Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/03/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA MARCH 12, 2012 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 19 and March 26, 2012 2. 6:35 p.m. Redistricting Options 3. 7:35 p.m. Storm Water/Surface Water Management 4. 8:20 p.m. Solid Waste Collection Program and Services 5. 9:05 p.m. 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report 6. 9:35 p.m. Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report/2012 Work Plan 7. 9:40 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In 9:45 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 8. Vision Check-In Follow-Up 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 Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 19 and March 26, 2012. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session scheduled for March 19 and for the regularly scheduled Study Session on March 26, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? BACKGROUND: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for a Special Study Session scheduled for March 19 and for the regularly scheduled Study Session on March 26, 2012. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 19 and March 26, 2012 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 19 and March 26, 2012 Special Study Session, March 19, 2012 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Item 1. Communications Plan – Information Resources (60 minutes) Discuss the City of St. Louis Park’s Communications Plan for 2012 and 2013. Staff will also provide Council with a preview of the new approach to the City’s website design, intended to address the needs of the growing community of mobile users – those accessing the web using smartphones and tablets, as well as legacy devices such as PC’s and laptops. Study Session, March 26, 2012 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Community Health Initiative – Administrative Services (30 minutes) Staff will provide information regarding the concept of a community health initiative that City staff has been discussing with Park Nicollet, SLP Schools and the business community. These discussions have been facilitated by Mobius, Inc (consultant that helped with Vision SLP process in 05/06). 3. Environmental Input Discussion – Administrative Services (45 minutes) As requested by the City Council this discussion is a follow-up to the discussion that occurred at the January Workshop regarding community participation in environmental related matters. 4. NLC Service Line Warranty Program – Public Works (30 minutes) Discuss the endorsement / marketing of a National League of Cities endorsed service line warranty program for residential properties in the City. 5. Beltline Boulevard Trail Crossing Improvement – Public Works (30 minutes) Continued discussions on the proposed infrastructure improvements where the SWLRT Regional Trail crosses Beltline Boulevard. 6. Business Park Zoning District – Community Development (30 minutes) Discuss proposed Business Park Zoning District, including permitted uses and performance standards, prior to bringing the ordinance to the Council for approval. 7. 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 8. Vision Check-In Follow-Up 9. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance 10. February 2012 Financial Report End of Meeting: 9:25 p.m. Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Redistricting Options. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. Council is asked to provide direction to staff on the redistricting plan for the city in preparation for a public hearing and first reading of a redistricting ordinance scheduled for March 19. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the Council have additional input or questions regarding the redistricting options and requirements? • Does Council have enough information to take action on redistricting at the public hearing on March 19th? BACKGROUND: At the February 13 Study Session, City Council received a written report on basic redistricting information, timelines, authority, and guidelines. Federal and State redistricting affects local government redistricting of ward boundaries and reestablishment of precinct boundaries. On February 21 the Special Redistricting Panel appointed by the MN Supreme Court released the congressional and legislative redistricting plans. S t. Louis Park remains in the same U.S. Congressional District 5. The MN Legislative boundaries within the city also remain basically the same; however, the legislative districts have been renumbered to 46A and 46B. Attached are Hennepin County maps depicting the congressional and legislative districts. Why are we going through this redistricting process? Redistricting occurs after each 10 year census and is the process used to adjust the various elective district boundaries to account for population shifts. C ity governments must redistrict and reestablish precincts after state redistricting. City Charter Section 2.03 requires Council to redetermine ward boundaries after each census; and that the four ward boundaries be adopted by ordinance based on findings that the wards so established are of as near equal size in both population and area as practicable. The City is required to adopt new ward and precinct boundaries by April 3, 2012. Criteria used by staff for developing redistricting options • Follow requirements of State Statute and City Charter • Equalize ward populations by staying within the required 5% deviation guideline • Review of census information, population data, and census block boundaries • Respect the neighborhood boundaries and minimize division of neighborhoods • Evaluate existing and potential polling places – locations, accessibility, parking, room size • Identify areas of future population growth • Identify median household income using census tract data • Review past election results • Identify smaller precincts and neighborhoods that could be combined Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Redistricting Options Ward Boundary Requirements • Wards must be equal in population as practicable (M.S. 205.84 subd. 1) • Wards must be composed of census blocks and bounded by precinct lines • Wards must be compact and of contiguous territory • Deviation in population in any ward is recommended to be within 5% of the average. • Approved by ordinance of the City Council. Precinct Boundary Requirements • All Precinct boundaries must follow a census block line (M.S. 204B.14, subd.6) • Precinct boundaries cannot cross Legislative or Congressional District boundaries • Precincts cannot cross Ward boundaries • No population requirement • Precinct population can be any size where elections can be administered efficiently. • Precinct boundary shape should be compact and contiguous. Polling Place Requirements • Large enough to accommodate required number of voters for a presidential election • Acceptable travel distance • Located in the precinct boundary or within 1 mile of the boundary • Designated by resolution of the City Council Staff rated all polling place locations on parking, room size, location, etc. to determine the best facilities to accommodate voters. The polling place ratings are included in the Precinct Data attachments. The following information describes the two ward boundary change options in addition to advantages and disadvantages that would occur when using either Option 1 or Option 2. Option 1 and Option 2 Recommendations Staff is proposing two redistricting options that are well within the 5% maximum deviation guideline as shown below: Redistricting Options Ward Deviations WARD 2010 census population Average population 2010 census current deviation OPTION 1 Deviation OPTION 2 Deviation 1 11,385 11,310 + 0.6% + 0.7% - 0.1% 2 12,068 11,310 + 6.0% + 0.1% - 1.1% 3 11,252 11,310 - 0.5% + 0.6% - 1.6% 4 10,536 11,310 - 7.0% - 1.5% + 2.9% Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Redistricting Options OPTION 1 - Ward Neighborhood Changes - Below is a general overview of the layout of Option 1. T he maps that are attached show how this looks for the city. Option 1 i s the redistricting layout recommended by staff. • WARD 1 would keep existing neighborhoods of Bronx Park, Birchwood, Lake Forest, Fern Hill, and Sorenson. Triangle neighborhood would be added. B lackstone and Cedarhurst neighborhoods located north of the Burlington Northern RR would move to Ward 4. • WARD 2 would keep existing neighborhoods of Elmwood, Wolfe Park, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista, Browndale, Brookside, Creekside, Meadowbrook, and Brooklawns. South Oak Hill Park neighborhood would be added and Triangle neighborhood would be moving to Ward 1. • WARD 3 would keep existing neighborhoods of Lenox, Oak Hill, Aquila, Amhurst, Minnehaha, Cobblecrest, and all of Texa Tonka. South Oak Hill neighborhood would move to Ward 2. • WARD 4 would cover all residents north of Burlington Northern RR and would keep existing neighborhoods of Shelard Park, Kilmer, Westdale, Crestview, Westwood Hills, Cedar Manor, Willow Park, Pennsylvania Park, Eliot, and Eliot View. Blackstone and Cedarhurst would be added. The existing northern portion of TexaTonka neighborhood would move to Ward 3 to keep Texa Tonka neighborhood intact. Advantages of Option 1: 1. Ward population meets the 5% deviation guidelines and, in addition, achieves the closest equal population in each of the four Wards 2. Reduction of one less precinct (saves approx. $4,000 in a Federal Election year) 3. No neighborhoods are split between Wards 4. All of Texa Tonka neighborhood now included in one ward 5. Ward and Precinct legal descriptions (as required by ordinance and resolution) would be easier to define Disadvantages of Option 1: 1. Only one precinct will keep the same number, all others would be renumbered. OPTION 2 - Ward Neighborhood Changes - Below is a general overview of the layout of Option 2. The maps that are attached show how this looks for the city. Option 2 would meet redistricting requirements. • WARD 1 would keep existing neighborhoods of Blackstone, Cedarhurst, Bronx Park, Birchwood, Lake Forest, and Fern Hill. Triangle neighborhood would be added and Sorenson neighborhood would move to Ward 2. • WARD 2 would keep existing neighborhoods of Elmwood, Wolfe Park, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista, Browndale, Brookside, Creekside, and Brooklawns. S orenson neighborhood would be added. T riangle neighborhood would move to Ward 1 and Meadowbrook neighborhood would move to Ward 3. • WARD 3 would keep existing neighborhoods of Lenox, Oak Hill (minus 2 census blocks due to legislative boundary), South Oak Hill, Aquila, Amhurst, Minnehaha, and Cobblecrest. Meadowbrook neighborhood would be added. • WARD 4 would keep existing neighborhoods of Shelard Park, Kilmer, Westdale, Crestview, Westwood Hills, Cedar Manor, Willow Park, Pennsylvania Park, Eliot, Eliot View. All of Texa Tonka neighborhood, as well as 2 census blocks from the Oak Hill neighborhood (due to legislative boundary) would be added. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Subject: Redistricting Options Advantages of Option 2: 1. Ward population meets the 5% deviation guidelines 2. Nine Precinct numbers remain the same 3. All of Texa Tonka neighborhood now included in one ward Disadvantages of Option 2: 1. Less equal population (Ward 4 population deviation slightly higher than Option 1) 2. No reduction in precincts 3. Oak Hill neighborhood would be split between Ward 3 and Ward 4. Due to the legislative boundary line, 2 census blocks will end up in Ward 4. 4. Boundary lines are not as clean as Option 1 (Precinct 15 size is less compact) 5. Ward and precinct legal descriptions (as required by ordinance and resolution) would be more difficult to define What happens next? Redistricting 2012 Calendar In order to meet the April 3, 2012 deadline, the public hearing and first reading adopting ward boundaries is scheduled for March 19. March 1 & 8 Notice of Public Hearing published March 12 Study Session Discussion Redistricting Options prior to 1st Reading March 19 City Council Meeting Public Hearing 1st Reading March 26 Continue Public Hearing or Study Session (if needed) April 2 City Council Meeting Second Reading Ordinance establishing Ward boundaries (effective August 14, 2012) precincts established April 3 Redistricting Plan submitted to County and Secretary of State April 13 Address changes due to County for updating in State Voter Registration System May 3 City publishes new boundaries, communication with residents through Park Perspective, city website, press and Cable TV etc. June 19 Notice of new boundaries posted in clerk’s office (56 days before Primary) July 20 County mails notice of voting precincts to all registered voters (25 days before primary) August 14 Primary Election November 6 Presidential General Election What if no action is taken by Council? If a City Council fails to take action on redistricting in the time required, the Mayor and Council shall not be paid. (M.S. 205.84, subd. 2). FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: A slight reduction in the election budget could occur with one less precinct in Option 1 saving approx. $4,000 i n a Federal Election year due to expenses for less equipment, less election judges, less staff time, supplies, etc. E xpenses related to citywide registered voter mailing notification will be covered by Hennepin County. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Subject: Redistricting Options Attachments: MAPS: Hennepin County US Congressional Districts Hennepin County MN Legislative Districts Current Wards and Precincts Option 1 Redistricting Wards and Precincts Option 1 Ward Changes Option 1 Ward Map with Neighborhoods Option 1 Ward Map with Median Household Income by Census Tract Option 2 Redistricting Wards and Precincts Option 2 Ward Changes Option 2 Ward Map with Neighborhoods Option 2 Ward Map with Median Household Income by Census Tract CHARTS: Option 1 Precinct Data Chart Option 2 Precinct Data Chart Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Hennepin County, MN 2012 US Congressional SHERBURNE COUNTY WRIGHT COUNTY Data current as of Feb 2012 Prepared by: Hennepin County, Minnesota Taxpayer Services Department Survey Division hennepin.us ANOKA COUNTY CARVER COUNTY SCOTT COUNTY This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty express or implied, including fitness for any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown.COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2012 Hennepin County MINNESOTA Twin Cities 7-county Metro Area DAKOTA COUNTY 2 12 2 4 5 1 2 7 4 3S 1 11 6 2 1 1 New Hope - Crystal detail RAMSEY COUNTY Meandered bodies of water are under State jurisdiction. Boundaries in meandered bodies of water only indicate jurisdiction over islands and other land parcels. MINNEAPOLIS MEDINA ORONO PLYMOUTH CORCORAN DAYTON EDINA BLOOMINGTON EDEN PRAIRIE MAPLE GROVE MINNETRISTA INDEPENDENCE MINNETONKA GREENFIELD BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN ROGERS ST. LOUIS PARK MOUND RICHFIELD CRYSTAL GOLDEN VALLEY SHOREWOOD WAYZATA HOPKINS BROOKLYN CENTER DEEPHAVEN HANOVER NEW HOPE MSP INTL. AIRPORT ROBBINSDALE TONKA BAY ST. ANTHONY OSSEO WOODLAND FT. SNELLING TERR. LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN GREENWOOD EXCELSIOR MINNETONKA BEACH ST. BONIFACIUS FT. SNELLING TERR. SPRING PARK LORETTO ROCKFORD MEDICINE LAKE CHANHASSEN 1 2 10 6 5 12 D C D A B C 9 8 3 4 7 8 E 2 6 2 5 7 10 9 2 3 7 1 3 5 6 9 10 1 2 10 6 6 8 5 7 3 8 7 10 1 1 3 5 F H G F F G 16 32 5 2 20 19 18 21 22 13 10 8 14 11 18 15 22 16 23 20 3 28 A B C A D B E E 4 5 6 2 8 9 3S 5 15 6 11 8 9 107 13 4 5 3 12 2 1 2 1 1A 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 4 7 9 8 3 3 4 9 1 8 18 19 475 5 14 17 16 15 23 4 3 1 2 9 12 19 17 25 24 5 1 2 4 7 21 6 30 1 1 H 2 6 3N 6E 2 4 1A 1 1B 7 8 14 9 12 13 1 2 3 4 14 13 16 17 15 12 11 E DC B A 21 22 19 20 12 15 10 3 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 14 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 9 10 8 1B 7 56 6 46 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 2 4 25 7 6 1 1 127 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 7 4 2 1 6 8 53 7 4 3 6 10 2 1 17 15 13 10 11 4 1 6 7 9 8 12 6 5 2 3 17 18 1611 19 10 27 25 26 13 16 18 23 17 24 14 11 295 632 31 4 2 3 7 1 3 7 1 4 5 6 4 7 10 9 8 9 2 1 5 8 1 5 9 4 11 5 6 9 10 7 5 1 2 4 3 8 9 7 11 10 2 18 10 5 8 9 216 3 11653 4 5 9 4 21 6 7 3 3 2 8 4 6 1 6 5 8 10 8 7 4 2 8 11 9 54 76 2 11 1 11 3 2 1 2 2 8 79 14 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 3 1 1 1 W E 4 2 4 2 7 C 4 2 3 5 9 2 82 12 13 2 14 11 1 3 31 4 3 4 10 2 1 6 3 1 2 4 313 5 6 6 ANOKA COUNTY 02468 Miles Ü Water Features Pre-2012 Ward Bdry Municipal Boundary Pre-2012 Precinct Bdry 3DJH Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Page 6 MINNEAPOLIS MEDINA ORONO PLYMOUTH CORCORAN DAYTON EDINA BLOOMINGTON EDEN PRAIRIE MAPLE GROVE MINNETRISTA INDEPENDENCE MINNETONKA GREENFIELD BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN ROGERS ST. LOUIS PARK MOUND RICHFIELD CRYSTAL GOLDEN VALLEY SHOREWOOD WAYZATA HOPKINS BROOKLYNCENTER DEEPHAVEN HANOVER NEWHOPE MSPINTL.AIRPORT ROBBINSDALE TONKABAY ST. ANTHONY OSSEO WOODLAND FT. SNELLING TERR. LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN GREENWOOD EXCELSIOR MINNETONKA BEACH ST. BONIFACIUS FT. SNELLING TERR. SPRINGPARK LORETTO ROCKFORD MEDICINELAKE CHANHASSEN 1 2 10 6 5 1 2 D C D A B C 9 8 3 4 7 8 E 2 6 2 5 7 10 9 2 3 7 1 3 5 6 9 10 1 2 10 6 6 8 5 7 3 8 7 10 1 1 3 5 F H G F F G 16 32 5 2 20 19 18 21 22 13 10 8 14 11 18 15 22 16 23 20 3 28 A B C A D B E E 4 5 6 2 8 9 3S 5 15 6 11 8 9 107 13 4 5 3 12 2 1 2 1 1A 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 4 7 9 8 3 3 4 9 1 8 18 19 475 5 14 17 16 15 23 4 3 1 2 9 12 19 17 25 24 5 1 2 4 7 21 6 30 1 1 H 2 6 3N 6E 2 4 1A 1 1B 7 8 14 9 12 13 1 2 3 4 14 13 16 17 15 12 11 E DC B A 21 22 19 20 12 15 10 3 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 14 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 7 9 10 8 1B 7 56 6 46 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 2 4 25 7 6 1 1 127 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 7 4 2 1 6 8 5 3 7 4 3 6 10 2 1 17 15 13 10 11 4 1 6 7 9 8 12 6 5 2 3 17 18 1611 19 10 27 25 26 13 16 18 23 17 24 14 11 295 632 31 4 2 3 7 1 3 7 1 4 5 6 4 7 10 9 8 9 2 1 5 8 1 5 9 4 11 5 6 9 10 7 5 1 2 4 3 8 9 7 11 10 2 1 8 10 5 8 9 216 3 11653 4 5 9 4 21 6 7 3 3 2 8 4 6 1 6 5 8 10 8 7 4 2 8 11 9 54 76 2 11 1 11 3 2 1 2 2 8 79 14 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 3 1 1 1 W E 4 2 4 2 7 C 4 2 35 9 2 82 1213 2 14 11 1 3 31 4 3 4 10 2 1 6 3 1 2 43133A 30B 34A 33B 49B 48B 44B 34B 48A 44A 50B 36B 29A 46A 63B 36A 49A 45B 45A 40B 40A 50A 46B 41B 60A 62A 62B 59A 61B 61A 63A 59B 60B Data current as of Feb 2012 Prepared by: Hennepin County, Minnesota Taxpayer Services Department Survey Division hennepin.us Hennepin County, MN 2012 MN Legislative SHERBURNECOUNTY CARVER COUNTY SCOTT COUNTY This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty express or implied, including fitness for any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown.COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2012 DAKOTA COUNTY Hennepin County MINNESOTA Twin Cities 7-county Metro Area WRIGHT COUNTY 2 12 2 4 5 1 2 7 4 3S 1 11 6 2 1 145A 45B New Hope - Crystal detail RAMSEYCOUNTY Ü 0 1 2 3 4 Miles ANOKA COUNTY Water Features Pre-2012 Ward Bdry Municipal Boundary Pre-2012 Precinct Bdry Meandered bodies of water are under State jurisdiction. Boundaries in meandered bodies of water only indicate jurisdiction over islands and other land parcels. