Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014/11/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA NOVEMBER 24, 2014 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 8 & 15, 2014 2. 6:35 p.m. Southwest LRT Update 3. 7:20 p.m. West End Redevelopment Update 4. 7:35 p.m. City Manager’s 2014 Performance Evaluation 5. 7:50 p.m. 2015 City Council Workshop 8:05 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 8:10 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 6. Friends of the Arts Update 7. October 2014 Monthly Financial Report 8. Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal 9. East Triangle Neighborhood Redevelopment Update 10. Update on 40th & France 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: November 24, 2014 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 8 and December 15, 2014 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the regularly scheduled Study Session on December 8, 2014 and the Special Study Session scheduled for December 15, 2014. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the regularly scheduled Study Session on December 8, 2014 and the Special Study Session scheduled for December 15, 2014. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 8 & 15, 2014 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 8 and December 15, 2014 Study Session, December 8, 2014 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. 2015 Budget Discussion (if needed) – Administrative Services (30 minutes) Continued discussion, if needed, on the 2015 Budget and 2015 Property Tax Levy. 3. Southwest LRT Update – Community Development (60 minutes) Continued discussion of Southwest LRT Locally Requested Capital Investment items and process, with particular focus on the Beltline Boulevard underpass LRCI. 4. AT&T Small Cell Application – Engineering (30 minutes) AT&T has approached the City with a proposal to install “micro cell” towers in the City’s right-of-way. These facilities would be adjacent to existing Xcel energy poles, and include a small enclosure (about the size of a refrigerator). These would be located in the boulevard in front of people’s homes. The purpose of this item is to discuss this new use of the City’s right-of-way with the City Council. Verizon has also contacted the City with a similar request and it appears that it is likely that other carriers will request micro cell tower installations in City ROW. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. End of Meeting: 8:40 p.m. Reports 5. McGarvey Project Update 6. West End Redevelopment Contract Special Study Session, December 15, 2014 – Immediately following City Council Meeting Tentative Discussion Items 1. Comcast Franchise Transfer – Information Resources (45 minutes) Attorney Brian Grogan and city staff will provide an update to the Council and members of the City’s Telecommunications Commission regarding the proposed Cable TV Franchise transfer between Comcast and Midwest Cable. The update will include options for the Council to pursue as it considers approval or denial of the transfer. Council will be asked to approve or deny the transfer in early January. Reports 2. Street Smart SLP Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Southwest LRT Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on moving forward with two specific SWLRT Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs). POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to move forward on design for the two LRCIs discussed in this report? SUMMARY: A table showing the status of the city requested LRCIs is attached. Two LRCIs are the subject of the study session Monday night: the Xenwood roadway underpass at the Wooddale station; and the circulation and access improvements at the Beltline station. Drawings for each are attached. Xenwood Underpass The underpass would extend Xenwood Avenue from W. 36th Street to the Highway 7 frontage road between the former McGarvey plant site and the Cityscape apartment to provide access to these sites (see attached drawing). The municipal consent plans show that the frontage road intersection with Wooddale Avenue is expected to become a right-in/right-out access only. This roadway underpass will allow another access for traffic, and would direct traffic away from Wooddale Avenue. An additional change would be to realign the frontage road to add some of the EDA parcel to the McGarvey site to provide a larger redevelopment site. Circulation and Access Improvements at Beltline A number of circulation and access improvements at the Beltline station area have been discussed (see attached drawing). These improvements include: realigning the signal proposed at Lynn Avenue to make it a full intersection; extending Lynn Avenue to the south, connecting to a new road that would run east along the rail alignment; and improving the right-in to the park and ride site. The park and ride site as shown is expected to become a Joint Development site under the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) program, and would result in a multi-story mixed-use development with a parking ramp for the park and ride and the development. NEXT STEPS: Continued discussion at the December 8th City Council Study Session focusing on the Beltline roadway underpass. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion The Preliminary Design Plans can be found at http://www.stlouispark.org/webfiles/file/community- dev/swlrt_30percent.pdf Drawings Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Southwest LRT Update DISCUSSION Locally Requested Capital Improvements: The City will need to commit to covering design and environmental costs for the LRCIs we wish to pursue. Agreements will need to be in place by early 2015. Below is the list of the city’s LRCIs with the current status of each. For discussion purposes, #2 and #5 as highlighted in yellow are proposed for discussion at the meeting. LRCI STATUS 1. Grade separated trail crossing at Wooddale Hennepin County is undertaking the responsibility of this LRCI and along with Three Rivers Park District. The two agencies will apply for grant funds and share the design and construction costs to build a trail tunnel at Wooddale. 2. Xenwood Underpass DISCUSS design, costs, and funding responsibilities. 3. Grade separated trail bridge at Beltline Hennepin County is undertaking the responsibility of this LRCI and along with Three Rivers Park District. The two agencies will apply for grant funds and share the design and construction costs to extend the trail bridge at Beltline, in the event the roadway is not built as an underpass. 4. Beltline Blvd underpass Traffic and design information will be presented for a detailed discussion at December 8th Study Session. 5. Circulation and access improvements at Beltline Station* DISCUSS design opportunities and potential city funding responsibilities 6. A commitment to structured parking at Beltline Park & Ride Working with SPO to apply for a CMAQ grant and complete the Joint Development process to build a ramp with development. No action required at this time. 7. Ped/Bike Connection to Methodist Hospital from Lou Ave station SWLRT not intending to make improvements off of the LRT corridor. Staff will continue to work on this issue with a longer time horizon. 8. Streetscape and engineering plans to accommodate development in accordance with TSAAP plans Some of this will be covered in station area design; some will be undertaken with Connect the Park; additional improvements off of the LRT corridor are being considered in the City’s CIP. Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Southwest LRT Update LRCI Total Project Expenditure Opening day (estimated) Constr. Cost estimating Design & Environmental costs New Design Cost Estimate New Environ- mental Analysis Cost Estimate Level of Schedule Impact 9. Grade separated trail crossing at Wooddale $3.5 m $2,300,000 $230,000 $46,000 1B 10. Xenwood Underpass thru rail/lrt/trail corridor only (city would be responsible for extending street to underpass) $13-15 m $3,500,000 $350,000 $170,000 1B 11. Grade separated trail crossing at Beltline $775,000 $500,000 $50,000 $10,000 1B 12. Beltline Blvd underpass $17-23 m $11,500,000 $1,150,000 $345,000 1A 13. Circulation & access improvements at Beltline Station* $1.5 m $300,000* $30,000 $9,000 1A 14. A commitment to structured parking at Beltline Park & Ride No estimates; assumed to be covered in Joint Development project 2 15. Ped/Bike Connection to Methodist Hospital from Lou Ave station No estimates; SWLRT not intending to make improvements off of the LRT corridor. 