerobic digesters on farms and approximately 1,500 operating at wastewater treatment plants (American Biogas Council). Digesters are also in use at some landfills and in association with various production facilities, such as food processors. Generally, these digesters are of a much greater scale and use different inputs or processes than the system being proposed by PLACE. The system being proposed by PLACE is in use in the U.K. Due to the limited availability of precedents for a system such as that being proposed in St. Louis Park, staff finds that a new land use definition and creation of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for permitting digesters is warranted. This approach provides the City with some level of control over this use as projects may be proposed and the potential externalities they may present. The draft conditions relate to the scale of the proposed PLACE project. Draft Definitions and Conditions Food Waste means all food, including meat, poultry, seafood, and bones, dairy, bread, fruits and vegetables, cheese, eggshells, rice, beans, pasta, coffee grounds and filters, tea bags, bones and other plate scrapings, and garden food waste (e.g. tomatoes, pumpkins). Yard Waste means all garden wastes, grass clippings, leaves, weeds, holiday trees, shrub and tree waste and prunings, seasonal greenery, and woodchips that are normally generated from residential properties. Organic Waste means Food Waste, Yard Waste and items such as, but not limited to: non- recyclable paper products, and other compostable items such as full vacuum cleaner bags, dryer lint, tissues and cotton balls, floral trimmings and house plants, and compostable plastics (certified compostable plastic utensils, cups and containers). Anaerobic Digester is an enclosed system in which controlled anaerobic digestion occurs, converting organic material into end-products such as biogas, fertilizer, water or other solids. Characteristics may include truck traffic, odor or noises. (10) Anaerobic Digester. The conditions are as follows: a. Organic Waste is the only allowed input. b. No more than __ tons of organic waste per year is allowed to be processed. c. No more than __ trucks per day shall service the site. d. Organic waste shall be delivered into an enclosed container, or hopper, which is integrated into the digester system. e. All organic material must be stored in enclosed containers. f. The digester system shall implement odor controlling devices to minimize off-site odor impacts. g. Loading/unloading facilities must be screened from off-site. If the facility is adjacent to an R District the digester, and all associated operations, must occur completely within an enclosed building. h. No flaring of biogas is allowed except for occasional relief purposes, such as burning off excess biogas that exceeds onsite storage capacity. i. All necessary permits relating to items such as: emissions, solid waste processing, energy production, industrial waste water, and storm water must be obtained from the appropriate agencies. Study Session Meeting of January 13, 2014 (Item No. 8) Title: Update on PLACE Redevelopment Concept for Former McGarvey Site Page 3