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Current Wards and Precincts Current Wards and Precincts Map Ward Council Member Residence Census Blocks Precincts Ward/Population/Deviation 1 - 11,385 (+0.6%) 2 - 12,068 (+6.0%) 3 - 11,252 (-0.5%) 4 - 10,536 (-7.0%) 0 0.5 1 Miles Ward 1 Ward 4 Ward 3 Ward 2 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Central Community Center 3 Union Church 5 Beth El Synagogue 2 Peter Hobart Elementary School 1 St. Louis Park City Hall 4 St. Louis Park Recreation Center 6 Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center 7 Aldersgate Methodist Church 8 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church 9 St. Louis Park Senior High School 11 Lenox Community Center 10 Aquila Primary Center 12 Westwood Lutheran Church 13 Peace Presbyterian Church 15 St. Louis Park Junior High School Sabes Jewish Community Center 16 Park Assembly Church 14 231 46 132 0 0 609 41 0 231 0 0 0 0 24 13 37 56 49 72 137 39 113 0 26 221 21 17 44 33 41 5372 36 47 54 79 0 61 108 136 17 48 46 36 19 0 0 2 54 63 33 1 0 69 49 0 36 45 0 6 38 44 59 44 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 36 29 52 0 0 114 126 63 0 0 57 66 38 360 33 0 0 19 22 10 37 0 0 45 108 34 51 404 22 0 313 49 53 40 44 96 211 197 44 50 28 45 36 70 60 97 188 36 101 38 74 76 67 47 60 65 53 31 43 45 81 44 36 49 47 905 99 16 45 65 63 66 57 48 19 36 47 136 56 47 55 57 48 29 42 0 42 46 40 38 54 41 44 590 288 976 6 0 83 0 0 322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 16 48 0 57 0 241 0 0 4 0 1 0 17 51 516 47 46 50 42 47 95 63 43 28 37 50 31 80 57 38 22 46 53 63 8 0 0 58 39 578 222 91 0 0 29 40 59 111 37 83 46 157 55 79 30 70 22 642 48 32 333 46 45 44 76 0 15 40 54 118 0 28 21 14 33 22 29 30 30 15 961 52 85 0 114 65 135 0 290 122 712 0 0 53 0 0 272 0 0 0 0 0 54 41 31 73 48 0 46 43 44 89 38 59 70 28 34 233 79 44 32 28 32 48 38 38 37 57 18 64 54 68 28 60 54 38 26 58 72 44 111 30 35 77 56 53 64 49 31 26 50 32 25 66 73 60 50 0 20 15 17 3 2 28 49 68 36 53 53 69 74 0 55 38 60 20 71 29 0 0 0 118 40 183 54 0 0 0 00 0 376 38 40 0 3 39 159 0 0 35 116 24 69 25 66 48 25 65 76 4 201 48 86 78 55 0 46 46 38 46 90 39 32 94 77 54 82 46 22 0 22 0 55 56 31 34 44 6 20 0 0 0 105 1111 37 52 53 0 57 141 76 24 67 49 109 64 156 0 46 29 45 59 67 0 44 37 53 60 66 75 61 76 60 15 170 25 103 45 41 21 38 8 71 77 29 15 52 40 25 49 57 55 59 30 29 53 0 0 47 35 42 3 0 28 57 30 64 69 40 18 43 29 0 61 0 43 58 50 58 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 24 31 92 0 27 28 63 61 65 71 63 66 58 46 0 48 41 51 58 55 111 0 34 71 50 30 73 0 96 5 53 35 22 24 19 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 19 4126 28 41 9 33 31 17 85 92 23 30 72 86 73 80 0 142 56 27 0 28 37 141 144 30 36 13 0 23 55 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 84 0 450 0 0 64 72 69 43 71 36 37 59 0 43 99 56 43 47 66 52 6 0 25 81 52 33 53 585 0 0 230 112 62 52 68 40 74 12 24 46 50 69 65 67 47 56 40 12 53 57 51 68 56 65 53 42 62 54 62 0 59 65 0 0 0 0 27 40 64 0 0 29 78 47 0 37 0 0 53 50 0 41 49 39 37 60 49 56 0 0 21 0 51 51 7 73 248 47 0 56 46 69 61 49 53 35 51 50 70 63 32 14 60 166 32 60 50 47 58 39 187 36 107 0 48 2 311 41 50 37 52 4 61 48 67 6 57 70 34 38 55 42 56 100 91 0 11 0 55 0 98 1112 0 187 0 77 13 16 14 15 12 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 8 6 7 Option 1 - Redistricting Wards and Precincts 46A 46B Legislative District Line (Ward Population Average 11,310) Legend Ward/Population/Deviation PROPOSED POLLING LOCATIONS COUNCIL MEMBER RESIDENCE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT PROPOSED PRECINCTS 1 - 11,394 (+0.7%) 2 - 11,328 (+0.1%) 3 - 11,383 (+0.6%) 4 - 11,136 (-1.5%) 2010 CENSUS BLOCKS HIGHWAY 100MINNETONKA BLVD LOUISIANA AVELOUISIANA AVEINTERSTATE 394 HIGHWAY 169EXCEL SI O R B L V D HIGHWAY 7 CEDAR LA K E R D 44TH ST HIGHW A Y 7 HIGHWAY 100TEXAS AVETEXAS AVEINTERSTATE 394 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Page 9 4 2 1 3 Option 1 - Ward Changes Map Option 1 - Ward Changes Ward 1 2 3 4 Option 1 Ward Changes Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options ShelardPark KilmerPond Blackstone Westdale WestwoodHills Eliot PennsylvaniaPark Crestview Cedarhurst LakeForestEliotViewWillowPark BirchwoodCedarManorBronxPark FernHillTexaTonka Cobblecrest Lenox SorensenOak Hill Aquila Triangle WolfePark Minnehaha Amhurst MinikahdaOaks Elmwood MinikahdaVista SouthOak Hill BrooklawnsMeadowbrook Browndale Brookside Creekside Option 1 - Ward Map with Neighborhoods Ward Map with Neighborhoods Map Ward 1 2 3 4 Neighborhoods Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options $64,750 $56,973$51,732 $42,500$70,976 $47,318 $59,178 $82,538 $56,618 $115,046 $46,417 $57,402 $91,923 $59,052 $55,625 Option 1 - Ward Map with Median Household IncomeBy Census Tract Ward 1 2 3 4 Census Tract Median Income By Census Tract Map Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options 231 46 132 0 0 609 41 0 231 0 0 0 0 24 13 37 56 49 72 137 39 113 0 26 221 21 17 44 33 41 5372 36 47 54 79 0 61 108 136 17 48 46 36 19 0 0 2 54 63 33 1 0 69 49 0 36 45 0 6 38 44 59 44 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 0 36 29 52 0 0 114 126 63 0 0 57 66 38 360 33 0 0 19 22 10 37 0 0 45 108 34 51 404 22 0 313 49 53 40 44 96 211 197 44 50 28 45 36 70 60 97 188 36 101 38 74 76 67 47 60 65 53 31 43 45 81 44 36 49 47 905 99 16 45 65 63 66 57 48 19 36 47 136 56 47 55 57 48 29 42 0 42 46 40 38 54 41 44 590 288 976 6 0 83 0 0 322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 16 48 0 57 0 241 0 0 4 0 1 0 17 51 516 47 46 50 42 47 95 63 43 28 37 50 31 80 57 38 22 46 53 63 8 0 0 58 39 578 222 91 0 0 29 40 59 111 37 83 46 157 55 79 30 70 22 642 48 32 333 46 45 44 76 0 15 40 54 118 0 28 21 14 33 22 29 30 30 15 961 52 85 0 114 65 135 0 290 122 712 0 0 53 0 0 272 0 0 0 0 0 54 41 31 73 48 0 46 43 44 89 38 59 70 28 34 233 79 44 32 28 32 48 38 38 37 57 18 64 54 68 28 60 54 38 26 58 72 44 111 30 35 77 56 53 64 49 31 26 50 32 25 66 73 60 50 0 20 15 17 3 2 28 49 68 36 53 53 69 74 0 55 38 60 20 71 29 0 0 0 118 40 183 54 0 0 0 00 0 376 38 40 0 3 39 159 0 0 35 116 24 69 25 66 48 25 65 76 4 201 48 86 78 55 0 46 46 38 46 90 39 32 94 77 54 82 46 22 0 22 0 55 56 31 34 44 6 20 0 0 0 105 1111 37 52 53 0 57 141 76 24 67 49 109 64 156 0 46 29 45 59 67 0 44 37 53 60 66 75 61 76 60 15 170 25 103 45 41 21 38 8 71 77 29 15 52 40 25 49 57 55 59 30 29 53 0 0 47 35 42 3 0 28 57 30 64 69 40 18 43 29 0 61 0 43 58 50 58 3 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 00 24 31 92 0 27 28 63 61 65 71 63 66 58 46 0 48 41 51 58 55 111 0 34 71 50 30 73 0 96 5 53 35 22 24 19 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 19 4126 28 41 9 33 31 17 85 92 23 30 72 86 73 80 0 142 56 27 0 28 37 141 144 30 36 13 0 23 55 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 84 0 450 0 0 64 72 69 43 71 36 37 59 0 43 99 56 43 47 66 52 6 0 25 81 52 33 53 585 0 0 230 112 62 52 68 40 74 12 24 46 50 69 65 67 47 56 40 12 53 57 51 68 56 65 53 42 62 54 62 0 59 65 0 0 0 0 27 40 64 0 0 29 78 47 0 37 0 0 53 50 0 41 49 39 37 60 49 56 0 0 21 0 51 51 7 73 248 47 0 56 46 69 61 49 53 35 51 50 70 63 32 14 60 166 32 60 50 47 58 39 187 36 107 0 48 2 311 41 50 37 52 4 61 48 67 6 57 70 34 38 55 42 56 100 91 0 11 0 55 0 98 1112 0 187 77 Central Community Center 5 Union Church 9 Beth El Synagogue 3 Peter Hobart Elementary School 2 St. Louis Park City Hall 4 St. Louis Park Recreation Center 7 Susan Lindgren Intermediate Center 8 Aldersgate Methodist Church 6 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church 10 St. Louis Park Senior High School 11 Lenox Community Center 12 Aquila Primary Center 13 Westwood Lutheran Church 14 Peace Presbyterian Church 15 St. Louis Park Junior High School 17 Sabes Jewish Community Center 1 Park Assembly Church 16 4 3 2 1 16 17 15 1 2 3 414 13 12 11 10 5 6 7 8 9 Option 2 - Redistricting Wards and Precincts 46A 46B Legislative District Line HIGHWAY 100MINNETONKA BLVD LOUISIANA AVELOUISIANA AVEINTERSTATE 394 HIGHWAY 169EXCEL SI O R B L V D HIGHWAY 7 CEDAR LA K E R D 44TH ST HIGHW A Y 7 HIGHWAY 100TEXAS AVETEXAS AVEINTERSTATE 394 (Ward Population Average 11,310) Legend Ward/Population/Deviation PROPOSED POLLING LOCATIONS COUNCIL MEMBER RESIDENCE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT PROPOSED PRECINCTS NEIGHBORHOODS 1 - 11,291 (-0.1%) 2 - 11,180 (-1.1%) 3 - 11,126 (-1.6%) 4 - 11,644 (+2.9%) 2010 CENSUS BLOCKS Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Page 13 4 2 1 3 Option 2 - Ward Changes Option 2 - Ward Changes Map Ward 1 2 3 4 Option 2 - Ward Changes Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options ShelardPark KilmerPond Blackstone Westdale WestwoodHills Eliot PennsylvaniaPark Crestview Cedarhurst LakeForestEliotViewWillowPark BirchwoodCedarManorBronxPark FernHillTexaTonka Cobblecrest Lenox SorensenOak Hill Aquila Triangle WolfePark Minnehaha Amhurst MinikahdaOaks Elmwood MinikahdaVista SouthOak Hill BrooklawnsMeadowbrook Browndale Brookside Creekside Option 2 - Ward Map with Neighborhoods Ward Map with Neighborhoods Map Ward 1 2 3 4 Neighborhoods Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options $64,750 $56,973$51,732 $42,500$70,976 $47,318 $59,178 $82,538 $56,618 $115,046 $46,417 $57,402 $91,923 $59,052 $55,625 Option 2 - Ward Map with Median Household IncomeBy Census Tract Ward 1 2 3 4 Census Tract Median Income By Census Tract Map Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Option 1 Precinct Data Parking Room size Room Location Acoustics Lighting Handicap Access SCORE Very Good Excellent 1 Peter Hobart 6500 26th St W 2800 3000 3540 14%4 5 5 2 4 5 4.17  2 Beth El Synagogue 5224 W 26th St 2500 3500 2812 20%5 5 5 5 4 5 4.83  3 Central Community Center 6300 Walker 1000 2000 1206 11%3 5 4 2 4 4 3.67  4 City Hall 5005 Mtka Blvd 1000 2000 1534 15%3 5 3 5 5 4 4.17  5 Union Congregational Church 3700 Alabama 1200 1500 1408 10%4 4 4 5 5 4 4.33  6 St Louis Park Rec Center 3700 Monterey Dr 2500 3000 2728 19%5 5 2 5 5 2 4.00  7 Susan Lindgren 4801 41st St W 2000 2200 2544 14%4 5 3 2 4 3 3.50  8 Aldersgate Methodist Church 3801 Wooddale 2200 2500 2540 10%5 4 3 5 4 3 4.00 9 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church 8115 Hwy 7 2000 2500 2253 20%4 4 5 5 4 5 3.50  10 Lenox Community Center 6715 Minnetonka Blvd 1700 2000 2151 10%5 5 4 3 3 4 4.00  11 St. Louis Park Sr. High 6425 33rd St W 1400 1500 1621 12%3 5 3 2 4 4 4.33  12 Aquila Primary Center 8500 31st St W4 2500 2500 3292 15%4 5 5 2 4 4 4.33  13 Westwood Lutheran Church 9001 Cedar Lake Rd 1800 2000 2126 11%4 5 4 4 4 5 4.67  14 Park Assembly 1615 Texas Ave S 3000 3500 3115 15%5 5 3 4 5 4 4.33  15 Peace Presbyterian Church 7624 Cedar Lake Rd 1800 2700 2351 7%5 4 5 5 5 4 4.33  16 Sabes Jewish Community Center, 4330 S Cedar LkRd 1300 2500 1650 20%4 5 4 5 4 4 4.00  TOTAL 30700 38,900 36,871 4 W 1 2 3 Proposed Absentee Voters % 1-5 Staff Rating P Poll Name Proposed Voters Voter Maximum Capacity 18+ Population Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Page 17 Option 2 Precinct Data Parking Room size Room Location Acoustics Lighting Handicap Access SCORE Very Good Excellent 1 Sabes Jewish Community Center 4330 S Cedar LkRd 1000 2500 1286 20%4 5 4 5 4 4 4.33  2 Peter Hobart 6500 26th St W 2800 3000 3540 14%4 5 5 2 4 5 4.17  3 Beth El Synagogue 5224 W 26th St 2500 3500 2812 20%5 5 5 5 4 5 4.83  4 City Hall 5005 Mtka Blvd 1000 1500 1534 15%3 5 3 5 5 4 4.17  5 Central Community Center 6300 Walker 1000 2000 1206 11%3 5 4 2 4 4 3.67  6 Aldersgate Methodist Church 3801 Wooddale 1500 2500 1700 10%5 4 3 5 4 3 4.00  7 St Louis Park Rec Center 3700 Monterey Dr 2500 3000 2728 19%5 5 2 5 5 2 4.00  8 Susan Lindgren 4801 41st St W 2000 2200 2544 14%4 5 3 2 4 3 3.50  9 Union Congregational Church 3700 Alabama 800 1500 927 10%4 4 4 5 5 4 4.33  10 Prince of Peace Lutheran Church 8115 Hwy 7 1200 2500 1321 20%4 4 5 5 4 5 4.50  11 St. Louis Park Sr. High 6425 33rd St W 1400 1500 1621 12%3 5 3 2 4 4 3.50  12 Lenox Community Center 6715 Minnetonka Blvd 1700 2000 2151 10%5 5 4 3 3 4 4.00  13 Aquila Primary Center 8500 31st St W4 2000 2500 2253 15%4 5 5 2 4 4 4.00  14 Westwood Lutheran Church 9001 Cedar Lake Rd 1500 2000 1785 15%4 5 4 4 4 5 4.33  15 Peace Presbyterian Church 7624 Cedar Lake Rd 2200 2700 2791 14%5 4 5 5 5 4 4.67  16 Park Assembly 1615 Texas Ave S 2800 3500 3164 15%5 5 3 4 5 4 4.33  17 St. Louis Park Jr. High 2025 Texas 3000 2500 3508 17%4 5 4 2 4 4 3.83  TOTAL 30,900 40,900 36,871 3 2 4 W 1 Proposed Absentee Voters % 1-5 Staff Rating P Poll Name Proposed Voters Voter Maximum Capacity 18+ Population Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 2) Subject: Redistricting Options Page 18 Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Storm Water/Surface Water Management. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council additional information requested at the June 13, 2011 Study Session and to inform Council of actions taken as directed at that same meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff desires Council input on the following: 1. Beyond the water quality improvement projects tentatively identified in the attached BARR Engineering study, are there other pond improvement projects the Council would like to consider? 2. Would Council like to revise the priority of any of the possible projects? 3. Are there any other storm water concerns that Council would like staff to address? BACKGROUND: History At the January 10, 2011 Study Session staff provided Council an overview of the city Storm Water System and Surface Water Management Program. As a result of that discussion Council made several requests of staff: 1. provide Council with a flood plain map of the city 2. provide an understanding of vegetation management at Bass Lake Preserve 3. provide information regarding the City’s decision-making process as it relates to silt removal, vegetation removal, and/or stocking of fish of ponds and wetlands 4. provide an update regarding the Victoria Ponds storm water ponds 5. discuss water quality associated with the water bodies in the city’s neighborhoods and parks, from a functional perspective, including treatment options and costs associated with treatment 6. provide a prioritization of projects for ponds and wetlands As a result of the Council requests made January 10th, staff provided a flood plain map on March 28, 2011 - located on the city website. Information regarding the other five requests was presented at the June 13, 2011 Study Session (attached). During the June 13th Study Session staff explained that the water level of Bass Lake was set by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). To revise that level, the city would have to petition the DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Staff also explained that DNR will be conducting an aquatic plant survey of Bass Lake Preserve and Twin Lakes in 2011. The survey needs to be done after the water temperature increases enough for aquatic plant growth to occur (to facilitate survey). The survey will be initiated and managed by Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator. Finally, Council expressed concern over the current and long term condition of some storm basins in the city. Staff informed Council a two year study (2010 – 2011) was underway to inventory and evaluate all storm basins in the city. BARR Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Engineering Co. was being utilized for this and was expected to complete the study by late 2011. The BARR evaluation and report is intended to provide us with an assessment of each storm basin with infrastructure improvements recommended to meet current MPCA water quality guidelines. Council requested this study be coordinated with and take into account the Beltline redevelopment area study being pursued by the Community Development department. Council requested staff provide them a storm basin capital improvement plan with prioritized projects once the BARR study was completed. Activities since the June Study Session Bass Lake and Twin Lakes Vegetation Management – due to abnormal weather and the state shutdown last summer, DNR was not able to conduct the aquatic plant surveys as originally planned. In evaluating these studies further, staff determined an aquatic plant survey is only applicable to Twin Lakes; this type of survey focuses on submergent vegetation. Bass Lake Preserve is essentially a large wetland with a creek running thru it so an aquatic plant survey there would not be of any benefit. Jim Vaughan is currently working with DNR to reschedule the survey of Twin Lakes. The survey is intended to identify aquatic plants and prescribe potential management techniques, should there be invasive species or other aquatic (plant) issues (i.e., high algae growth) found. The DNR contacts are: Tim Ohmann, Aquatic Plant Specialist, 651-259-5787 and Brittany Hummel, Invasive Species Specialist 651-259-5828. BARR Study and Capital Program Development - The Barr storm basin inventory study was just recently completed. The findings of the study range from no actions needed to minor maintenance to possible major rehabilitation / basin expansions. This storm pond study is the first step in the long range planning of the management of the city’s Storm Water System. The rehabilitation and maintenance plan developed by BARR is based on MPCA requirements aimed at improving water quality (impaired waters). Specifically, the basis for the recommended capital improvements is the removal of suspended solids (sediment) and phosphorous from waters exiting the city. The maintenance activities identified in the plan basically address the need to properly maintain existing infrastructure. A condensed summary of the capital and maintenance plan developed by BARR is shown in the attachment “Storm Basin Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan – March 2012”. Maintenance and general cleanup activities have been included in the Utility operations work plan for 2012 and 2013. However, staff feels it is premature at this time to program the BARR identified basin rehabilitation / expansion projects. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) began revising their storm water permit rules during the last half of 2011 and those revisions are expected to be completed later this year. The revisions relate to water quality and are expected to affect standards and designs related to basin rehabilitations and expansions. Finally, the MPCA has just recently notified all cities to put a hold on further inventories, assessments, and plans until their final regulations are issued. Although the MPCA rule changes are not known at this time, the Barr report will serve as the basis for future assessments (as needed) and basin evaluations. Regional TMDL Study: - MCWD and the MPCA are currently working on a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study with a draft report due to be released in the fall of 2012. The final TMDL report is scheduled to be completed by the summer of 2013. Much of what St. Louis Park will need to know to decide and design storm basin improvement projects will be dependent on the final TMDL report (along with the MPCA rule revisions discussed above). Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management City Actions: - city staff has drastically reduced the use of pesticides and fertilizers on city properties and parks; we have made a significant effort to use native plants where feasible and have moved to integrated pest management practices on city properties versus broad applications; we have also eliminated many sites from any treatments at all. This has been done as an environmental stewardship action (to role model as well as doing our part in reducing fertilizer and pesticide runoff into nearby water bodies). Summary and Next Steps Based on agency rule changes and the MPCA / MCWD TMDL study being conducted, our storm basin CIP planning effort and improvement projects have effectively been put on hold pending final MCWD and MPCA determinations. It is possible our CIP development effort could be started again in 2013 with water quality improvement projects possibly scheduled for 2014 to 2015 depending upon public support, funding availability, and agency (permitting) approvals. Once the agencies complete their rules revisions and the regional TMDL study, staff intends to re-evaluate the BARR study to determine next steps for further development of the storm basin CIP. If Council would like a more detailed understanding of the rules changes and TMDL study, staff could arrange for agency representatives to attend a future study session to provide information and answer questions. Jim Vaughan intends to reschedule and coordinate the DNR aquatic plant survey of Twin Lakes during 2012. If Council would like more detailed information on vegetation and aquatic plant management, staff can arrange for agency representatives to attend a future study session provide information and answer questions about wetlands and vegetation rules and permitting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The city’s Storm Water Utility was created during February of 2000 and funds all storm water activities. The major reason for its creation was to provide a financing mechanism for flood mitigation efforts throughout the community. Many millions of dollars were spent as a means to complete this initiative. $3,265,000 in G.O. Revenue Bonds were sold in 2001 to raise capital for these projects. These bonds are still being paid off at the rate of approximately $300,000 per year with final payments scheduled for 2016. In addition to these bond payments, the Storm Water Utility currently provides funding for NPDES required activities, storm water management activities, long term maintenance and rehabilitation of our storm water system, and for the monitoring and evaluation of water quality in our ponds and wetlands. Costs associated with the wetland projects identified herein and water quality treatments have not been considered nor built into our Storm Water Utility charges or revenues. This will need to be done to finance these projects; staff expects utility rate increases will be needed to provide the additional funding needed for these projects. As a general rule, it is safe to say that projects or water treatments for recreational or aesthetic purposes are generally borne by adjacent residents while flood control and water quality projects are generally funded by city or regional agencies. This has come about based generally on the philosophy of “what good, at what cost, and for whom”. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Attachments: June 13, 2011 Study Session Report with Attachments Storm Basin Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan – March 2012 Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Assisted by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager From Study Session of June 13, 2011 - Item No. 6 TITLE: Storm Water/Surface Water Management. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council additional information requested at the January 10, 2011 Study Session and to inform Council of actions taken as directed at that same meeting. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Has the information provided and actions taken by staff address Council concerns and questions raised at the Study Session of January 10th? If not, what else would Council like staff to further address? BACKGROUND: History During 2010, the City Council developed a priority list of six items to be discussed at future study sessions of which this item was one. Discussion on this item was held at the January 10, 2011 Study Session (report attached). During the January Study Session discussion Council made several requests of staff: 1. provide Council with a flood plain map of the city 2. an understanding of vegetation management at Bass Lake 3. information regarding the City’s decision-making process as it relates to silt removal, vegetation removal, and/or stocking of fish of ponds and wetlands 4. provide an update regarding the Victoria Ponds storm water ponds 5. discuss water quality associated with the water bodies in the city’s neighborhoods and parks, from a functional perspective, including treatment options and costs associated with treatment 6. provide a prioritization of projects for ponds and wetlands Current As a result of the Council requests made January 10th, staff provided a flood plain map on March 28, 2011 - located on the city website. Information on the other five requests above is contained in the following sections of this report as well as the following four attachments to the report: • Overview of St. Louis Park’s Stormwater Plan • Storm Water Management Background Information • SLP Storm Pond Treatment Policy • MCWD Citizen Watershed Association Initiative Bass Lake and Twin Lakes Vegetation Management - DNR will be conducting an aquatic plant survey of Bass Lake Preserve and Twin Lakes in the spring of 2011. The survey will be done when the water temperature increases enough for aquatic plant growth to occur (to facilitate survey). The survey will be initiated and managed by Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator. The survey will identify aquatic plants and prescribe potential management techniques, should there be invasive species or other aquatic (plant) issues (i.e., high algae growth) found. The DNR contacts are: Tim Ohmann, Aquatic Plant Specialist, 651-259-5787 and Brittany Hummel, Invasive Species Specialist 651-259-5828. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 5 Vic Ponds Update - Victoria Ponds is a townhome association with four ponds. The entire development was built in the late 1990’s and met all city and watershed requirements at the time. The ponds are privately owned and maintained by the townhome association. Recently, the Victoria Ponds Association hired an engineering firm to fix the slope problems they have on Pond 3. The current issue is that the steep slope is eroding away, and there is concern that it may get too close to the townhomes. The engineer has been working with city and watershed staff, and has applied for erosion control permits to reshape the slope and remove some material from the bottom of the pond. They will not be required to get a conditional use permit unless they remove more than 400 cubic yards of material from the site, and they have stated that they do not intend to remove that much. Additionally, the association is working with RLK Incorporated to explore some options for an emergency overflow to Lake Victoria. City staff has met with representatives of the association to ensure that RLK’s proposals would be allowed. All work is to be done by and at the cost of the association as it is all privately owned. Water Quality Treatment and Costs - the city decided in 1980 not to treat ponds for water quality purposes for a variety of reasons - see the attachment “SLP Storm Pond Treatment Policy” which provides background information along with the adopted city council policy on this. This background information and adopted policy is still accurate and relevant and is consistent with practices in most cities today. Chemical water quality treatment techniques are still in use along with some newer techniques. The cost for pond treatment can be significant - as an example, treating Westdale Ponds (both ponds together less than 2 acres in size), to the level that has been requested by adjacent property owners, is estimated to cost approximately $12,500 annually. Costs to treat other ponds in St. Louis Park can be provided Council as requested. It is safe to say that treatment of ponds citywide could easily exceed $100,000 annually. More specifically, surface water treatments (aquatic plant management) in St. Louis Park that we are currently aware of consist of: Utah Pond – 5 aerators installed and treated chemically via contractor; all items paid for by private landowners around pond (2.29 acres); cost of annual operation and treatment is unknown; lakes less than 2.5 acres in size do not need a DNR permit to chemically treat. Wolfe Lake – Chemically treated, by contractor, for milfoil and submerged vegetation to promote viable fish population; paid for by the City of St. Louis Park, Parks and Recreation, with a total cost of $1,600.00/year (3 acre lake); requires a DNR Permit to perform this treatment. Cattail Pond (located in Wolfe Park) – Chemically treated for duckweed and algae. Also separately treated for cattail growth; all treatments for aesthetics of pond (in highest visible City park) performed by contractor. Both treatments performed by contractor at a total cost of $1,500.00/year (less than 3 acres); requires a DNR permit to perform this treatment. In St. Louis Park, as in other Minnesota city’s, the DNR controls aquatic treatments in water bodies >2.5 acres via their permitting process. As stated above, most if not all, cities do not provide for aquatic treatments of ponds or lakes. Generally speaking, this is predominantly done by individual land owners or associations which apply and arrange for chemical treatment of water bodies. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 6 Additionally, the MCWD does not provide for aquatic treatment of ponds or lakes either. However, their “Watershed Association Initiative” empowers citizens to protect and improve district waters by providing training, support and fostering a network of lake and river groups (see attachment - MCWD Citizen Watershed Association Initiative). The initiative also strongly encourages groups to collaborate with community businesses, organizations, and governmental agencies. Specifically the MCWD offers: • funding assistance for new citizen-led lake and river groups • educational presentations from water resource professionals • training and workshops to give groups the tools they need for water protection • networking events for citizens to share ideas and resources • annual Lakes and Rivers Summit • help with lake management planning and partnerships This assistance has been offered to the city and residents around Twin Lakes pond and can be arranged for at other locations in our city if there is resident interest in this. Pond and Wetland Projects - past city projects have generally dealt with flood mitigation efforts. The Twin Lakes Project done in the 1990’s by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was a water quality improvement project which created a sedimentation pond and an engineered water quality treatment pond to improve storm water quality entering the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. Most of the aquatic vegetation in Twin Lakes is beneficial for water quality and is needed as it is a part of the actual water treatment process. Storm water quality improvements realized in St. Louis Park have generally been a result of public education, street sweeping efforts, erosion control measures, and sedimentation basin construction. Staff does not have any pond or wetland projects currently planned; however, the Barr pond evaluation and study currently underway will provide us a better understanding of our present situation and future considerations and possibilities. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The city’s Storm Water Utility was created about 2000 and funds all storm water activities. The major reason for its creation was to provide a financing mechanism for flood mitigation efforts throughout the community. Many millions of dollars were spent as a means to complete this initiative. G.O. Revenue Bonds were utilized to raise capital for these projects and the bonds are still being paid off. In addition to bond payments, the Storm Water Utility currently provides funding for NPDES required activities, storm water management activities, long term maintenance and rehabilitation of our storm water system, and for the monitoring and evaluation of water quality in our ponds and wetlands. Costs associated with wetland projects and water quality treatment have not been considered nor built into our Storm Water Utility charges or revenues. As a general rule, it is safe to say that projects or water treatments for recreational or aesthetic purposes are generally borne by adjacent residents while flood control and water quality projects are generally funded by city or regional agencies. This has come about based generally on “what good, at what cost, and for whom”. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 7 Attachments: Study Session Report, January 10, 2011 Overview of St. Louis Park’s Stormwater Plan Storm Water Management Background Information SLP Storm Pond Treatment Policy MCWD Citizen Watershed Association Initiative Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Assisted by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 8 From Study Session of January 10, 2011 - Item No. 3 TITLE: Storm Water/Surface Water Management. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. The City Council requested an informational session on Storm Water/Surface Water Management. This report is an outline to assist with the presentation by staff at the Study Session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council desire any additional information or discussion regarding this topic? BACKGROUND: The City Council has developed a priority list of 6 items to be discussed at future study sessions. Staff is working to bring these discussion items to Council the first quarter of 2011. The list includes: 1. Construction/Project Management – January 24th 2. Review of Policies - Expenses that are City vs. Property Owner or Combination - February 3. Storm Water/Surface water Management – January 10th 4. BN Bridge Replacement 5. City Council Meeting Audience Norms/Rules 6. Reilly Tar 101 Storm Water/Surface Water Management Storm Water/Surface Water Management has many components. Staff will present an overview of the topics and allow time for questions. Additional time could be set at future study session(s) if Council would like more in depth information on a specific area of interest. We have 3 key staff members that will participate in the presentation at the Study session - Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent, Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator and Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator. Informational materials will be handed out at the study session and a power point presentation is planned for approximately 45 minutes with questions then taken afterward. The presentation will touch on: 1. The System – big picture overview in St. Louis Park • Map and overview of system • Sub drainage areas • Statistics on the infrastructure, surface area and underground system 2. Design • How our system was developed starting with water quantity as a focus, now emphasis on water quality • Ongoing system design, development and redevelopment 3. Water Quality • Flooding and Storm Water including definitions of 10 year and 100 year events • Flood plain and FEMA • Localized flooding and how we are handling these issues. Examples are Lamplighter and Dakota Park. Projects are planned and included in CIP • Flood proofing grant program Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 9 4. Organizations that have a role in how we handle our storm water • Watersheds in St. Louis Park – Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) and Minnehaha Creek Water District (MCWD) 5. Regulations • Wetland Conservation Act • SWPPP – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan - 6 minimum control measures • NPDES II – what is this regulation and what does it mean (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) - Impaired Waters - TMDL’s = Total Maximum Daily Loads 6. Surface Water Management Plan • Developed in 2001, updated in 2009 7. Current and Future plans for storm water/surface water management • Continue monitoring – currently meet all mandates/regulatory requirements • Education • Vegetation Management • Aesthetics of Storm Water Ponds • Successful partnerships and projects 8. Questions, comments, other thoughts The overview that has been presented is intended to show the ‘big picture” with our storm water and surface water management. If Council would like additional information, please inform staff of what materials you would like to receive in a report and if an additional study session is desired on a specific area related to this topic. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Assisted by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 10 Overview of St. Louis Park’s Stormwater Plan Current Practices - June 13, 2011 (Listed by Component) Ponds (23 locations)  Storm Pond Evaluation and Prioritization Study (2010 thru 2011) o 12 ponds were inventoried and evaluated by Barr Engineering in 2010. Their preliminary findings indicated maintenance and minor structural repairs were needed with no critical items that required immediate attention. o Identified maintenance and minor structural repairs are scheduled to be completed in 2011 (see 2nd bullet under Outfalls/Inlets/Outlets). o Their findings also identified some capital projects for city consideration. o Barr Engineering is scheduled to complete the inventory and evaluation of the remaining 11 ponds in the summer of 2011. o Staff will review, evaluate, and recommend capital projects when the study is completed later in the fall of 2011.  Water Quality Monitoring o CAMP Program (Metropolitan Council program) monitors Bass Lake Preserve, Cobblecrest, Twin Lakes, South Oak Pond, and Westwood Lake for total phosphorus, chlorophyll, nitrogen, and clarity. o 2011 City Monitoring Program  Sample the ponds surveyed in 2010 during May based on the Capstone recommendations (pH, temperature, turbidity, phosphate, nitrate, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen).  Sample equipment is being purchased to perform testing.  Sample the 12 ponds after significant rain events  The city storm group with an environmental consultant will review results and determine if there are any opportunities to improve water quality.  