1A 16. Streetscape and engineering plans to accommodate development in accordance with TSAAP plans No estimates; These issues will be addressed during the Advanced Design stage of the SWLRT design process. Changed to level 2 *Note: LRCI 6 entails some property acquisitions that are not included in the construction estimate. The acquisition is needed for the extension of Lynn Ave to a new “backage” road at the Beltline station. I -------------- l----------- DRAFT-WORK IN PROCESS Kimley >Horn Area for Joint Development and parking ramp City responsibility Realign intersection and semaphore Improve access points and intersection Create “backage” road By SPO Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 4 ---- ------ ---- DRAFT-WORK IN Bridge structure Trail access By SPO City responsibility Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 5 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: West End Redevelopment Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: This report is intended to update the EDA/City Council on forthcoming formal actions required for implementation of the next phases of The West End. SUMMARY: At the August 18th Special Study Session, a proposed Concept Plan for the remaining phases of The West End project was presented depicting a mix of uses including office, hotel and residential. The Plan was favorably received and staff was directed to work with the developer on the necessary formal approvals. The Amended and Restated Contract for Private Redevelopment of May 17, 2010 between the EDA, the City, and Duke Realty LP (the "Redeveloper") provides that whenever the Redeveloper wishes to convey any portion of the Redevelopment Property and assign its obligations under the Contract to a third party, the EDA and City must review and formally approve the proposed assignment. Duke is selling the eastern 14 acres of The West End development to DLC Residential which intends to construct the phases included in the proposed Concept Plan presented at the August Study Session. Collectively these proposed phases are to be named “Central Park West”. Under the proposed Assignment and Assumption, DLC agrees to comply with all the obligations and conditions of the Redevelopment Contract with Duke applicable to the subject property. Specific terms and requirements related to the development of Central Park West will be included in a proposed Second Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment. Implementation of the Central Park West Concept Plan will require approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat with variances and a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD). A Joint Powers Agreement with Golden Valley may be needed prior to final approvals in order to assign permitting, inspections and licensing responsibilities for buildings or other improvements that cross the city boundary FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All costs associated with the Redevelopment Contract (such as the EDA’s legal counsel) are to be paid by Duke Realty. VISION CONSIDERATION: This project is consistent with the City Council’s strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, and City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: West End Redevelopment Update DISCUSSION Current Conditions The eastern portion of The West End development (“subject site”) is approximately 14 acres; 8 acres of which are located in the City of St. Louis Park and 6 acres are in the City of Golden Valley. It is guided and zoned Office. Duke’s current Master Plan for the area calls for a Class “A” office park that includes approximately 1.1 million square feet of office space distributed between three or four office buildings. The office buildings are to be constructed in St. Louis Park and connected to a seven level parking structure constructed in Golden Valley. The area is currently vacant. In 2009, the cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park granted Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals for the Master Plan. In addition, a Preliminary Plat was approved for the southernmost office tower site. Since 2009, both cities have granted several extensions to the deadline for Duke Realty to submit Final PUD and Final Plat applications. Duke Realty has not proceeded with office construction due to market conditions. Revised Concept Plan DLC wishes to pursue a new Concept Plan on the subject site that includes a mix of uses. The proposed new uses would complement, enhance and become an integral part of The West End’s “urban village”. Generally, it creates a residential/hospitality district at the north end of development and an office district to the south. The new development, to be named “Central Park West” will be constructed in phases and will include the following key components and urban design features: Phase I: Approximately 199 or more multi-family residential units to be located in a multi- story building with associated underground structured parking. Reconstruction of Utica Avenue from approximately the south end of Outlot A West End Addition north to Wayzata Blvd with a boulevard in the middle to match the existing boulevard in Utica Ave south of 16th Street. Construction of a central, outdoor gathering place and public pedestrian/bicycle connection. Phase II: Approximately 164 or more multi-family residential units to be located in a multi- story building with associated underground structured parking. Between Phases I & II the Redeveloper may construct a maximum of 400 residential units. Phase III: 150 to 200-room hotel with associated surface and underground structured parking. Phase IV: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of class A office located in a multi- story building to be located adjacent to, integrated with Phases I – III including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property. Phase V: Approximately 353,353 gross square feet of class A office located in a multi- story building to be located adjacent to, integrated with Phases I – IV including underground structured parking and an adjacent, below/above grade, multi-level parking garage primarily located on the Golden Valley Property. Between Phases IV and V the Redeveloper may construct a maximum of 710,000 gross square feet of class A office space between the two office buildings. Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: West End Redevelopment Update Planning Requirements Implementation of the Central Park West Concept Plan will require approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat with variances and a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Central Park West preliminary plat proposes to subdivide the property into three lots and two outlots. The plat includes a request for subdivision variances to waive the requirements for several drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the internal lot lines. In most cases the buildings or underground parking will abut the internal lot lines, so the plan accommodates drainage and utilities elsewhere on the site. The Preliminary Planned Unit Development application includes requests for several modifications to the Office zoning district regulations to develop the proposed site plan. The modifications include setbacks, residential density, floor area ratio, landscaping and parking. The setback, floor area ratio and landscaping requests are similar to the modifications preliminarily approved for the previous office only site plan. The other modifications are unique to the residential and hotel uses. The residential densities proposed for Central Park West are similar to the densities allowed for the nearby Flats at West End and Millennium at West End. Staff is recommending approval of preliminary plat and preliminary PUD. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications on November 19, 2014. No one attended the public hearing and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application with conditions (6-0 vote). As noted previously, the overall development includes property in both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Each city will hold public hearings and act upon the zoning applications. The Golden Valley Planning Commission will hold an informal public hearing on November 24, 2014. Joint Powers Agreement The Central Park West site plan includes at least two structures that will cross the municipal boundary, including the Phase I multi-family residential building and the Phase IV and Phase V parking structures. It would be especially challenging for each city (and for the developer) if each City were to issue building permits, perform inspections, and administer licensing regulations for a single building or structure. Therefore, staff would recommend the cities enter into a Joint Powers Agreement in order to divide and assign such responsibilities. While the Joint Powers Agreement could extend to other services, as well, it is not clear if that will be necessary and desirable for both cities. Preliminary staff discussions are underway with Golden Valley to outline a draft agreement. Next Steps The Assignment and Assumption, Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Contract, the Preliminary Plat and PUD are tentatively scheduled for formal consideration at the December 15th EDA and City Council meetings. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Consent Agenda Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: City Manager’s 2014 Performance Evaluation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests direction to begin the performance evaluation process for the City Manager. POLICY CONSIDERATION: How would the City Council wish to proceed for the City Manager’s 2014 annual performance evaluation? BACKGROUND: The employment agreement between the City and the City Manager states that “the City may conduct an annual review of the Manager’s performance.” The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide feedback to the City Manager on performance so that he can strive for continuous performance improvement based on City Council expectations. Over the years Council has used different methods to provide performance feedback to the City Manager. These methods ranged from completing the process “in-house” assisted by staff, to hiring consultants. For the past several years we have used the attached instrument to provide feedback from Council, Directors, and Tom himself; then a consultant summarized the data and facilitated a performance discussion with Tom and the City Council. Options for this year include: • A new method that could be used for the 2014 evaluation is to have Tom prepare a year in review summary of work/projects and goals accomplished and have Tom draft 3 to 5 goals for Council to review/modify/set for 2015. • Or, as in the past, Council could use or modify the performance evaluation form based on criteria determined by Council, along with continued work with consultants to facilitate performance discussions, • Another option would be to utilize a formal 360 degree evaluation tool, using “in-house” staff (Organizational Development Coordinator Bridget Gothberg) to facilitate the performance discussion, • Or other performance evaluation models as requested by Council. When Council determines how to proceed, Human Resources will make arrangements to implement the process. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds from Human Resources Budget would be used for this project. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable Attachments: Appraisal Form Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: City Manager’s 2014 Performance Evaluation City of St. Louis Park CITY MANAGER APPRAISAL FORM Rater’s Name: _____________________ CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH CATEGORY PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN Organizational Management & Leadership Exceeds Expectations Successful Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Don’t Know Communication Skills and Public Relations Exceeds Expectations Successful Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Don’t Know Relationship with the City Council Exceeds Expectations Successful Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Don’t Know Interagency Relations Exceeds Expectations Successful Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Don’t Know Long Range Planning Exceeds Expectations Successful Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Don’t Know Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: City Manager’s 2014 Performance Evaluation CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH CATEGORY PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN Staff Supervision/Overall Performance of City Staff Exceeds Expectations Successful Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Don’t Know Fiscal/Business Management Exceeds Expectations Successful Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Don’t Know OTHER COMMENTS: ___________________________________________________________ Signature Date Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2015 City Council Workshop RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires to discuss and receive feedback from the City Council on the focus area(s) for the upcoming workshop. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What should the focus be for the 2015 City Council Workshop that will be most productive and impactful for the coming year? SUMMARY: The 2015 Workshop is scheduled for the late afternoon and evening of Thursday, January 15 and all day on Friday, January 16. A specific location for the workshop has not yet been identified. The practice has been to structure these workshops to discuss and reinforce the governance structure of the City, continue relational learning, and a focused discussion on one or two high level policy questions/topics. Staff suggests that the agenda for Thursday continue with the tradition of discussing governance and relational learning. Staff realizes that this discussion may be a bit redundant for some who have experienced it multiple times. However, staff would also submit that the ongoing annual discussion around governance and council relationships is one significant reason why the City Council has been high performing. I would also note that for most cities this type of discussion does not take place, or is not possible to take place. As for the agenda for Friday, staff is looking for direction from the Council as to the topic(s) for discussion. Given the Council’s heavy use of study sessions to discuss topics pertinent at that time, staff would suggest that the focus for Friday be at a much higher/big bowl level. A discussion relating to goal setting may be something to consider. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Expenses associated with this Workshop have been incorporated into the 2015 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: All areas of Vision could be impacted by the discussion at the workshop. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Friends of the Arts Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is needed at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the activities of Friends of the Arts? SUMMARY: The City has been working with Friends of the Arts in a partnership since 2006 and contributes $20,000 annually to their operation to further the arts in the community. One of the most visible things that Friends of the Arts (FOTA) sponsors is the “Our Town” project which occurs every other year. Past “Our Town” projects include Faces and Places, Verses and Voices, Beats and Streets and in 2014 it was Arts and Nature. FOTA has a very successful “Arts for Life” scholarship program. This grant awards money to aspiring artists of all kinds. They have awarded grants to sixteen different recipients this year. One more round of giving will occur this year, with a December 5 deadline. Recipients of the scholarship included adults, high school students and youth. The Community Foundation granted FOTA $2,500 for youth specific Arts for Life scholarships in 2015. The City o f St. Louis Park, in cooperation with FOTA, provides Arts and Culture Grants to residents wanting to do art projects around the City. Each year the City budgets $16,000 for these grants. Recipients are chosen by a committee made up of community members. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Staff recommends supporting FOTA by contributing $20,000 for 2015. This is included in the proposed 2015 Development Fund budget. FOTA uses the funding from the city to help sustain their operations and leverage funds for grants and donations. Their annual budget is $52,000 for 2014, which includes this year’s “Our Town”, which is on budget at $7,000. Their budget for 2015 is expected to be $45,000, which is slightly reduced from 2014 as next year is not an “Our Town” year. All funds for scholarships are provided by contributions from individuals and foundations. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Summary of FOTA Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Friends of the Arts Update Summary of where FOTA is and what is next: 2014-2015 As a small, community-focused, nonprofit, SLP Friends of the Arts (FOTA) has developed and grown in an organic way; Partnering on programs that are a good fit Serving needed functions for smaller, less established arts groups who do not have the capacity to become nonprofits Providing funding for community members to grow in the arts Funding for artists and organizations to bring arts to the park Serving as the go-to resource for the arts in St Louis Park The strong arts foundation in our community continues to shine and grow. Twin Cities Film Festival just wrapped up another year at the West End, continuing their great success. We have been collaborating with them, The Park Theater Company and Discover St Louis Park. Last month Maggie’s Farm Theater had theater productions every weekend at the Lenox community center. The Board and Staff: There has been change this year with our board and staff. Our office administrator left to pursue her career and we received an MRAC grant to hire an Executive Director. After going through candidates and interviews, we hired our first Executive Director. Unfortunately our paths and visions didn’t align and had to split ways in the middle of the year and the Our Town Program. Our volunteer board stepped up and we completed one of the most successful Our Town programs to date. With Our Town complete, FOTA will now focus on filling that position, so the board can focus on establishing, supporting and growing the arts in St Louis Park. 2014 Our Town The 2014 Our Town, Arts and Nature, was one of our most successful to date. This year’s Our Town was centered around art in nature. FOTA partnered with residents, local artists, Westwood Nature Center, the City, DSLP, Jean Stephan Gallery and the Shoppes at West End. • We partnered with local sketching artist and fellow board member Pam Luer to offer an instructor led summer long (6 weeks) sketching course held at Westwood Nature Center • We partnered with the Westwood Nature Center to offer a Plein Air (outdoor) painting weekend • We partnered with local artist Connie Cohen to offer summer long glass mosaic workshops where residents participated in 2-3 hour long courses to create their own 10”, 12” or 15” glass mosaics • To celebrate these summer long activities, we partnered with West End to create a custom, permanent art installation from the glass mosaics and a weekend long art exhibit featuring artists from the Plein Air weekend, artists from the sketching workshop, local SLP artists and artists from all over Minnesota Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Friends of the Arts Update 2014 Our Town Stats: 10+ Artists participated in the Plein Air weekend 20+ Artists participated in the sketching course 30+ SLP artists applied to the exhibit 70+ Pieces submitted to the show by SLP artists 100+ Artists outside SLP applied to the show 125+ People participated in the mosaic workshops 250+ Total pieces submitted to the show 1000+ People attended the weekend event Arts for Life The Arts for Life scholarship program remains well-funded and distributing awards quarterly. FOTA recently submitted a grant to the community foundation and was approved for $2,500 to go toward the Arts for Life program. Arts & Culture Grants The Arts & Culture committee will be meeting in the upcoming weeks to decide on the 2014 grant submissions. The City has funded the Arts & Culture program $16,000. The committee, along with parks and rec staff, has worked very hard this past year to document the entire program, from who is on the committee, how money is spent, the entire process and more. They have also created a revision that all money does not have to be given away each year and that the funds can be carried over to the next year to fund grants or even a larger project. Fiscal Agencies Friends of the Arts serves as fiscal agent for four arts organizations with a standard agreement for each; Maggie’s Farm Theater, Community Band, St. Louis Park Junior High Theater, Park Theater Company and Bookmark in the Park Operations and Management In 2015 we will have a large focus on staff and redefining board positions, responsibilities and committees, which will help structure our organization and allow FOTA to focus on art in St Louis Park. We continue to have excellent executive leadership and we continue to actively recruit new board members. Several of our board members act as liaisons with other local and state organizations, furthering our relationship building objectives. Marketing/ Communications Our Membership and Communication Committees continue to develop and will be a strong focus in 2015. Press: We submit press releases to and receive press coverage from local media; particularly Sun Sailor, SLP Mag and SLP Patch. We have been working closely with the SLP Magazine and they have been providing wonderful coverage of FOTA, the arts and the theater in SLP. Park TV routinely publicizes our events Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Title: Friends of the Arts Update Website: We created a new website at the end of 2010. Since then it has been a great source of everything FOTA and arts in the Park. Every year, the traffic has steadily grown; • 2010 had 1,028 hits • 2011 had 41,578 hits • 2015 had 62,810 hits • 2013 had 87,691 hits • 2014 has 172,610 hits (double our previous and best year) Newsletter: Our monthly Art Talk e-newsletter is distributed to over 800 community members and has a 30% average open rate. Email communication: On average, we receive around 300 emails and send over 100 emails per month. Finance Board Treasurer, Sandy Hicks, has been with us 3 years. She worked with local agency to prepare and file our 2013 tax returns. Detailed and comprehensive financial reports are presented and review Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: October 2014 Monthly Financial Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of October, General Fund expenditures total approximately 80.2% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 3% under where expenditures would normally be through October. 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 November 24, 2014 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: October 2014 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. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Actual expenditures should generally run at about 83% of the annual budget at the end of October. Currently, General Fund expenditures are at approximately 80.2% of the adopted budget. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A few brief comments on specific variances are noted below. Revenues: • License and permit revenues have already exceeded the total annual budget for the year at 111.7% through October. Business and liquor license revenues are exceeding the annual budgeted amount by 7% or $46,000. Permit revenues are also exceeding the annual budget through October by 13.5% or $270,000. Based on typical permit activity during the last quarter for the past several years, staff estimates that license and permit revenue could exceed the annual budget by as much as 20% in 2014. • Fine revenues continue to exceed budget by about 10%. Liquor violation and police court fines are running higher than budget and higher than the previous year. Expenditures: • Administration is showing a budget variance of about 1.5% at the end of October because of temporary employee expense for election judges. This is expected to only be a temporary variance, and an end of year overage is not anticipated. There were also election costs of just under $25,000 that were incurred by the City for the County Commissioner election last spring, which have been reimbursed by Hennepin County. The offsetting revenue for these expenses appears under Intergovernmental Revenue. • The Accounting Division continues to be over budget because of the property and liability insurance premium expense. A budget amendment will be proposed in December to more accurately reflect the insurance costs. • Human Resources expenditures are exceeding budget because of unbudgeted expenses related to the Health in the Park program. These additional expenses total over $100,000 and are offset by unbudgeted grant revenues, which means there is no net effect on the overall budget. • Police has an overage of about 1% in October primarily due to necessary overtime expense for position vacancies in Dispatch. Staff is continuing to monitor personal services expenses to determine if an end of year overage will be anticipated. • Inspections is currently about 6% under budget for expenditures in large part because of the Chief Building Official position, which has been vacant for several months. Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: October 2014 Monthly Financial Report • Public Works Administration continues to have an overage which relates to a staffing allocation. The variance is caused by a budget allocation change for one of the admin positions splitting time between City Hall and the Municipal Service Center. The additional payroll expenses in Public Works Administration are offset in the Public Works Engineering budget, which is well under budget due to this and also the City Engineer position that has been vacant. A budget amendment will be proposed for these and other personnel related items in December. • The Organized Recreation Division shows an expenditure variance of about 3.5% due to the fact that the full Community Education contribution for 2014 of $187,400 was paid to the school district early in the year. The timing of this payment is consistent with prior years, and the variance is expected to be eliminated by end of year. • The Rec Center Division’s temporary variance continues to improve from 7% in September to 4% through October. It is typical and consistent with prior years for there to be a variance following the summer pool season, because the annual budget for temporary seasonal staff has been fully spent. NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time. Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of October 31, 2014 20142014201220122013201320142014 Balance YTD Budget BudgetActual BudgetAudited Budget Oct YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 21,987,968$ 21,157,724$ 11,118,240$ 10,039,484$ 52.55% Licenses and Permits2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 3,069,088 2,691,518 3,007,073 (315,555) 111.72% Fines & Forfeits328,150 341,356 335,150 311,882 320,150 299,695 20,455 93.61% Intergovernmental1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 2,031,355 1,282,777 1,230,186 52,591 95.90% Charges for Services2,341,104 2,169,631 1,837,976 1,779,259 1,857,718 1,559,846 297,872 83.97% Miscellaneous Revenue1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 1,067,210 1,112,369 1,023,514 88,855 92.01% Transfers In2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,805,223 1,837,416 1,510,347 327,069 82.20% Investment Earnings125,000 136,415 150,000 14,180 150,000 - 150,000 0.00% Other Income45,600 276,273 36,650 10,756 17,950 11,760 6,190 65.52%Total General Fund Revenues29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 29,708,238$ 32,076,921$ 30,427,622$ 19,760,661$ 10,666,961$ 64.94%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 890,883$ 939,391$ 797,299$ 142,092$ 84.87% Accounting641,691 639,999 827,320 819,458 767,094 677,210 89,884 88.28% Assessing517,840 518,271 543,855 543,202 559,749 464,010 95,739 82.90% Human Resources667,612 645,357 678,988 731,634 693,598 639,697 53,901 92.23% Community Development1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 1,090,213 1,151,467 930,173 221,294 80.78% Facilities Maintenance1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 1,058,127 1,053,715 825,279 228,436 78.32% Information Resources1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,597,993 1,456,979 1,203,922 253,057 82.63% Communications & Marketing265,426 244,392 201,322 170,013 566,801 380,035 186,766 67.05% Community Outreach8,185 5,341 8,185 (22,450) 8,185 5,292 2,893 