Shoreline Restoration o The management of each shoreline varies, with some being managed by city staff, others being contracted out, and others “adopted” by neighbors/neighborhoods. o The city practice is to encourage shoreline restoration to native plantings. o Restored shorelines in SLP: Lamplighter, Wolfe Lake, Twin Lakes Sediment Pond, Twin Lakes (partial), Sumter Pond, Cattail Pond, Westdale Ponds, Browndale Pond, Cedar Meadows (part of ponds are in SLP), sections of Minnehaha Creek. o Shoreline cleanup is scheduled every spring and throughout the year as needed. Cleanup work is completed by STS crews. o Some neighborhood groups do pickup throughout the year.  Vegetation & Aquatic Plant Management o The city currently treats Wolfe Lake for milfoil and submerged vegetation to promote fish habitat and Cattail Pond (adjacent to Wolfe) for duckweed and algae for aesthetics. This is a DNR permitted application costing more than $3,000 per year to treat approximately 6 acres. o The city currently has no plans to chemically treat other ponds (Council adopted policy), but is researching alternative methods for algae control. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 11 o The DNR controls aquatic treatment in water bodies >2.5 acres. Individual land owners or associations may apply for application for chemical treatment of water bodies used for recreation (docks, swimming, canoeing). o The MCWD Watershed Association Initiative empowers citizens to protect and improve district waters by providing training, support and fostering a network of lake and river groups. The initiative also strongly encourages groups to collaborate with community businesses, organizations, and governmental agencies. Specifically the MCWD offers:  funding assistance for new citizen-led lake and river groups  educational presentations from water resource professionals  training and workshops to give groups the tools they need for water protection  networking events for citizens to share ideas and resources  annual Lakes and Rivers Summit  help with lake management planning and partnerships o Utah Pond area residents have installed and operate 5 aerators and contract for chemical treatment. The pond is <2.5 acres and does not require a DNR permit.  Fish in the Lakes (FIN) o SLP and the DNR stock Wolfe Lake (bluegill, black crappie, largemouth bass, northern pike, and yellow perch), Lamplighter Pond (bluegill, black crappie), and Westwood Lake (bluegill). o There are only 16 lakes in all of Hennepin County that are stocked for the FIN program.  Delta Removal (sediment buildup where storm sewers discharge into ponds) o The debris deposits on the ponds are inspected annually and removal of debris is scheduled as needed. o Delta removal has taken place in several ponds during the last 15 years. Storm Water Collection System  Outfalls/Inlets/Outlets (530) o Inventory (location, photo) and inspection (functionality, structural integrity, maintenance required) of all outfalls has been completed. o 167 work orders were generated and prioritized based on these inspections. o 120 work orders relate to basic maintenance work, while 47 require construction repair and/or rebuilding. o Maintenance: selected outfalls are scheduled for debris removal in the spring and after rain events. o Priority outfalls at Twin Lakes, Twin Lakes Sediment Pond, Twin Lakes Ditch, Bass Lake Preserve, and the Boneyard Ditch are inspected weekly for proper operation during summer months.  Manholes (1,775) o An initial inspection program (cover/casting condition, structural integrity, water depth/flow and debris) was begun in 2010 and will be completed in 2011. o 196 work orders were generated and prioritized based on the 2010 inspections. o 102 work orders relate to basic maintenance work, while 171 require both basic maintenance and construction repair and/or rebuilding. o After completion of this initial inspection and repair program, manholes will be inspected and repaired in conjunction with the pavement management program. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 12  Catch Basins (Total 3,850) o 2,140 local road catch basins have been inspected for surface, grate and casting condition, structural integrity, and debris. o 38 work orders for critical/major repairs or replacements were initiated and completed by Utilities staff. o Current inspections and repairs are coordinated with the pavement management program. o city staff repairs and/or rebuilds approximately 60 catch basins per year.  Mainline and Catch Basin laterals o Mainlines and laterals are being inspected for debris buildup in conjunction with manhole inspections. o Staff is in the process of developing an action plan for debris removal as noted during inspection (to be completed by Utilities maintenance staff 2011). o Mainlines and laterals are scheduled to be inspected for condition and structural integrity in conjunction with the pavement management program. Work orders for maintenance, repair, or rehabilitation will be generated based on those inspections. Storm Water System Efforts and Cost  2010 Administrative Hours for storm water activities - 1,728 (FTE 1.2)  2010 Public Service Worker Hours for storm sewer activities - 4,133 (FTE 2.8)  2010 Total Expenditures for Storm Water Budget - $700,000 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 13 Storm Water Management Background Information (June 13, 2011) Monitoring A Capstone Project conducted by the University of Minnesota Natural Resource Science students in 2010 provided some guidance to storm water quality sampling. The report suggests a sampling program to include analysis for pH, temperature, turbidity, phosphate, nitrate, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen. The frequency and time of year that water quality testing is done has a significant impact on the water quality results, as the water quality is dependant on snowmelt, rainfall, and other conditions that cannot be managed. Water quality is influenced by many factors including the ambient temperature, nonpoint source pollution, waterfowl and aquatic species activity and the lake morphology (size and depth). Aquatic Vegetation Aquatic vegetation removed to create swimming and boating areas eliminates shoreline stabilizing plants that are also habitat for: • bass and other fish that hide among the plants and spawn in areas protected from waves • waterfowl that feed on underwater plants • insects that live among underwater vegetation Biologists refer to aquatic plants as emergent, submergent, and floating-leaf vegetation. Emergent vegetation protrudes above the water’s surface; submergent vegetation stays underwater; and floating-leaf plants rest on the water surface Emergent Plants, Floating-leaf Plants, Submergent Plants and Algae are often dismissed as “weeds” by many lakeshore property owners. Aquatic plants provide essential fish and wildlife habitat and help keep lakes clean and healthy. Through photosynthesis, aquatic vegetation produces oxygen for the lake. These plants also filter nutrients that can fuel midsummer algae blooms. And they provide food, shelter, and nesting areas for fish, invertebrates, and wildlife. Removing aquatic vegetation to improve boating or swimming eliminates fish habitat and damages the root network that holds bottom sediments in place. For example, bulrushes keep silt carried by waves from covering bottom gravel used by bass and pan fish for spawning. When bulrush beds are removed, waves also begin to eat away at banks. Wave action and boat wakes also stir up sediment, causing the lake water to become murky. If sunlight cannot penetrate the cloudy water, many healthy and vibrant lakes can eventually turn into a green soup, devoid of most desirable fish and wildlife species. Besides aquatic plants, there are terrestrial plants (plants that grow on land) that play a large part in water quality. St. Louis Park has been active in restoring shorelines into native grasses and forbs, which serve as natural filters for water quality, hold soil in place, as well as deterring geese from nesting and using these areas (see “Shoreline Restoration’ section in this document). Invasive plants and invasive aquatic animals are unfortunately part of our world today. In St. Louis Park, only Wolfe Lake has been formally (officially by State of MN) diagnosed to contain Eurasian water milfoil; no other lake or pond in St. Louis Park has been determined to contain any invasive plant or invasive aquatic animals. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 14 Eutrophication It is important to keep in mind that many lakes are in varying states of Eutrophication. Eutrophication is defined as an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter in an ecosystem; the enrichment of bodies of fresh water by inorganic plant nutrients (e.g., nitrate, phosphate). It may occur naturally but can also be the result of human activity (cultural eutrophication from fertilizer runoff and sewage discharge) and is particularly evident in slow-moving rivers and shallow lakes. Increased sediment deposition can eventually raise the level of the lake or river bed, allowing land plants to colonize the edges, and eventually converting the area to dry land. Often during the process of eutrophication, algal blooms occur, often followed by low oxygen levels as the algal material decays. High concentrations of algae cause water to become green with odor problems, with some types of algae being toxic to animals. To achieve lake restoration, we must restore the natural processes that allow a lake to assimilate the nutrient load that it receives. While nutrient inputs should be reduced or eliminated wherever possible, this process has historically failed to achieve lake restoration. Surface Water Treatments (Aquatic Plant Management) Treatments for surface water are quite varied and depend upon inputs to the lake, lake morphology (form and structure of lake) and other factors. There are chemical, mechanical and biological controls for surface waters. Chemical treatments of surface water creates an eternal cycle, whereby undesired, along with desired plants, aquatic animals and microorganisms are removed. This result can impact water quality both positively and negatively, with more open water for a short while, but creating “dead zones’ with no aquatic food species present for waterfowl, fish and other water dependent creatures. Often times, the chemical treatments must be repeated throughout the growing season to ensure desired, plant free water aspects, and the cycle continues. (reference: Tim Ohmann, MN DNR Aquatic Plant Specialist 651-259-5787). Mechanical treatments, such as aerators may work for small ponds, but typically only clear a small area around the aerator during the growing season, never successfully treating larger areas of the water body. Aerators have been attempted in several city lakes/ponds (i.e. Cattail Pond in Wolfe Park) with minimal to no effect on water quality. Biological treatments, such as bacteria, can be somewhat effective, but manipulate the biological water constituents, which may not be desirable and certainly not a long-term strategy for water quality control. St. Louis Park has not attempted this type of treatment. With any of these treatments, the open water usually does not last long, with undesirable algae and other plant species filling in the open water, due to high inputs of dead plant nutrients (the plants that were just killed), which serve as fertilizer/catalyst for invasive plant growth. Shoreline Restoration The intent of restored, native plantings are to increase the aesthetic value, provide educational opportunities, return the shoreline to native plants, provide habitat and reproduction areas for fish, and keep the Canada Geese out of the lake (and hopefully adjacent areas). Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 15 Shoreline degradation, erosion and increasing development pressures are affecting the health of shore land:  Lawns stretched to the shoreline remove habitat for native animals.  Removal of native vegetation--from upland trees to underwater plants--destroys natural cover and water quality protection.  The chronic use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides can contaminate the water and disrupt natural processes. Shoreline shrubs and “unsightly” fallen trees are removed to create golf course-type lawns, thus eliminating habitat for wildlife such as: • songbirds that use these shrubs for nesting • ducks that lay eggs in native shoreline grasses • turtles that sun on fallen logs • bass and panfish that hide in the shade under toppled trees. Shoreline restoration programs aid in the process of protecting a natural shoreline or restoring a degraded shore with a natural buffer zone. Creation of a buffer zone is the essence of the “lakescaping” concept. It is an opportunity to balance our needs and priorities with the needs and priorities of those with whom we share life at the edge of the water. “Lakescaping” or shore land restoration can return many desirable features to a shoreline:  Provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife  Filter out pollutants and runoff that degrade water quality  Prevent shoreline erosion by absorbing wave action  Enjoy abundant nature: flowers, shrubs, trees, aquatic plants, fish, insects, birds  Spawning and nesting habitats are protected  Beautiful plants provide great, dynamic (ever-changing) aesthetics The width of a buffer strip depends upon the terrain. On a gentle slope, at least a 30-foot strip of natural vegetation between the water and lawn will accommodate the needs of shoreline wildlife. On steeper grades, leaving even more natural vegetation in place will stabilize soils and reduce the need for retaining walls or other erosion prevention. Trees and shrubs in a buffer strip can muffle noise while providing nesting areas for songbirds. Avoid using pesticides or fertilizers in the buffer strip, because harmful chemicals can leach into the lake. Besides, insects living in shoreline vegetation are important foods for fish, birds, and other wildlife. Wetlands Wetlands help keep lakes clean by filtering sediments and excess nutrients. Acting like natural sponges, wetlands slow down water. This function reduces flooding, stabilizes lake levels, and provides recharge for groundwater. Wetland protection is guaranteed through the Wetland Conservation Act. The local government units designated as having regulatory oversight for wetlands in St. Louis Park are the watershed organizations, Bassett Creek Watershed Organization and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 16 Fish Stocked Lakes Fishing in the Neighborhood (FIN) is a DNR program aimed at increasing angling opportunities, public awareness and environmental stewardship within the seven-county metro region. As the state's population has become increasingly urbanized, it has become evident that there is a growing need for easily accessible fishing opportunities close to where people live. FIN builds on existing urban fisheries management activities such as stocking, aeration and enhancement of shore-fishing and pier-fishing opportunities. By reaching out to a wider variety of interests, such as local parks departments, lake associations and schools, FIN promotes a greater awareness of aquatic habitat needs and the importance of good stewardship. By getting more people involved in angling, FIN will assure that this family-oriented activity continues to be one of Minnesota's most popular pastimes! Before any lake gets into the FIN program, it must undergo a rigorous evaluation. The evaluation consists of 170 questions/factors that are then tallied to equal a point rating. Only the very highest rated lakes are added to the FIN program list, with a select few of these lakes garnered for fish stocking. Some of the rated factors include lake location, lake morphology, public access and demographic aspects of nearby residents. Now, with public funding decreasing, FIN lake selection is even more restrictive. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 17 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 18 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 19 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 20 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 21 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 22 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 23 Watershed Association Initiative A program to better engage citizens in the protection and improvement of lakes and streams in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Action Steps: Empowering Citizens To Protect and Improve Lakes and Streams Why Local Citizens? Citizens who live by a lake or river observe and connect with that resource on a daily basis. As members of their local community, they can best prioritize actions and increase participation in water-friendly land use decisions. Their love for the lake or river is often an infectious and sustainable source of positive change. Citizens Residents living near lakes and streams, clean water advocates • Contact WAI organizer to get helpful tips and tools • Hold a community meeting • Connect with community partners • Start a lake or river protection group • Set priorities for community water protection Community Partners Local officials, government staff, business leaders • Contact WAI organizer for a list of citizen water protection groups in your area • Organize a city-wide meeting of residents interested in the formation a lake or river group • Connect with groups by attending meetings and events • Provide groups with a list of services and expertise offered by your organization • Update groups on initiatives related to area surface waters • Encourage groups to participate in and provide input concerning surface water initiatives Contact: Eli Condon Watershed Association Initiative Organizer (218) 251-1462 elic@minnesotawaters.org Community Engagement Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 24 Watershed Association Initiative We Offer: • Organizational support and guidance to help citizen-led groups • Funding assistance for new citizen-led lake and river groups • Educational presentations from water resource professionals • Trainings and workshops to give groups the tools they need for water protection • Networking events for citizens to share ideas and resources • Annual Lakes and Rivers Summit • Help with lake management planning and partnerships The WAI was started in 2006 by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in partnership with the state-wide nonprofit Minnesota Waters. The initiative empowers citizens to protect and improve district waters by providing trainings, support and fostering a network of lake and river groups. The initiative also strongly encourages groups to collaborate with community businesses, organizations, and government agencies. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is committed to a leadership role in protecting, improving and managing the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the district, including their relationships to the ecosystems of which they are an integral part. Minnesota Waters is a state wide non-profit providing the training, connections, and support to lake and river groups to protect and improve our waters. minnehahacreek.org 952.471.0590 minnesotawaters.org 800.515.5253 For More Information www.minnehahacreek.org/WatershedAssociationInitiativeWAI.php What is the Watershed Association Initiative (WAI)? Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 25 Project Type ====> Storm Basin Rank per Water Quality Benefit Water Quality Benefit Pond Rehabilitation / Expansion to Meet MPCA Guidelines Rehabilitation of Outlet Control Structure Delta Removal Structure Repair General Debris Cleanup Bass Lake Preserve 1 High $2,913,000 + $25,000 - $35,000 Completed 2009 -Spring/Fall Twin Lakes 2 High No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 -Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Oregon Pond 3 Moderate $385,000 +No Action Needed Completed 2009 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Oak Pond 4 Moderate $435,000 +TBD Scheduled 2012 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Sumter Pond 5 Moderate $65,000 +TBD Scheduled 2012 -Spring/Fall Browndale Pond 6 Moderate $219,000 + NA - No Outlet Completed 2011 Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Lamplighter Pond 7 Moderate $79,000 +No Action Needed Completed 2009 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Otten Pond 8 Moderate $69,000 +$20,000 - $30,000 -Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Twin Lakes Sed Basin 9 Moderate $992,000 +TBD -Completed 2012 Spring/Fall Westdale Sed Basin 10 Moderate $124,000 +$25,000 - $35,000 --Spring/Fall Cedar Manor Lake 11 Moderate $278,000 +TBD Scheduled 2012 Review - TBD Spring/Fall Klodt Pond 12 Moderate No Action Needed TBD TBD Review - TBD Spring/Fall Cobblecrest Lake 13 Moderate No Action Needed No Action Needed -Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Shelard Sed Basin 14 Low No Action Needed TBD --Spring/Fall Utah Pond 15 Low No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 TBD -Spring/Fall Blackstone Pond 16 Low No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 --Spring/Fall Candelstick Pond 17 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed TBD Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Cattail Pond 18 Low No Action Needed TBD TBD -Spring/Fall Amhurst Pond 19 Low No Action Needed $20,000 - $30,000 TBD Review - TBD Spring/Fall South Oak Pond 20 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed Scheduled 2012 Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Westling Pond 21 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed -Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Victoria Lake 22 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed Completed 2010 Scheduled 2012 Spring/Fall Kilmer Pond 23 Low No Action Needed TBD Completed 2009 Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Wolfe Lake 24 Low No Action Needed TBD TBD Completed 2011 Spring/Fall Hannon Lake 25 Low No Action Needed NA - No Outlet TBD Scheduled 2013 Spring/Fall Westwood Lake 26 Low No Action Needed No Action Needed --Spring/Fall Estimated Costs $5,460,000 1 $470,000 2 $8,500 3 $35,000 4 - St. Louis Park Storm Basin Rehabilitation and Maintenance Plan March 2012 5 - Routine maintenance of existing infrastructure budgeted for in the Storm Water Budget. Necessary to maintain existing assets. 6 - Suggested capital improvements aimed at improving water quality based on current MPCA guidelines. Aesthetic improvements or water treatment initiatives have not been included. Routine Maintenance 5Capital Improvement 6 1 - The costs above do not include engineering design, wetland mitigation, permitting, or easement costs. Total project costs could easily be double these construction estimates. 3 - Estimated average annual cost. This work is contracted out. 4 - Estimated cost of materials. Most of this work will be completed by Utility staff. 2 - Estimated cost of identified improvements along with future studies and TBD improvements. Notes: Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 3) Subject: Storm Water/Surface Water Management Page 26 Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide Council with research information staff has gathered relating to Best Management Practices (BMP's) and ideas from other leading cities and environmental organizations to assist in discussing what future changes should be considered for our solid waste program. POLICY CONSIDERATION: As the City Council undertakes discussions on this matter over the coming months, the following policy questions will need to be addressed. 1. What does being No. 1 or being a leader in the industry mean or look like? 2. What changes to the current solid waste program should be considered? 3. Do these changes align with the city adopted waste program "Purpose, Goals & Objectives"? 4. Is education regarding recyclable materials desired? Organics collection? BACKGROUND: History On January 9, 2012, staff presented the 2011 Solid Waste Program Survey report. The purpose of the program survey was to gauge resident satisfaction and understanding of the solid waste program, and to solicit suggestions for program improvements. The results indicated significant resident satisfaction with contractor / staff performance and with the overall program. On February 13, 2012, staff presented the Solid Waste Program documents (History of the Program, Purpose, Goals & Objectives, Current Program Summary, and 2011 Program Annual Report). Staff asked if the following program "Purpose, Goals & Objectives" were still relevant: 1. High Quality Service 2. Environmental Stewardship 3. Cost Effective Services 4. Effective Communication 5. Continual Evaluation of Program and Industry Council discussed some of their ideas for changing the program and their desire to once again be an “industry leader” in the solid waste field. Council directed staff to research information relating to BMP's and ideas from other leading cities and environmental organizations to help in deciding what future changes are needed for our solid waste program. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Research Sources To determine what BMP's are being done by other leading cities and environmental organizations staff conducted a fairly comprehensive research via the internet. The information collected and summarized in the attached report exhibits, was obtained from the following organizations: Institute for Local Government in California, Mecklenburg County North Carolina, San José California, Ann Arbor Michigan, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences at University of Florida, Winston-Salem and Forsyth County Utilities Commission North Carolina, Sustainable District of Columbia, and Vancouver British Columbia. Research Findings (Exhibit Descriptions) Attached to this report are exhibits that describe the research findings. The information found in each exhibit is briefly described below: Exhibit 1 (attached) provides a summary of best management practice program elements shared by local governments with high recycling/diversion rates. The program elements are categorized by waste stream into single family curbside, multi-family, commercial, construction/demolition, waste reduction, and event recycling. Exhibit 2 (attached) provides a matrix showing which of the best management practice elements, identified in Exhibit 1, are being used by 19 leading environmental cities in the United States (St. Louis Park data has been included for comparison purposes). The matrix is set-up with the number of BMP’s used for each program type arranged from most (top) to least (bottom) as well as showing the cities with the number of BMP’s used from most (left) to least (right). Summary counts are shown for informational purposes. Exhibit 3 (attached) provides a matrix showing materials collected curbside in high-yielding communities in the United States and Canada (St. Louis Park data has been included for comparison purposes). The matrix is set-up similarly to Exhibit 2 with material types being collected arranged from most (top) to least (bottom) as well as having the cities arranged from most (left) to least (right) for materials collected. Summary counts are shown for informational purposes. Exhibit 4 (attached) provides a list of BMP's and cutting edge practices for each type of waste stream (residential, institutional, multi-family, and commercial). The items are color coded to show if they are being utilized by SLP and staff’s recommendations regarding their possible use. The color coding used in the exhibit is: • Green – currently doing / no change recommended by staff • Blue – currently doing / improvement proposed by staff • Red – not currently doing / staff recommends considering doing • Black – not currently doing / not recommended doing by staff Adding new work tasks/programs may have implications on both staff resources and budget allocations. Future analysis will be needed for the items Council desires adding. Exhibit 5 (attached) lists the curbside collection items identified in Exhibit 3 plus other items currently being collected by St. Louis Park which were not included in Exhibit 3. The red X's Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services indicate the six new items staff is recommending be added to our curbside collection program. The list shows all 21 items staff recommends be collected curbside in St. Louis Park. Any additions or changes to St. Louis Park’s current curbside collection items need to be negotiated and agreed to by our current recycling hauler, Eureka Recycling. Staff has already begun discussions with Eureka Recycling to add some of the plastic materials identified in Exhibit 5 that Hennepin County is requiring the City start collecting by the end of 2012. Additional Program Education Needed? Should Council desire more detailed information on specific BMP's or particular waste items, staff can arrange for industry experts (e.g., Eureka Recycling, Waste Management, Hennepin County, MPCA, etc.) to come to future study sessions to provide information and answer questions. Some possible examples of what might be of interest are: • What plastic types can and can’t be recycled? And why? • Why is it difficult to establish end markets for all recycling materials? • Are all recycling materials collected truly being recycled? • What are the options for organics collection and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each? • What is the status of the state and county efforts associated with establishing permanent compost disposal sites? Proposed Process for Solid Waste Collection Contracts / Timeline The current residential refuse/yard waste and recycling collection contracts expire September 30, 2013. New contracts should be awarded before the end of March 2013 to allow contractors time to adequately prepare for the work. If that deadline cannot be met, extensions of the current contracts will likely need to be negotiated. Listed below is a draft schedule showing major steps felt necessary to develop and award new collection contracts. Item Completion Date Staff / Council review of current & proposed collection program & services Feb - May 2012 Solicitation of public input (if desired by Council) Mar - May 2012 Staff / Council determine future collection program and services Jun - Jul 2012 Staff / Council determine contract and proposal requirements July - Sep 2012 Draft contract and RFP completed Sep 2012 Ordinance changes, if any needed, are identified Sep 2012 Ordinance revisions made (if needed) Sep 2012 - Jun 2013 Council authorizes solicitation of proposals Sep - Oct 2012 Proposals received by Staff Nov 2013 Proposals and staff recommendations reviewed with Council Jan 2013 Staff negotiates collection contracts with vendors Jan - Feb 2013 Council approves new collection contracts Mar 2013 Staff conducts public education outreach with residents Apr - Aug 2013 New collection contracts begin Oct 1 2013 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Note: A separate schedule or schedules for considering and implementing collection services beyond current curbside residential collection will be developed if Council wants to consider providing any of those services; any such efforts, if undertaken, may have an impact on the schedule listed above. Next Steps Based on Council input, next steps regarding the following items will be discussed at the end of the study session: • Obtaining industry expert information • Possible need for resident surveys • Public input or involvement needs FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: The City’s refuse and recycling activities support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City Council. 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. Focus areas: • Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices. • Working in areas such as…environmental innovations. Attachments: Exhibit 1 – Best Management Practices Exhibit 2 – Program Comparisons Exhibit 3 – Curbside Comparisons Exhibit 4 – Best Practices Detail Exhibit 5 – Materials Proposed for Curbside Collection Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Shannon Hansen, Public Works Admin Specialist Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager EXHIBIT 1 Municipal Solid Waste Program Best Practices 1 Following is a summary of program elements shared by local governments with high recycling/diversion rates. Single Family Curbside • Variable Rate PAYT - a variable rate system where garbage charges are based on the size of subscribed container and recycling and composting collection are free (i.e., the less garbage you produce, the less you pay ‐ also called Pay‐As‐You‐Throw) • Food Waste Collection Program (usually allowed to be combined with yard waste) • Mandatory Recycling Program • Disposal Ban - a ban on disposal of recyclable and compostable items in the garbage container (garbage is not picked up if recyclable or compostable items are in trash or a fine is levied) Multi‐family • Mandatory Recycling requirement • Required Recycling Service - with garbage collection • Food Waste Service - some have food waste collection Commercial • Mandatory Recycling • Mandatory Food Waste (SF absolute, others if food waste generating business) • Styrofoam Ban for restaurants • Required Recycling Service • Food‐service containers must be recyclable or compostable (local govt. approves containers) • Free collection (not shown on Exhibit 2) • Recycling plan (not shown on Exhibit 2) Construction/Demolition • Mandatory recycling percentage • Disposal ban • Materials must be taken to a certified facility with mandated recycling % requirements • Economic incentive – fee required with permit, fee returned if recycling quota met (50‐65%) • Waste management plans submitted with permit application (not shown on Exhibit 2) • Final reporting after project completion (not shown on Exhibit 2) Waste Reduction (Reduce, Reuse) • Product reuse centers/exchanges • Opt out of yellow pages and junk mail • Extended Producer Responsibility • Green purchasing (buy recycled, lower toxicity) • Grants • Pay‐As‐You‐Throw (not shown on Exhibit 2) • Educational partnerships (not shown on Exhibit 2) Event Recycling • Recycling requirement • City provides containers/services • Recyclable or compostable food/beverage packaging requirement - styrofoam ban 1 Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services Agency, Solid Waste Division, Best Practices for Local Government Solid Waste Recycling, Diversion from Landfill and Waste Reduction, December 2011 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 5 Solid Waste Program Elements of High-Yielding Communities 03/02/12 EXHIBIT 2 Seattle, WASan Francisco, CAPortland, ORToronto CanadaFresno, CASan Jose, CAOakland, CAAustin, TXBoulder, COAlameda County, CASt. Louis Park, MNChicago, ILOrange County, NCAtlanta, GAFairfax County, VAPhiladelphia, PAIndianapolis, INOrange County, FLGreensboro, NCDenver, COCOUNTSingle Family Curbside Variable Rate – PAYT X X X X X X X X X X 10 Food Waste Collection X X X X X X X 7 Mandatory Recycling X X X X 4 Disposal Ban X 1 Multi‐family Mandatory Recycling X X X X X X X X 8 Required Recycling Svc.X X X X X X 6 Food Waste Service 0 Commercial Mandatory Recycling X X X X X X X X X 9 Plastic Bag Ban X X X X 4 Mandatory Food Waste X X X 3 Styrofoam Ban X X 2 Required Recycling Svc.X 1 Recyclable/compostable food/bev. pkging req.X 1 Construction/Demo Mandatory recycling % X X X X X X X X 8 Disposal Ban X X 2 Must use certified facility X X 2 Economic incentive – refundable deposit fee with permit X 1 Waste Reduction Product reuse centers/exchanges X X X X X X X 7 Opt out (yellow pages, junk mail)X X X 3 Extended Producer Responsibility X X 2 Green purchasing X 1 Grants 0 Event Recycling Recycling requirement X X X X 4 City provides containers/services X X X X 4 Recyclable/compostable food/bev. pkging req.X X 2 COUNT 13 13 9 8 7 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 6 Materials Collected Curbside in High-Yielding Communities 03/02/2012 EXHIBIT 3 Materials Collected Curbside as of December 2011 Seattle, WAToronto CanadaFresno, CAPortland, OROakland, CASt. Louis Park, MNSan Francisco, CAChicago, ILBoulder, CODenver, COGreensboro, NCSan Jose, CAAlameda County, CAPhiladelphia, PAAtlanta, GAOrange County, NCIndianapolis, INAustin, TXCOUNTGlass bottles and jars X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Paper, news, mag.X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Paperboard boxes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Corrugated cardboard X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Aluminum cans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 Yard waste X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 Tin and Steel cans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 Cartons-Gable Top (1/2 gallon milk/orange juice cartons)X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 Plastics 1 & 2 bottles X X X X X X X X X X X 11 Plastics 1-7 incl. clamshells, deli trays, except Styrofoam X X X X X X X X X X X 11 Aluminum foil X X X X X X X X X X 10 Plastics 1-5 + 7 bottles X X X X X X X X X 9 Aerosol cans (empty)X X X X X X X X X 9 Aseptic packaging (juice boxes)X X X X X X X X X 9 Shredded paper X X X X X X X X 8 Metal jar lids & steel bottle caps X X X X X X 6 Scrap metal (2'x2'x2' or 30lbs)X X X X X 5 Used motor oil X X X X X 5 Plastic - large rigid X X X X X 5 Plastic lids (3" or wider)X X X X 4 Food waste (organics - veggie only)X X X X 4 Food waste (organics - w/meat, dairy)X X X X 4 Plastic bags (bagged not loose)X X X 3 Coated papers (hot drink cups)X X 2 Oil filters X X 2 Textiles X X 2 Electronics X X 2 Fluorescent bulbs 0 COUNT 21 18 17 17 16 15 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 11 10 8 8 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 7 EXHIBIT 4 Potential Solid Waste Program Enhancements 03/02/12 Green = currently doing/no change | Blue = currently doing & improving | Red = new & recommended |Black = not planning to do Page 1 of 4 Waste Stream Best Practice Cutting Edge Residential Recycling/Organics: • Consider single stream recycling • Large colored sticker on recycling cart that shows what materials can be recycled • Offer curbside organics collection • Mandatory recycling participation • Ban on disposal of recyclable and compostable items in the garbage container Garbage: • No charge for downsizing cart size • Utilize PAYT (Pay-as-you-Throw) • Raise fees on Extra Refuse Stickers to encourage recycling • Revise rates to encourage recycling • Reduce/limit number of service levels • Offer smaller carts (<30 gallons) • Charge for upsizing cart size • Don’t pick up garbage (fines) if recyclables mixed in • Consider curbside hazardous waste collection Recycling/Organics, collect the following: • Review national partnership opportunities to expand local recycling efforts (Curbside Value Partnership) • Consider curbside metal collection (2’ or less) • Empty steel paint cans • Metal pots and pans • Small metal appliances (toaster) • Flower pots and trays • Utensils- plastic • Motor oil, next to cart in clear jug • Disposable diapers (organics) • Animal waste (organics) • Provide green e‐waste bag to assist residents in disposing of small electronics Garbage: • Collection every 2 weeks (weekly recycling and organics collection) • Share garbage service with neighbor Institutional (school, church, hospital) • Include information about recycling opportunities on city’s Web site • Create a program for schools and provide assistance • Encourage mixed paper and cardboard recycling Multi‐family • Improve code requirements • Improve monitoring and enforcement of existing codes • Include information about recycling opportunities on city’s Web site • Create education plan/program • City conduct waste audits and recommend strategies to reduce waste • Create ordinance that requires all MF submit a recycling improvement plan • City organized collection of recycling materials • City organized collection of organics • Mandatory Recycling Ordinance Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 8 EXHIBIT 4 Potential Solid Waste Program Enhancements 03/02/12 Green = currently doing/no change | Blue = currently doing & improving | Red = new & recommended |Black = not planning to do Page 2 of 4 Waste Stream Best Practice Cutting Edge Commercial • Include information about recycling opportunities on city’s Web site • Create ordinance requiring recycling • Improve monitoring and enforcement of existing codes • Honor outstanding businesses which recycle above the norm • Create education program for businesses • Mandatory recycling/making hauler permits contingent on offering recycling • Require hauler provide tonnage reports to city • City conduct waste audits and recommend strategies to reduce waste • Institute a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling program with financial and other incentives • Mandatory food waste (organics) collection • Food service containers must be recyclable or compostable (local govt. decides/approves containers) • Collaborate w/local artists to design recycling bins in city parks (Mears Park, Saint Paul) • Adopt a commercial paper and cardboard recycling ordinance • Create a Commercial Recycling Committee to develop recommendations for an effective business recycling initiative • Provide organics collection to larger commercial generators in the city (those generating 1-2 tons/month), offering this service for free in a designated area and charging a fee outside the area. • Styrofoam ban for restaurants Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 9 EXHIBIT 4 Potential Solid Waste Program Enhancements 03/02/12 Green = currently doing/no change | Blue = currently doing & improving | Red = new & recommended |Black = not planning to do Page 3 of 4 Waste Stream Best Practice Cutting Edge Construction/ Demolition • Require all city-initiated construction projects to incorporate construction and demolition waste recycling or recovery practices. • Create a Residential and Commercial Construction & Demolition Program: o Mandatory recycling of asphalt concrete o Mandatory recycling of Portland cement o Salvage and reuse materials in all community construction and demolition projects o Materials (shingles, metal, wood, cardboard) must be taken to a certified facility with mandated recycling percentage requirements • Waste management plans submitted with construction permit application • Economic incentive – fee required with permit, 100% fee returned if recycling quota met (50‐ 65%) • Create policy to require use of: o Rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) for streets and roads o Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) for streets and roads o RAP for commercial and community parking lots • Encourage schools and other public agencies to use RAP for parking lots, where feasible. • Disposal bans • Mandatory reuse of land clearing debris (instead of landfilling) Event Recycling • Create a Special Event recycling program • City provides containers or collection services • Recycling requirement (through permits) • Encourage compostable food/beverage packaging • Styrofoam ban Carbon • Work with haulers to reduce collection system footprint • Work with haulers to calculate carbon footprint of collection system Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 10 EXHIBIT 4 Potential Solid Waste Program Enhancements 03/02/12 Green = currently doing/no change | Blue = currently doing & improving | Red = new & recommended |Black = not planning to do Page 4 of 4 Waste Stream Best Practice Cutting Edge Methane • Calculate the methane emissions associated with the disposal of waste generated within the community. • Enter into partnerships or agreements with waste disposal agencies or companies to ensure that the maximum feasible amount of methane is recovered for waste-to-energy purposes. Waste Reduction (Reduce, Reuse) • Promote opt‐out of yellow pages and junk mail • Promote green purchasing (buy recycled) • Utilize PAYT (Pay-as-you-Throw) • Develop a waste reduction messaging campaign • Grants • Educational partnerships • Revise rates to encourage recycling • Product reuse centers/exchanges • Extended Producer Responsibility • Yellow Pages Distribution Ban and Ordinance • Consider banning plastic bags and other “undesirable” materials Other • Consider accepting hazardous materials at cleanup events • Develop and implement a community education program • Consider a city-owned and operated drop-off facility • Social Marketing-study what makes people want to recycle Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 11 Recommended Materials to Collect Curbside 03/02/2012 EXHIBIT 5 Materials Collected Curbside as of December 2011 Seattle, WASt. Louis Park, MNToronto CanadaFresno, CAPortland, OROakland, CASan Francisco, CAChicago, ILBoulder, CODenver, COGreensboro, NCSan Jose, CAAlameda County, CAPhiladelphia, PAAtlanta, GAOrange County, NCIndianapolis, INAustin, TXCOUNTGlass bottles and jars X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Paper, news, mag.X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Paperboard boxes X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Corrugated cardboard X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 Aluminum cans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 Yard waste X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 Tin and Steel cans X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 Cartons-Gable Top (1/2 gallon milk/orange juice cartons)X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 Plastic clamshells, deli trays, except Styrofoam (#3 - #7)X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 Plastics bottles (#1 and #2)X X X X X X X X X X X 11 Aluminum foil X X X X X X X X X X 10 Plastics 1-5 + 7 bottles X X X X X X X X X X 10 Aerosol cans (empty)X X X X X X X X X 9 Aseptic packaging (juice boxes)X X X X X X X X X 9 Shredded paper X X X X X X X X 8 Metal jar lids & steel bottle caps X X X X X X 6 Scrap metal (2'x2'x2' or 30lbs)X X X X X X 6 Used motor oil X X X X X 5 Plastic - (big toys, lawn furniture)X X X X X 5 Plastic lids (3" or wider)X X X X X 5 Food waste (organics - veggie, meat, and dairy)X X X X X 5 Food waste (organics - veggie only)X X X X 4 Plastic bags (bagged not loose)X X X X 4 Coated papers (hot drink cups)X X 2 Oil filters X X 2 Textiles X X 2 Electronics X X 2 Fluorescent bulbs 0 COUNT 21 21 18 17 17 16 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 11 10 8 8 Pizza boxes and pop/beer boxes are included in Corrugated Cardboard Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 4) Subject: Solid Waste Collection Program and Services Page 12 Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 5 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required at this time. Staff has prepared this report summarizing the 2012 Real Estate Valuations in St. Louis Park as a means to assist with the discussion at the Study Session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. This report is intended to assist the Council to more thoroughly understand the local real estate markets, to review the appeals process (focus on St. Louis Park’s Local Board of Appeal and Equalization), to develop further understanding of the community’s tax capacity, and to ask questions about the property tax system. BACKGROUND: The Assessing Division annually renders an opinion of valuation and classification for all parcels of real estate in St. Louis Park. The attached report summarizes the aggregate conclusions. City Assessor Cory Bultema will present an overview during the study session which includes explanation of the MN property tax system, the assessment process, the appeal process and the valuation picture for the community as of January 2, 2012. Related to the report, the valuation notices will commence mailing to all property owners on March 8, 2012 and the formal appeal process begins with the St. Louis Park Local Board of Appeal and Equalization scheduled to convene on April 9, 2012. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Composition of the community’s real estate valuations and corresponding tax capacity has an impact on the budget process. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable Attachments: 2012 Valuation Report Prepared by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2012 Valuation Report (Payable 2013 Tax Period) Assessing Staff General Information – 952-924-2535 Cory Bultema – City Assessor – 952-924-2536 Marty Fechner – Assessment Technician/Appraiser – 952-924-2533 Mark Hoppe – Appraiser I – 952-924-2529 Deb Lynch – Appraiser II – 952-924-2532 Bridget Nathanson – Commercial Appraiser – 952-924-2530 Kelley Schomer – Appraiser – 952-924-2638 Contents: Summary of the St. Louis Park 2011 Assessment Roll Pages 3 – 7 Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System Page 8 The Assessment Process Page 9 The Appeal Process Page 10 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 2 Summary of the St. Louis Park 2012 Assessment Roll The 2012 Notice of Valuation and Classification is mailed to each property owner in March. The notice reflects the property value and class as of January 2, 2012 and applies to the Pay 2013 tax period. The total valuation of the city stands at $5,085,153,700. This reflects a 2.2% “net” decline in total value versus the 2011 assessment. A comparative review of the value composition is made as follows: Historical Value Composition: 2009 Assess 2010 Assess 2011 Assess 2012 Assess Residential Uses 69.6% 68.3% 67.4% 66.5% Apartment Uses 9.3% 9.4% 10.2% 10.8% Commercial Uses 21.1% 22.3% 22.4% 22.6% The above reference to the assessment composition indicates a continued value shift from residential to apartments and commercial-industrial uses. This is expected given the recent value trending for residential parcels (single-family homes, condos and townhomes) versus the new construction activity in the apartment markets while the commercial/industrial uses are relatively flat to slightly up. Also playing a significant role are recent redevelopment efforts which are critical in fully built-out communities such as St. Louis Park. Further understanding of the value composition and year-over-year trending is explored in the chart following. Assessed market value change for dominant sectors (comparison of 2012 assessment versus 2011) Single-Family Residential - 4.3% Static Basis versus - 3.8% with Improvements Condominium - 3.8% Static Basis versus - 3.8% with Improvements Townhomes -12.6% Static Basis versus - 12.6% with Improvements Apartments + 4.9% Static Basis versus + 4.9% with Improvements Commercial-Industrial + 0.5% Static Basis versus + 0.6% with Improvements St. Louis Park Total - 2.6% Static Basis versus - 2.2% with Improvements Value change on a static basis reflects the property types in a direct comparison from one year to the next and does not include improvement values arising from renovations and new construction. While the static basis comparison is interesting, the value change including improvements is much more accurate in terms of understanding the economic activity for the community. Each of the above categories will be explained at further length in the report sections following. Assessors as a rule always reference the true market… i.e. the data by which we set the assessment to mirror what is actually happening. The following chart provides a comparative reference for St. Louis Park versus our immediate neighbors across multiple years. This chart is a conglomeration of virtually all product types as an aggregate – interesting yes. Highly specific? No. Further details will be presented. Historic Median Sale Price – includes Single-Family Homes, Condos, Townhomes, Twin homes % Change % Change 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 from 10 from 06 St. Louis Park 233,000 234,000 227,000 212,500 213,250 185,000 -13.2% -20.6% Edina 389,500 376,000 389,450 323,950 339,000 340,000 + 0.3% -12.7% Golden Valley 267,900 272,500 263,000 220,000 235,500 199,000 -15.5% -25.7% Hopkins 205,900 205,150 169,000 160,000 148,000 125,000 -15.5% -39.3% Minnetonka 270,000 287,000 265,900 245,000 265,713 233,000 -12.3% -13.7% Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors Sales Data (MAAR) Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 3 Viewed on a long term, St. Louis Park has retained value in line with surrounding communities. And yet, when contemplating the trends from annual 2009-to-2010-to-2011, our performance seems to be weakening. Why? A number of factors are noted for your reference. They include price points, absorption of distressed properties and the relative performance between the dominant residential use property types (single-family homes, condos, townhomes). We will begin with two charts reviewing the performance variation in the traditional market, the foreclosure market and short sales. Number of Sales in St. Louis Park – Traditional vs Foreclosure vs Short Sale Median Sale Prices in St. Louis Park – Traditional vs Foreclosure vs Short Sale Source: “The Thing” – Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors (MAAR) It is impossible to discuss market performance without review of the distressed markets. Lender mediated sales are defined as those where the property is coming out of a foreclosure and/or a “short” sale where the financial institution is involved in the approval of offers due to the owner’s equity being potentially negative. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 4 Across the 13 county Twin City Metro Area: the 2007 market share of these sales represented 10.1% of the total transactions; in 2008 the share increased to 32.5%; in 2009 it increased to 48.9%; in 2010 the trend “improved” slightly to 47.9%; and for 2011 was at 50.0% of all sales. St. Louis Park was at 17.7% for 2009; at 20.0% in 2010; and, at 39.7% for 2011. Comparative performance and forecasting the trend-line for 2012, however, is important to understand. This issue will be covered at further length during the discussion with council. We complete our review of the overall residential sector by breaking it down into two distinct categories… low density (single-family homes) and mid-to-high density (condo-townhome). Single-family homes comprise over 50% of the community’s total value. Our contemplation included the traditional sales review, on-market listings at multiple points throughout the year, accessing the MLS sale info as well as statistics for the traditional and lender-mediated markets (monthly and quarterly updating basis), quintile inspections which focused on the northwest environs of the city and, of course, new construction and renovation permit reviews. We are seeing a distinct market reaction where the quality properties are retaining their value much better than those with lesser fundamental quality or unique attributes (such as wooded lots and advantageous views). Review of the sale transactions throughout the city concludes that price bracket was a major factor for the 2012 assessment… the dominant adjustment range was -3.0% to -4.5% in the aggregate sense with the various price brackets being adjusted to mirror the market within a range between -1.8% and – 13.6% overall among the neighborhoods. The single-family residential stock remains fairly durable, in the competitive sense, versus immediately adjacent jurisdictions which play a role in our market. Our sale count continues to be relatively healthy although it is important to note the issue of the traditional market versus the lender mediated market. From a valuation standpoint, assessing staff has been monitoring both the traditional sales and those of the lender mediated (foreclosure and short sale) sub-markets extensively over the last five years. There are forty-five (45) distinct Condominium complexes in the community with a decidedly diverse stock in terms of structural vintage, design format (apartment conversions, lo-rise, hi-rise, row-house and most everything in between). The local market exhibits a very wide pricing structure which historically ranged from 70,000/unit to over 500,000/unit. For 2012, the lower pricing bracket now extends to the upper 40,000’s per unit and the adjustments have occurred predominantly in this bracket. Highlights: The market information reviewed for this property included qualified sales as well as consideration of which/why other sales were disqualified with particular emphasis on distressed sales. We also normally review the on-markets within the traditional and distressed sub-markets and cross reference between local complexes on both a per unit basis as well as the total valuation for each complex. The valuation adjustment for all complexes was – 3.8% in the assessment. Within the full universe… the adjustments ranged from 0.0 to -7.9% for most complexes in 2012. Six complexes were adjusted outside of that range… two moving up (more recent construction build-outs) and four complexes moving down in very significant movements where large concentrations of short or foreclosure sales and current short listings were readily evident. This will be discussed at further length during the presentation. There are eighteen (18) distinct Townhome complexes in the community. About one-half of them are relatively small with less than 20 units in the complex. The other half are predominantly in the 20-70 unit bracket with just a few larger complexes. Valuation adjustments on a complex basis for the 2012 Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 5 assessment ranged from -2.4% to -8.8% for most complexes. We note, however, the same market forces are at play in this niche as that of the condos with