64.65% Engineering927,337 939,425 303,258 296,383 506,996 146,034 360,962 28.80%Total General Government7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,380,341$ 7,175,456$ 7,703,975$ 6,068,951$ 1,635,024$ 78.78% Public Safety: Police7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 7,225,579$ 7,571,315$ 6,395,824$ 1,175,491$ 84.47% Fire Protection3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 3,246,162 3,458,161 2,845,390 612,771 82.28% Inspectional Services1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,932,021 2,006,200 1,543,488 462,712 76.94%Total Public Safety12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 12,403,762$ 13,035,676$ 10,784,702$ 2,250,974$ 82.73% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 288,207$ 222,994$ 194,888$ 28,106$ 87.40% Public Works Operations2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 2,720,563 2,625,171 1,941,151 684,020 73.94% Organized Recreation1,305,747 1,352,273 1,280,117 1,256,678 1,290,038 1,121,388 168,650 86.93% Recreation Center1,466,246 1,516,121 1,449,930 1,501,627 1,543,881 1,349,563 194,318 87.41% Park Maintenance1,461,645 1,444,448 1,431,825 1,424,139 1,423,011 1,153,210 269,801 81.04% Westwood515,456 506,404 520,554 503,309 531,853 420,544 111,309 79.07% Environment390,009 382,378 430,876 434,297 433,750 303,843 129,907 70.05% Vehicle Maintenance1,188,705 1,326,153 1,240,325 1,268,559 1,285,489 1,073,315 212,174 83.49%Total Operations & Recreation9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,445,551$ 9,397,379$ 9,356,187$ 7,557,902$ 1,798,285$ 80.78% Non-Departmental: General -$ 65,292$ -$ 256,627$ 4,000$ 1,126$ 2,874$ 28.16% Transfers Out- 1,160,000 - 60,000 - - - 0.00% Tax Court Petitions180,000 - 180,000 53,345 327,784 - 327,784 0.00%Total Non-Departmental180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 369,972$ 331,784$ 1,126$ 330,658$ 0.34%Total General Fund Expenditures29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 29,708,238$ 29,346,569$ 30,427,622$ 24,412,681$ 6,014,941$ 80.23%Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 7) Title: October 2014 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide the Council a copy of the Environment and Sustainability Commission’s draft policy that will be formally presented for discussion with the Council in December. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy (EPP) consistent with the City Council’s adopted Strategic Direction related to being a leader in environmental stewardship? SUMMARY: The Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) created several work groups to study areas of sustainable practices within the City. The environmentally preferred purchasing work group was one of these, with the goal of looking at key areas in the City’s purchasing practices to see if the City is making the most sustainable choices and finding ways to improve those practices. The group met with and interviewed City Staff and reviewed purchasing policies from other cities across the country including Minneapolis. While at this point the proposed policy focuses on paper, office supplies and ink, IT devices, and green cleaning, the work group envisions expanding the scope of EPP to other areas such as transportation and service contracts. The City of St. Louis Park operates in a decentralized purchasing process, which means that it is up to each of the City departments to ensure they are making acceptable purchases with appropriate signatures for approval. Because of this method of operations, it has been recommended by the finance department that the E-group, an inter-departmental group which addresses environmental issues within the City, lead this initiative. Highlighted changes in the policy attached reflect this recommendation. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed policy is anticipated to have minimal financial impacts. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed EPP – with Staff Comments Highlighted Advisory Communication from the ESC Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Project Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal City of St. Louis Park Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy For City Council Review I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE A. The goal of this policy is to encourage and increase purchasing that reflects the City’s commitment to being an environmental leader. This policy may be amended or superseded in the future to also include broader aspects of sustainability. These aspects may include, but are not limited to: local sourcing, ethical business practices, responsible treatment of workers, child labor prevention, human rights, safety and wellness, fair trade, transparency, economic equality and social justice. This policy for purchasing is adopted in order to: Promote environmental factors such as: • conserving natural resources, • conserving energy, • minimizing environmental impacts such as pollution, • minimizing use of water • eliminating or reducing toxics that create hazards to workers and our community, • supporting strong recycling markets, • reducing materials that are landfilled, and • creating a model for successfully purchasing environmentally preferable products that encourages other purchasers in our community to adopt similar goals. Promote fiscal factors such as: • Decreasing lifecycle costs by addressing full cost accounting (purchase, maintenance, disposal, staff time, and labor). • Minimizing waste and its associated costs B. This policy will apply to all City departments and employees, vendors, contractors and grantees for all products and services provided to the City. C. This policy is subject to the requirements and preferences in the Municipal Contracting Law (MN. Statue 471.345), the St. Louis Park Purchasing Policy and all other applicable laws and ordinances. D. This policy adheres to or exceeds the Admin Minnesota Materials Management Division Environmentally Responsible Purchasing Policy: http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/envir.htm. All Minnesota Legislative and Executive Order Requirements in the State policy shall be followed by the City of St. Louis Park unless superseded by this city policy. Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal II. EFFECTIVE DATE This policy will take effect on January 1, 2015. III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. Implementation All City departments are responsible for implementation of this policy and to ensure their respective employees and contractors are fully aware and supportive of the City’s policy to purchase environmentally preferable goods and services. All departments are responsible to: • evaluate environmentally preferable products to determine the extent to which they may be used by the department and its contractors, • facilitate data collection on purchases of designated environmentally preferable products to assist the E-Group. by the department in order to assist the City Controller. B. Responsible Parties The City Controller will administer this policy. Each department head will have the responsibility of ensuring compliance within his or her department and annual reporting to the E-Group. City Controller. C. Accountability Measures The E-Group City Controller will issue the first annual report within one year following the effective date of this policy and annually thereafter. The report will be to Sustainable SLP, covering the: • Status of this policy’s implementation, • Information on total purchases of environmentally preferable products, • Financial implications, • Overall challenges, and • Recommendations for the future. IV. DEFINITIONS Environmentally preferable products and services as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) means products and services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared to competing products and services that serve the same purpose. This applies to raw material acquisition, as well as product manufacturing, distribution, use, maintenance, and disposal. When determining whether a product is environmentally preferable, the following standards should be considered: • Available locally • Bio based / Biodegradable • Carcinogen-free • Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) free Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal • Compostable • Durable, reusable or refillable • Energy and water efficient • Heavy metal free (i.e. no lead, mercury, cadmium) • Low toxicity • Low volatile organic compound (VOC) content • Made from renewable products • Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) free • Recycled Content/recyclable • Reduced packaging • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions • Refurbished/refurbish able ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM D6400-04 – the standard specifications for compostable plastic in the US. Available locally – that one or more businesses within the county/city or immediate surrounding areas are able to provide goods and services in a timely manner, and in sufficient quantity and quality to meet a specific department/agency need at a competitive cost. Bio-Based Product – commercial or industrial products (other than food or feed) that utilize plant based contents and residuals but does not include products made from forestry materials. Biodegradable – the ability of a substance, material, or product ingredient to readily decompose by the action of microbes. Buyer – anyone authorized to purchase on behalf of this jurisdiction or its subdivisions. Chlorofluorocarbon, (CFC) – the family of compounds of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon. CFC’s contribute to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, and have been used as an ingredient for refrigerants, solvents, and for blowing plastic-foam insulation and packaging. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer calls for complete elimination of CFC production. Contractor – any person, group of persons, business, consultant, designing architect, association, partnership, corporation, supplier, vendor or other entity that has a contract with the City of St. Louis Park, serves in a subcontracting capacity with an entity having a contract, or is otherwise hired by the City of St. Louis Park for the provision of goods or services. Dioxins and furans – a group of chemical compounds that are classified as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic by the Environmental Protection Agency. Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal Energy Star – the US EPA’s energy efficiency product labeling program described at http://www.energystar.gov Energy Efficient Product – a product that is in the upper 25% of energy efficiency for all similar products, or that is at least 10% more efficient than the minimum level that meets Federal standards. Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) – an easy-to-use, on-line tool helping institutional purchasers select and compare computer desktops, laptops and monitors based on their environmental attributes. Energy Star – the US EPA’s energy efficiency product labeling program: http://www.energystar.gov Information Technology – shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following devices: Laptops, Tablets, Desktops, Smart Phones, Servers, Networking devices, Telecom devices, Televisions, Projectors, Audio and Photocopiers. Green building – the incorporation of environmental, health, and waste prevention criteria in building design, site-planning and preparation, materials acquisition, construction or remodeling, deconstruction, and waste disposal. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) – a non-profit organization that promotes social, economic and environmental sustainability. It produces one of the world's most prevalent standards for sustainability reporting which can be used by organizations to report and research sustainability practices. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) – the self-assessing system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council designed for rating new and existing commercial, institutional, and high-rise residential buildings. Credits are earned for satisfying defined criteria and standards. Different levels of green building certification are awarded based on the total credits earned. Light Emitting Diode (LED) – a highly efficient and long lasting form of interior & exterior illumination. Postconsumer Material – a finished material which would normally be disposed of as a solid waste, having reached its intended end-use and completed its life cycle as a consumer item, and does not include manufacturing or converting wastes. Practicable – whenever possible and compatible with state and federal law, without reducing safety, quality, or effectiveness. Pre-consumer Material – material or by-products generated after manufacture of a product is completed but before the product reaches the end-use consumer. Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 6 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal Post-consumer recycled material – material that has been discarded for disposal or recovery, having completed its life as a consumer item, and is used as a raw material for new products. Recovered Material – fragments of products or finished products of a manufacturing process, which has converted a resource into a commodity of real economic value, and includes pre-consumer and postconsumer material but does not include excess resources of the manufacturing process. Recyclable – a material or product that can be reprocessed, remanufactured, or reused. Recycled Content – the percentage of recovered material, including pre-consumer and postconsumer materials, in a product. Recycled Content Standard – the minimum level of recovered material and/or postconsumer material necessary for products to qualify as recycled products. Recycled Product – a product that meets the City’s recycled content policy objectives for postconsumer and recovered material. Remanufactured Product – any product diverted from the supply of discarded materials by refurbishing and marketing said product without substantial change to its original form. Reused Product – any product designed to be used many times for the same or other purposes without additional processing Source Reduction – the net reduction in generation of waste and toxic constituents US EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines – the most current policies established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for federal agency purchases. Water-Saving Products – products in the upper 25% of water conservation for all similar products, or at least 10% more water-conserving than the minimum level that meets the Federal standards. V. GENERAL CONDITIONS A. Source Reduction A.1. Products that are durable, long lasting, reusable or refillable are preferred when feasible. A.2. Vendors will be encouraged whenever practicable to take back and reuse pallets and packaging materials. A.3. City funds will not be used to purchase single-use bottled water unless it is necessary to protect public health. Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 7 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal B. Recycled Content Products B.1. Printing paper, office paper and paper products will minimally meet the minimum recycled content standards established by the US EPA that meets the minimum recycled content standards established by the US EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. 100% post-consumer recycled content is strongly preferred if fiscally possible (within a 10% lifecycle cost increase over the aforementioned product, for example). Any non-recycled paper content must be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). B.2. Janitorial paper products will minimally meet the minimum recycled content standards established by the US EPA that meets the minimum recycled content standards established by the US EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. 100% post-consumer recycled content is strongly preferred if fiscally possible (within a 10% lifecycle cost increase over the aforementioned product, for example). Any non-recycled paper content must be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). C. Electronics C.1. The responsibility for this policy will be those City of St. Louis Park employees whose job functions include the operations management for city owned facilities (i.e., offices, garages, out buildings) or purchasing of energy consuming equipment (i.e. Information Technology). These individuals are responsible for ensuring that this policy is executed and updated over time. C.2. Where applicable, energy-efficient Information Technology equipment will be purchased with the most up-to-date energy efficiency functions. When necessary, suppliers or manufacturers will train equipment operators and maintenance personnel in the proper enabling and use of energy efficient and sleep mode functions on their equipment. C.3. All appliances and products purchased by the City and for which the US EPA Energy Star certification is available will meet Energy Star certification. Typically, this would include lighting, heating, exhaust fans, water heaters, computers, exit signs, and appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers and microwave ovens. Purchased electronic products meeting EPA Energy Star standards are highly encouraged. C.4. When Energy Star labels are not available, use energy efficient products that are in the upper 25% of energy efficiency as designated by the Federal Energy Management Program. C.5. City will install and maintain energy saving devices (i.e. motion sensor lighting) within city owned or maintained facilities where the payback on the device is less than ten (10) years. Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 8 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal C.6. The city will purchase and maintain only rechargeable battery systems for common household sizes: AA, AAA, etc. Disposable batteries will only be purchased in the event that no rechargeable option exists or if there are significant reasons why a rechargeable battery system is suboptimal. C.7. Lifecycle thinking should be employed when choosing the most suitable device. For example, longer life and lower end of life impacts of LED lighting can offset initial price premium over fluorescent lighting. D. Water Conservation D.1. The City will purchase water-saving products whenever practicable. This includes, but is not limited to, high-performance fixtures like toilets, waterless urinals, low-flow faucets and aerators, and upgraded irrigation systems. E. Green Cleaning E.1. Green Cleaning Roles The responsible party for this policy is the St. Louis Park Facilities Maintenance Supervisor. He or she is responsible for ensuring that this policy is executed and that any contracted cleaning vendors under management’s control are aware of and fully trained on the procedures outlined in this policy. He or she is responsible for reviewing this policy for any significant changes on the interval specified in the quality assurance section. If at any time updates are required to this policy, he or she will ensure that the appropriate individuals are informed of the updates. E.2. Green Cleaning Responsibilities The Facilities Maintenance Supervisor will evaluate the green cleaning policy on a quarterly basis to evaluate progress towards the implementation goals. He or she will evaluate the results of the cleaning audits to determine whether the building is being sufficiently cleaned and whether the standard cleaning procedures are being properly executed. As necessary, the responsible party will revise the green cleaning policy to include additional cleaning strategies or modify existing cleaning strategies. E.3. Purchasing Criteria – Cleaning Products and Materials Cleaning products must meet one or more of the following standards: • Green Seal GS-37, Green Seal GS-40 • EPA Design for the Environment Program’s Standard for Safer Cleaning Products. • Hand soaps and hand sanitizers contain no antimicrobial agents except where required by health codes and other regulations (food service and health care requirements) and meet Green Seal GS-41. • Hand sanitizers meet UL 2783 standard for Instant Hand Antiseptics. Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 9 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal E.4. Purchasing Criteria – Cleaning Contracts & Services Strategies for reducing toxicity in contracted cleaning activities: • Cleaning staff and building occupants will be supplied with safe cleaning chemicals that meet the sustainability criteria described in the purchasing guidelines above. • Hard floors, including tile, concrete, and wood surfaces, will be cleaned with only sustainable cleaning products. No stripping or coatings will be applied to hard floor surfaces. • Microfiber cloth and other sustainable high performance cleaning techniques will replace traditional cleaning activities. • Ionized water-only surface cleaning devices will be used as much as possible. • Cleaning chemicals will be labeled and stored in locked, demarcated areas. • Material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the cleaning chemicals will be displayed in storage areas. Strategies for conserving energy, water, and chemicals used for cleaning: • Manual-powered equipment and cleaning strategies will be used whenever practicable to reduce the energy and water used by powered equipment and typical cleaning strategies. • Cold water will be used when possible to reduce energy used to heat hot water. • Vacuum filters and other applicable equipment will be changed frequently to enable air flow and reduce the energy consumption of the equipment. • When cleaning chemicals are necessary, the operating procedures for chemical dilution will be followed to ensure that the minimum amount of cleaning chemicals necessary is used. Training plan and tracking plan for water, energy, and toxic chemical usage: • A training plan will be developed to ensure all new staff understand this policy. • Every time a toxic chemical is used, it must be reported to the St. Louis Park Facilities Maintenance Supervisor with a record of which chemical was used, where it was applied, and the reason for its use. F. Toxics and Pollution F.1. All City Departments and Agencies are prohibited from purchasing or acquiring polystyrene foam disposable food service ware and where affordable will use biodegradable or compostable products. Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Page 10 Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal G. Waste Minimization G.1. St. Louis Park requires vendors to eliminate packaging or use the minimum amount necessary for product protection, to the greatest extent practicable. G.2. Packaging that is reusable, recyclable or compostable is preferred, when suitable uses and programs exist. G.3. Vendors will be encouraged to take back and reuse pallets and packaging materials. G.4. Suppliers of electronic equipment, including but not limited to computers, monitors, printers, and copiers, will be required to take back equipment for reuse or environmentally safe recycling when St. Louis Park discards or replaces such equipment, whenever practicable. H. Producer Responsibility H.1. The City of St. Louis Park will, whenever practicable, favor products that are manufactured by companies that take financial and/or physical responsibility for collecting, recycling, reusing, or otherwise safely disposing of their products and packaging at the end of their useful life. I. Future Focus I.1. This policy is intended to be a living document that will serve the City for years to come even while sustainability standards evolve. Future policy topics may include, but are not limited to: guidelines on fleet vehicles, purchased landscape materials and services, city building retrofits, city infrastructure service and material procurement, and purchased energy. ADVISORY COMMUNICATION TITLE: St. Louis Park City Council FROM: St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) DATE: November 19, 2014 SUBJECT: Recommended Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal ACTION REQUESTED: The ESC commission would like the City Council to consider adopting an Environmentally Preferred Purchasing (EPP). BACKGROUND: Over the past nine months, a work group of the ESC has been tasked with creating a policy in which the City of St. Louis Park examines the environmental impacts of supplies and materials it purchases for use in everyday activities. The project began with an assessment of the City’s purchasing of IT equipment, paper and cleaning products in order to better understand current policies and practices related to environmentally preferable purchasing. The group conducted extensive research which includes staff interviews, examination of other cities policies and product evaluation. While this phase of the evaluation focused on office and cleaning supplies, it is the intent of the EPP workgroup to continue to evaluation other areas of spending in the City and add to the policy as necessary. RECOMENDATION: The Environment and Sustainability Commission recommends that the City of St. Louis Park adopt the Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policy. Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 8) Title: Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Proposal Page 11 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Written Report: 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: East Triangle Neighborhood Redevelopment Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. The purpose of this item is to respond to Council questions raised at the November 10, 2014 Study Session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Council willing to consider land use reguidance and rezoning of properties at 3907 & 3915 Hwy 7, considering that one building is recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? SUMMARY: City staff and Bader Development presented a redevelopment concept at the November 10, 2014 Council Study Session which includes the ASAP building located at 3907 Hwy 7. The developer proposes to remove the existing buildings and replace them with approximately 150 apartment units, including 30 affordable units, and 10,000 square feet of ground-floor office space along with underground and surface parking. The proposed building would front on CSAH 25 and be 5 stories tall. The Council asked staff to research the City’s ability to initiate having the ASAP building listed on the National Register. Due to the fact that the property has already been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office, and recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register, there is no further action the Council could pursue. Ultimately, the decision to list a property or not on the National Register, and whether to demolish the building or not, lies with the property owner. If there is federal involvement in the project, such as funding or permitting, then further review may be required. The findings of the review process may require certain mitigation measures, which still may not preclude demolition, but this is only if federal money is used. The Council also expressed concern over the loss of single-family homes in the City. Staff reviewed permits back to 2011 and found that 35 single-family homes have been demolished since that time. Of those 35 demolitions, three homes were for new multi-family buildings, seven were demolished and the property was simply filled in, and 23 were for new single-family homes. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: In order for the proposed project to be financially feasible, Bader Development will likely apply for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance. The amount of financial assistance necessary for the project has yet to be determined. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Supervisor Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager and EDA Executive Director Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 2 Title: East Triangle Neighborhood Redevelopment DISCUSSION Redevelopment Proposal The proposed project is located in the Triangle Neighborhood bordered by CSAH 25 on the north, 31st Street on the south, France Avenue on the east and Glenhurst Avenue on the west. Bader Development has option agreements to acquire 3907 & 3915 Highway 7, 3013 Glenhurst, and 3914 & 3918 31st St. (namely the ASAP printing and Battlefield Book Store and the residential properties behind them). The developer proposes to remove the current buildings and replace them with a residential development that includes some commercial space. The current development concept consists of approximately 150 apartment units, including 30 affordable units, and 10,000 square feet of ground-floor office space along with underground and surface parking. The proposed building would front on CSAH 25 and be 5 stories tall. In order for the proposed project to proceed, all properties would need to be reguided and rezoned. A mixed use project of this scale will also require a PUD. Staff will work with Bader Development on applicable zoning regulations. Additionally, tax increment assistance will likely be needed to defray a portion of the affordable housing, building demolition, site preparation, and structured parking costs. The precise amount of financial assistance necessary for the proposed project has yet to be determined. ASAP Building As part of the redevelopment proposal outlined above, the ASAP Building would be removed. This property was studied in 2010 as part of the “Phase I/Phase II Architecture History Investigation for the Proposed Southwest Transitway Project, Hennepin County, Minnesota”. A Supplemental Evaluation was subsequently conducted in 2011 by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (MnSHPO). The “building was evaluated for the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture as an example of distinctive characteristics of type, period, and method of construction of the Modern architecture style.” The Evaluation’s determination was that the building is “recommended eligible for the National Register when it reaches 50 years of age.” The building became 50 years old in 2013. According to National Park Service regulations, a property will not be listed on the National Register if, for individual properties, the owner objects. Thus, the current property owner has the discretion whether or not to pursue having the building listed on the National Register. The current property owner has chosen not to pursue listing the building and the potential developer has indicated they are not interested in listing the building either. The developer could proceed with demolishing the building unless there is federal involvement in the project, such as through permitting, licensing or funding. If the project includes federal involvement then further historic review may be required. This review may find that no further action is required, or may find that adverse impacts to the building must be minimized or mitigated. The developer also has the option to forego federal funding, in which case they may move forward without any further historic review or mitigation measures. It is not clear at this time if any federal involvement will occur. The developer and staff have discussed conducting historical documentation of the building if the proposed project moves forward and the ASAP building is demolished. There are a number of historic property documentation guidelines available which could be followed as they apply to the ASAP building. This documentation could then be provided to both the St. Louis Park Historical Society as well as the Minnesota Historical Society. A requirement for such historical Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 9) Page 3 Title: East Triangle Neighborhood Redevelopment documentation could be included in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA and the developer should there be one. NEXT STEPS: Per the Council’s direction, Staff will continue to work with the developer on the City approvals process, TIF financing, a traffic study and neighborhood meeting. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: November 24, 2014 Discussion Item: 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on 40th & France RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: This report is intended update the City Council on recent progress related to the Minneapolis land for sale at France Avenue and 40th Street West. SUMMARY: The City of Minneapolis responded to St. Louis Park and Edina’s request for additional time, and granted an extension until December 31, 2014. Edina and St. Louis Park have hired Tom Day, MAI, SRA of the Day Group LLC to perform an appraisal on behalf of both cities. That appraisal is underway and staff is responding to various requests for information from the appraiser. Park and Recreation Director Cindy Walsh met with her counterpart in Edina, Ann Kattre, and Minneapolis Park Board Superintendent Jane Miller on November 17, 2014. Two key points came out of the meeting. The City of Minneapolis did not contact the Minneapolis Park Board to determine if the Park Board had an interest in purchasing the property. Second, all three staff representatives would like to explore the possibility of operating a tri-city off-leash dog park. Of course, this assumes the cities of St. Louis Park and Edina purchase the property and decide to use at least a portion of the property for park purposes. The City of Edina hosted a neighborhood meeting November 17, 2014. Approximately 60 people attended the meeting. About two-thirds were Edina residents and the rest were a combination of St. Louis Park and Minneapolis residents. All of the Edina residents expressed support for the City of Edina purchasing the land. There were various interests and opinions about the appropriate types of park uses and improvements. The types of uses that were discussed included additional storm water facilities, an off-leash dog park, preserving the trees and nature trails, developing mountain bike trails, and some limited discussion about development of houses along France Avenue. It was pointed out that Edina’s Comprehensive Plan includes guidance that would support Edina purchasing the land, even though it is guided low density residential on the future land use map. NEXT STEPS: A meeting of the joint City Council subcommittee will be scheduled when more information is available. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The appraisal cost is $6,000. The City of St. Louis Park’s share of the appraisal cost will be $3,000. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Edina Neighborhood Meeting Staff Notes Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, and City Manager Study Session Meeting of November 24, 2014 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Title: Update on 40th & France Edina Neighborhood Meeting Notes, 11/17/14 55-60 attendees, including staff and Council. 2/3+ Edina, & approx. 1/3 SLP and Mpls. Meeting was filmed by KSTP news. • All Edina residents by show of hands indicated they supported City buying the land • How was the land acquired by Mpls.? o One resident indicated it was purchased from the Village of Morningside • Comp Plan/Zoning? o Low density residential designation, R1 single-family zoning district • Any policies regarding City purchasing such parcels for additional parks? o Although the land is guided for residential on the future land use map, there is guiding policy language in Edina’s Comprehensive Plan and Parks Sections  However, the City would not make this type of decision on autopilot (without community input). • Has Mpls. been contacted by developers (Ryland, affordable housing dev.)? o Possible, none have contacted staff in Edina • Could the development drain to Weber Pond? How does site drain now? o probably to Weber Pond now • A resident noted current water table fluctuation and poor soils in the area. • Would the City consider operating a dog park with fees (to defray costs)? Edina staff noted that a formal off-leash dog park would need fencing, vegetation management, emergency access, possibly parking, etc. • SW corner of Lake Calhoun – relationship to this area? o Could improvements here have stormwater/flood protection benefits across jurisdictions? • Did the city contact Three River Park District or MCWD to see if they were interested in purchasing the property? o Yes, neither were interested • Scott Neil, mentioned the meeting earlier in the day between Edina, St. Louis Park and Mpls Park Board staff – Mpls Park Board staff showed some interest in exploring a possible tri- city dog park • May the Nature Conservancy be interested in helping fund? o unknown • General Comment from one resident – supporting only minimal development. The more drastic the change, the less likely he and other Edina residents would support the purchase. • Claudia Johnston-Madison: Recapped the SLP neighborhood meeting –desire to purchase, keep park, guided Park and Open Space In SLP comprehensive plan. Tom Harmening said there is not money budgeted for a land purchase, but if directed by Council the City could find a way to fund it. Claudia noted that Harmening did not say purchasing the land would result in forgoing other City capital expenditures or services (i.e. fire truck or other equipment purchases). – This last comment from Claudia was in response to a comment from an Edina Councilmember that such trade-offs would result from Edina buying the land. Staff left the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was scheduled to end at 8 p.m.