three complexes having large concentrations of short or foreclosure sales and current short listings were readily evident. Adjustments to these three complexes are larger in scale to mirror the recent market absorption trends of the distressed sub-market. Regarding sheriff sales for condos & townhomes… there were 40 in 2008, 33 in 2009, 85 in 2010 and 47 in 2011. Timing and absorption of the distressed sub-markets has been accommodated in the 2012 assessment. The Apartment sector for the 2012 assessment is up 4.9% which includes very little new construction value due to project timing. The class A and B markets (newer, higher amenity packages and normally multi-story) are clearly in high demand from the perspective of the investment ownership community. We expect several high profile transactions to occur in this niche during 2012 (as well as throughout the metro). A summary of recent new construction includes the Camerata coming on-line in 2009, the Ellipse completed for 2011, and projects currently under construction which include Wooddale Point and 36 Park with even more projects proposed to commence in 2012 (E2, West End Apartments and Gateway). Meanwhile, the C market (commonly referred to as less than 3 stories built circa 1960-1975) is stable to slightly down in valuation – primarily to reflect the tax shift associated with the homestead legislation. Traditionally speaking, this sector of the apartment market normally performs in a reverse image of the lower pricing brackets of the owner-occupied residential market. We note, however, that this historic performance parameter has ceased to be reliable due to the pricing influence arising from the foreclosure market forces in single-family homes, condos and townhomes. The Commercial and Industrial properties have been relatively stable over the past four years in terms of value growth albeit in contrast to relatively weak residential and apartment sectors. It is important to realize that these properties comprise about 5% of our total parcel count while accounting for 22.6% of the total value and, most importantly, 36+% of the total tax capacity for the 2012 assessment. The following table gives some background on performance over time: Commercial & Industrial Valuation Change: 2010-to-2011 & 2011-to-2012 2010 to 2011 2011 to 2012 Dominant Use Categories Static Gross Static Gross Restaurant & Grocery -0.6% -0.6% -1.9% -1.7% Hotel & Motel +7.9% +7.9% +0.6% +0.6% Office (All Types) -1.9% -1.5% +2.9% +3.2% Retail (Free Standing, Big Box and Multi-Tenant) -2.5% +0.3% +1.9% +2.1% Industrial -0.9% -0.6% -2.2% -3.0% Total Commercial & Industrial +0.3% +1.1% +0.5% +0.6% As can be surmised in reviewing the trends above, raw statistics can be very misleading. As noted previously, the static value change reflects the direct comparison of the existing properties from one year to the next. The gross change includes the value of renovations and new construction. For commercial and industrial use properties, especially for “mature” communities, continuous redevelopment is vital to long term health. St. Louis Park has been remarkably fortunate in this regard. As can be seen above, the city’s commercial-industrial value actually increased for both the 2011 and 2012 assessment periods. These value increases are largely attributed to the West End development project along with smaller developments interspersed throughout the community. When the analysis turns to the existing stock, however, the picture is less optimistic. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 6 The commercial-industrial markets clearly began a decline in 2008 throughout the metro area. The fundamental economic forces leading to that decline can be summarized as jobs, the availability of financing, the general economy and slowing absorption of newer construction stock following years of robust growth. In terms of the dominant use categories, office buildings are a major value component of the total stock. For the 2012 assessment, the class A and upper B properties are performing better and have been the focal point of multiple high profile transactions throughout the metro area. We are similar in that regard as the twin office buildings formerly owned by Duke were included in a package transaction which comprised throughout the country for a sale price of $1.08 billion. This trophy mentality has not, thus far, translated to the class B and C stock where valuations were mostly flat to slightly down. Vacant and “shadow” space are forecasted to stabilize in the short term and likely to lead to flat or nominal change in rental rates across the spectrum during 2012. Another dominant use category of significant note is that of retail. While retail has struggled in the metro market, in this respect the west sector has a relatively low vacancy rate. Given the scale of the West End development, however, it has been noted that vacancies have rippled throughout the community as many owners have contacted the assessing office to report that existing tenants are requesting renegotiated leases in the middle of their terms. The 2011 assessment reflected these ripples and the trending for 2012 reflects a stabilizing trend to slight improvements in performance. We close our review with the industrial market. We have reviewed the overall market and taken a more conservative approach given the state of the economy. Industrial, as its own sub-market, was reduced for the 2010 assessment by 2.1%, reduced again for the 2011 assessment by 0.6% and again by 3.0% for 2012 as we locally equalized properties and very few valuations moved more than a few percentage points in either direction. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 7 Overview of the Minnesota Property Tax System Minnesota law establishes a specific process and time line for the entire property tax system, including the assessment of property. The system is summarized as follows: 1. All real property is valued at market value annually and classified according to usage. In addition there are a multitude of sub-classifications and credits which are administratively updated. 2. State law defines how the value and class rate are translated into tax capacity as well as refinements for subsidies and credits (e.g. homestead, veteran exclusion, limited market value, etc.). 3. Budgets for each taxing jurisdiction, which include decisions on the use of various funding sources, are set annually. Funding sources include the property tax levy, voter approved market value referendums, bonding, special assessments and other sources such as user fees. 4. The total property tax levy is divided by the total capacity of each jurisdiction (city, county, school district and others) to determine the total levy extension multiplier. The respective multiplier for each jurisdiction is applied to each individual property to calculate property taxes. It is essential to understand that the property tax “rate” is a math equation as used in the Minnesota system. The Assessing function deals with the first step above as staff renders an opinion of market value and classification annually for property tax purposes of 17,000+ parcels in St. Louis Park. The conversion of value and class into tax capacity is also subject to refinements for the sub-classifications and credits as set by the legislature. The assessment of all properties must be made in compliance with standards established by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and Minnesota Statutes. Market value is defined in Minnesota Statute 272.03 subd 8 as: The usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of assessment; being the price which could be obtained at a private sale or an auction sale, if it is determined by the assessor that the price from the auction sale represents an arm's-length transaction. The price obtained at a forced sale shall not be considered (emphasis added). Market value is well described as a moving target. Market supply/demand, interest rates, general economic conditions and seasonal cycles all play a significant role over time. The Minnesota property tax system accommodates these issues by requiring an annual opinion of value as of January 2nd. The assessing staff monitors the sales activity throughout the assessment period and adjusts the valuation of each property in order to reflect market conditions. Classification of the property use is also defined by Minnesota statute. The rationale for this requirement is that the Minnesota property tax system applies differing classification rates in determining how the value is translated into tax capacity. The following table presents a summary of the dominant property types and their associated class rates: Base Homestead Non-Homestead e.g. Tax Capacity at Taxable Values Property Type Value Base Over-Base Base Over-Base 250,000 500,000 1,000,000 Comm & Industrial 150,000 N/A N/A 1.50% 2.00% 4,250 9,250 19,250 Residential * 500,000 1.00% 1.25% 1.00% 1.25% 2,500 5,000 11,250 As can be seen above, the class system greatly favors residential properties in terms of the base tax capacity rate which is used in the tax calculation process. This difference widens further as commercial properties are subject to additional state based levies for education while residential properties are reduced by subsidy factors such as the homestead value exclusion (formerly known as the homestead credit). Voter approved referenda are market value based so all properties are taxed equally on each dollar of property value. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 8 The Assessment Process Parcel Review and Valuation The purpose of the assessment process is to annually render an accurate and equitable opinion of market value of each parcel of property. Doing so requires current information about the properties being assessed and the local real estate market. In addition to the economic market forces at work, the individual property location, use and physical characteristics play a significant role in the valuation. The St. Louis Park Assessing division maintains a record of every property in the city including its size, location, physical characteristics and condition. The Minnesota property tax system requires periodic inspections. The current cycle of inspection is on a five year rotating schedule which may be altered due to physical change of the property (renovations, remodeling, additions and damage). Approximately 20% (or a quintile) of all properties are physically reviewed each year. The goal of periodic and interim inspections is to assess the characteristics and corresponding market value of each property as closely as possible versus the property’s competitive position. It is important to know that the valuation process for residential properties in the State of Minnesota is based on mass appraisal. In years past, St. Louis Park and other cities used trending factors to revalue all the properties (approximately 80%) not in the quintile districts that are physically reviewed each year. Today the valuations are modeled by the use of a computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) methodology. To summarize, the physical characteristics for each property are maintained in a large data base which calculates the individual valuations based upon the location, style and physical characteristics for each property with annual adjustments made to the data tables to mirror market performance based on competitive properties that have sold during the comparison time period. The mass appraisal process is different from the individual appraisal system used by banks, mortgage companies and others. For example, the mass appraisal system for residential properties involves the comparison of thousands of properties with the actual fact-based residential market transactions from the same or closely competitive neighborhoods, and market sales of the same quality and type of property throughout the city. New houses, additions and remodeling are valued based on their characteristics and the value impact of the improvement. Having the local assessment system operate effectively also requires as much information about the local real estate market as possible. The Assessing division makes a record of all property sales using the Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) filed at Hennepin County for each property sale. This information is frequently augmented with sales information obtained regularly from the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) and other sources, including follow-up re-inspections in the case where the sale price indicates that we may have imperfect information. In all cases, the sales information collected by the Assessing division is closely scrutinized. Evidence suggesting anything but an arms-length transaction (a forced sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, etc.) results in the sales information being excluded from the market value comparison. This is important as the market information constitutes the measurable database for the statistical comparisons necessary to make the property assessment. Further review of the assessment process will be undertaken in the presentation/discussion. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 9 The Appeal Process We receive inquiries and questions about market value, the assessment process and how the property tax system operates throughout the year. An open dialogue between staff and the property owner is a key aspect of the mass appraisal system. We recognize that some properties receive statistic-based adjustments to market value and the assessing staff welcomes an opportunity to individually re-verify property attributes which are of public record. We also re-examine properties in cases where there is doubt over the accuracy of our records. A very large majority of property owners’ concerns can be resolved through this informal review. In portraying the ongoing real estate “crisis,” many major media outlets fail to recognize that there are significant nuances to real estate submarkets. The benchmark that is consistently cited by the media is that average sales prices or sale volumes are rapidly declining, and they make no reference to the performance of the various submarkets whether it is nationally or locally. For example, the residential foreclosure and short sale market phenomenon has occupied bold headlines for much of the 2008-2011 time periods. Yet when we closely review the sub-markets it is clear that our local market is performing at a much more stable pace than is the norm. Also on the residential front, the applicability of national sources such as Case-Shiller and Zillow have been found to be frequently inaccurate in local context. Two important points are stressed in the informal and formal appeal processes: 1. By statute the assessing staff utilizes the traditional market in setting valuations. We do not disregard the impact of the distressed sale sub-market, but we do not utilize these sales as comparables when traditional sales exist. This is not only by legal precedent but also good appraisal methodology… we are seeing a marked increase in poor quality fee appraisals using distressed sales which clearly do not understand the nuances of our market. 2. Appeals on the basis of comparative assessment are problematic at the Local Board level. By appealing on this basis, the property owner is essentially asking for a community reassessment. Market transactions set the market. Comparative assessment analysis (referred to as “equality” in assessor-speak) is handled through a very well defined process via the County and State level which has distinct performance measurements. These “norms” are further defined by legal precedent by the MN Tax Court. Equality is judged by actual market performance over the sales period and the Minnesota Department of Revenue publishes these reports annually. Assessing staff will review and adjust the assessed market value prior to the Boards during the informal review process. Where we cannot have a meeting of the minds with the property owner, the appeal process is well defined and offers multiple opportunities for re-valuation summarized as follows: 1. Local Board of Appeal and Equalization (LBAE) – The St. Louis Park LBAE is scheduled to convene on April 9 with a likely re-convene date of April 23, 2012. Staff serves as the respondent in this setting and will again provide complete information regarding each property that is the subject of appeal. This process is greatly improved if property owners contact the Assessing division in advance of the meeting if they intend to make an appeal so that we may educate them on how to prepare their appeal. 2. County Board of Review – Property owners may appeal the St. Louis Park LBAE findings to the County Board of Review which meets beginning on June 18, 2012. An application to appeal at the County level is required by May 23. We routinely inform all Local Board appellants of these time frames. 3. Tax Court – Property owners may appeal directly to the Minnesota State Tax Court. Petitions regarding the 2012 Assessment may be filed until April 30, 2013. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 5) Subject: 2012 Real Estate Valuation Report Page 10 Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 6 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report and 2012 Work Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report summarizes the work completed by the Planning Commission in 2011 and their work plan for 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of the Planning Commission in keeping with the wishes of the Council? Does the City Council wish to meet with representatives of the Planning Commission? BACKGROUND: In accordance with Council policy, the 2011 Annual Report is attached for City Council review. The report summarizes the number and type of applications processed in 2011, zoning ordinance amendments processed by the Planning Commission, indicates the items that were discussed at Study Sessions, and outlines the expected work for 2012. The Planning Commission and planning staff can respond to any questions the City Council may have at a future City Council meeting. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: 2011 Planning Commission Annual Report Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 2 2011 St. Louis Park Planning Commission Claudia Johnston-Madison, Chair Robert Kramer, Vice-Chair Carl Robertson Dennis Morris Lynne Carper Richard Person Larry Shapiro, School Board Representative St. Louis Park Planning Staff Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Sean Walther, Senior Planner Adam Fulton, Planner Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 3 Summary of Applications In 2011, the Planning Commission held public hearings on numerous applications. The cases are listed by type, and the projects are described in the paragraphs to follow. Applications Processed* 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 1 1 2 0 1 Conditional Use Permits/ Special Permit Amendments 14 8 9 5 8 1 Planned Unit Developments 3 5 5 4 4 4 Re-zonings 2 2 2 2 0 1 Subdivisions/Plats 11 7 5 1 6 3 Variances 7 1 5 2 3 3 Zoning Code Amendments 3 3 5 0 4 2 * Some projects may have required multiple applications. Development and Redevelopment Projects that came before the Planning Commission in 2011 are briefly summarized below: Tower Place - Planned Unit Development (PUD) 5300 Excelsior Blvd A Major Amendment to the Tower Place Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow for the expansion of an outdoor patio by Granite City Food & Brewery. The request was required because the expanded outdoor patio changes the underlying parking requirements for the PUD. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. Eldridge 1st Addition – Final Plat 8849 Minnetonka Blvd A Final Plat to allow for the subdivision of the property at 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard into five (5) new lots. The lots are serviced by a new public street, “Cobblecrest Court,” which is a cul-de-sac going south from Minnetonka Boulevard on the east side of the site. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 4 Park Summit/36 Park Apartments – PUD Major Amendment 3601 Park Center Blvd A Major Amendment to the PUD for the Park Summit development site located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. The PUD amendment allows the total density on the site to increase from 145 to 192 residential units. The PUD amendment also provides for modifications to the building’s design, including modifications to the architectural design and materials and a reduction in the building’s overall height from 14 stories to 10 stories (and 145 feet to 125 feet). The building footprint and other site design issues remain consistent with the original PUD approval from 2003; despite the intent to construct a market-rate building the developers believe that the building will continue to attract many senior tenants. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. Fretham Twelfth Addition – Preliminary Plat 8910 & 8920 Minnetonka Blvd A Preliminary Plat to allow for the subdivision of two lots at 8910 and 8920 Minnetonka Boulevard into six (6) new lots. Four lots are serviced by Ensign Blvd, and two lots share an access to Minnetonka Blvd. Action taken: Recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved Preliminary Plat. Minikahda Mobile Service Station – Rezoning, CUP & Variance 3901 & 3921 Excelsior Blvd A rezoning to change the site’s zoning from C-1 to C-2, a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle service with a carwash, and a Variance to reduce the distance requirement between the carwash and an adjacent residential property. The rezoning was required in order for the CUP and Variance to be considered, because carwashes are not permitted in the C-1 district. The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue, both of which are County Roads. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 5 Plan by Neighborhood Section of the Comprehensive Plan - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Citywide In 2009, the City facilitated a neighborhood input process to update its “Plan by Neighborhood” section of its Comprehensive Plan. The input and detailed information for each neighborhood were updated and finalized. A public hearing was conducted, and the neighborhood leaders were notified and directed to the website for the detailed plans. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. Park Village Center – Major Amendment to the PUD 5200 Excelsior Boulevard A Major Amendment to the PUD for the Park Village site at 5200 Excelsior Boulevard on the northeast corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100. The PUD site includes several restaurant buildings and the Mann Theater. It is immediately to the west of the Park Nicollet Clinic campus. The PUD amendment allows for construction of a new 6,600 square foot retail/restaurant building along Excelsior Boulevard, conversion of the entire first floor of the existing theater building to retail use, elimination of all theater use on the site, modifications to the site and parking layout south of the theater building, and changes to the McDonald’s site including a small drive-through building expansion. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”) – PUD, Plat and Variances 3924 Excelsior Boulevard Bader Development proposed a second phase to the Ellipse on Excelsior development on the former American Inn property at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard. The proposed Ellipse II on Excelsior (“e2”) redevelopment is a five-story, 58-unit apartment building with structured underground and at-grade parking. The proposed second phase does not include commercial uses. The application included a preliminary and final plat with a subdivision variance, a PUD Major Amendment, a side yard variance, and a rear yard variance. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 6 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Zoning Ordinance amendments that were reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2011 are summarized below: Temporary Uses – Zoning Ordinance Amendment An amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow special events such as carnivals and festivals to operate for more than 14 days in a calendar year with City Council approval. The update was to Sections 36-82 and 36-142 pertaining to “Temporary Uses.” Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Variances – Zoning Ordinance Amendment An amendment to Section 36-33(d) of the zoning ordinance, pertaining to variances. The purpose of the amendment is to make the ordinance consistent with new state law. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION ITEMS In addition to the action items listed above, the Planning Commission also discussed the following items: § 2010 Housing Report § Non-Conforming Expansion Permits § Business Park Zoning District § Southwest LRT and Freight Rail Studies Update § Temporary Use Ordinance Amendment § Zoning Ordinance Update – Variances § Health Impact Assessment for St. Louis Park Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 7 St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2012 Work Plan 1. Review Planning Applications – Hear applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings, Preliminary Plats and Variances. Hold public hearings, discuss planning impacts, and make recommendations to the City Council. Potential and Continuing Applications: Ellipse 2 Business Park District Reuse of old Luther Westside building Knollwood Mall PUD Amendment Gateway Development (Kentucky/Wayzata) Eliot School B’nai Emet Synagogue reuse Holy Family 2. Updates to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance – Continue work to update the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, including Business Park Zoning District, lighting provisions; review the landscaping and designed outdoor recreation area (DORA) requirements; consider the Planned Unit Development (PUD) structure and provisions; miscellaneous clarifications and addressing the overall organization of the ordinance. 3. Long Range Planning Studies Community Development Staff will continue to work on a number of long range planning studies, most related to Southwest Light Rail Transit (SW LRT). The Planning Commission will be involved in several ways, including being regularly updated and informed as work moves forward, and will contribute by serving on committees and task forces on various subjects. Beltline Station Area - A variety of studies and processes are underway to plan for the Beltline Station Area. At the city level, several issues are being studied, including: 1. Design Guidelines Advisory Committee - January to June 2012 – Carl Robertson and Claudia Johnston-Madison, Task Force members. 2. Surface water management study by Barr Engineering 3. Circulation and access planning (SRF) - Expected public process second half of 2012. Pre-development planning grants were given by the Metropolitan Council for 1 and 2 above. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 8 Louisiana Station Area – A Metropolitan Council pre-development grant was given to the City to study changing land use activities and opportunities to improve connectivity between the station, major activity generators, and redevelopment sites. The further planning will include more detailed station area plans and details for implementation, soil testing to determine development feasibility, including analysis for stormwater infrastructure. It is expected this work will begin in the second half of 2012, and will include a Task Force of neighbors, business and property owners. Community Facilities Task Force – The planning staff and Planning Commission (Claudia Johnston-Madison for the Planning Commission) will participate in the Park and Recreation Department’s Task Force on Community Recreation Facilities. The Task Force will gather additional information regarding recreation and facility needs and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the addition of future recreation facilities or programs. The work is underway and the group is expected to complete its work in October 2012. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 6) Subject: Planning Commission 2011 Annual Report & 2012 Work Plan Page 9 Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 7 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Not Applicable. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the purpose of information sharing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: None Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: March 12, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Vision Check-In Follow-Up. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on the information received from citizens at the Vision Check-In held in January. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know if you have any questions or comments. BACKGROUND: At a Study Session in November, 2010 Council indicated that they would like some type of one- time public gathering in order to check-in with residents on the four strategic directions of Vision, which are: • St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. • 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. • St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. • St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. The Check-In was originally scheduled for late April, 2011. Due to other pressing issues (e.g. freight rail), the event was rescheduled and subsequently held in January. The attachments include a summary of the themes and the notes of comments from each table at the meeting. VISION CONSIDERATION: This item is linked directly to the Vision Strategic Direction that St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Attachments: Theme Summary from Vision Check-In Prepared by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up Theme Summary from Vision Check-In Community Connections • Sidewalks and trails, including pedestrian bridges • More gathering places • Continue to explore and analyze the concept of a Community Center • Find ways to serve and involve our diverse populations from an ethnic perspective as well as an intergenerational perspective • Neighborhoods are important Environmental Stewardship • Keep thinking GREEN • Trees • Recycling • Reduce use of plastic bags, bottles etc. • Keep doing what we are doing at Westwood Nature Center Housing • Keep investment in well-kept housing and multi-family housing stock • Move up housing • A variety of housing • Senior housing Arts and Culture • Continue and promote arts and culture • Aesthetics • Move arts around in the city Other • Surprised at all that is being done in the city in each of the areas • Concern about trains and light rail • Business development and commercial building sites Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up Vision Check-In Comments 1. If there was one thing that hasn’t yet been said about any of the four vision areas, what is it you want to say? Community Connections • CVB – move events in SLP. Place – Minnetonka & Dakota; Texas & Minnetonka. Like Cavalia. Would support other events- Would like to see more running/racing events • Parks & Rec facilities management. Bathrooms almost never open at the park buildings. Why? Facilities need to be available. • More ice – neighborhood sheets of ice – and take care of it. There is one behind the fire station. Fire hose down the area. • There is not a good advocacy for true bike/ped planning. Too many projects are built with bike/ped planning as an afterthought. Have a person/ committee be involved or review early on. • Free bikes for trails like Minneapolis bikes. • Streets not very safe for biking. Need public education. Need designated lanes • Miniature golf course – holes designed by community members. • Community Center. • More gathering spaces, coffee places (community), other than Starbucks. • Engaging minorities more. • Have the equivalent of Children First for our aging population/seniors. Vital aging. • What can we do to attract young residents/families to replace seniors moving on/out? • Promote health/well-being maybe at the neighborhood level. Exercise stations throughout a neighborhood park • Different groups that might need engaging – empty nesters, young adults, young professionals, single adults, transient low-income population. Community theater – possibility to engage them. Is there a purpose to the engagement as pertaining to getting the younger population involved? • Reaching the 20 & 30-somethings to provide input Environmental Stewardship • Concerted action on invasive species. Example – buckthorn growing everywhere, garlic mustard. Organized effort. Forward moving policy on invasive species. Create organizations so we have the resources. • Transformation of environmentally challenged areas • Minnehaha Creek restoration, integration, enjoyment, recreation, a feature/resource. • Community gardens – Is there space for more? • Get a good turnout for creek clean-up. What if they promoted more environmental stewardship? • Empty stores all around – need to deal with them (Minnetonka Blvd. & Dakota gas station) • City should provide compost containers • Cleanliness (graffiti) – great clean-up • Electronics recycling great Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up Housing • Home ownership for other cultures when they have never owned before – engaged with community • Improve housing stock. Compound lots with small units. Communicate housing opportunities to new teachers • Loans for rehab great/market Arts and Culture • 5-year plan – Arts & culture – like to see SLP be known for its sculpture area. Every developer to include public art. Change PUD req./zoning dev. Requirement so it is insisted. • Using Mann Theater to show Vision Arts & Culture events Other • More communication – explain more about city resources – home care, housing issues – i.e., CareNection.org • Internal communication to collaborators who serve your citizens needs improvement • Promote worker benefits like Rec Center membership, etc. • Speeding on streets – enforce limits • Elliot School building. It’s a great opportunity. Do something great. (Ditto Novartis • Like roundabouts • Central website. Sometimes hard to navigate the City website • Wish we had been told what will happen – what hasn’t been done • Small businesses assistance should have been addressed • Keep trains where they are • Kudos to Lenox Neighborhood Association of awareness about Freight Rail • City needs to ensure residents impacted by Freight Rail should not bear disproportionate cost (finance, standard of living) • Freight train – co-location – environment/connect & engaged • Not properly mitigated, Freight Rail will undone • Work where you live – We are losing businesses. Retain businesses. Don’t replace businesses with residential. • Wonderful that the City involves the citizen • Like the check-in on the plan • Good job! • Great schools. • Well run city and location, location, location. 2. What is possible over the next five years for the future of these four vision areas? Community Connections • Sidewalks & trails should be maintained before adding more. • More pedestrian bridges (Peter Hobart School; over tracks by Lifetime; more safety related to crossing • Business areas are disjointed – connected & engaged • Westwood condos feels disconnected from city & rest of community. Try to connect condos. Connect condos to park areas. Invite condos to newsletter Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up • Deterioration of streets in Lake Forest • Active neighborhoods could mentor an organized association • What can city do to promote small businesses? • Sidewalks – Sidewalk on Wooddale bridge dangerous at night; extend sidewalks to library; walking in street is dangerous impediment to walking • Improve safety of trail crossing at Wooddale & Belt Line • Walking connections – over 100; from shopping areas back to residential areas • We need to start going into the ethnic gathering places (coffee shops, churches). Don’t expect them to come to the City spaces (City Hall, police station, etc.) • Connected – silos of gathering places. Would like to see intergenerational gathering Community Center – see all ages there • Keep holding community engagement events like this. It lets the residents tell the City what we think • 36th St. beautiful. No reason to walk there. Need to be more connected • Transportation for seniors and keeping them engaged • More bike & pedestrian friendly • More trail/rail crossings north/south North/south connections from Elliot to trail & bike/pedestrian south • Identify & more financial on a community center Environmental Stewardship • More on environment • Connecting the lakes to creek • Don’t build on all the open lots/space • Sponsor free compost bins • Less salt on the roads • Help subsidize rain gardens – help with digging • Reduce tonnage by a certain percentage • Rain Barrels • Calcium in water? A geology issue • If suspect radon, will someone come out from the City? • 2 great anchors – Westwood Nature Center & Rec Center • Environment – Focus on Emerald Ash Borer & what to do if we lose the trees • Elm trees – possible to find ways to help make sure boulevard trees can be cared for. Support diseased trees – financial support. Educate people what to look for. • Environment – keep expanding environmental recycling, like the contract for solid waste • Continue commitment to keeping community clean • Environmental – more help with rain gardens/rain barrel • Educate people to get away from plastic bottles • Incentives for getting rid of plastic bottles • Re-evaluate recycling/compost materials allowed • Recycling center available to citizens • LED lights - market more than fluorescent • Reduce plastic bags, bottles, etc., which cannot be economically recycled. Have City lead the way. Don’t vend pop, water in plastic bottles • Have events outside of Oak Park to make more accessible • Intergenerational activities & space to do it Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 6 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up • Keeping neighborhoods whole • Connecting sidewalks Housing • Housing/connections – concern with reroute • Maintain simple supply (??) housing stock • Housing – aggressive with excess lots – cluster housing, affordable • Want enough senior housing • Keep a variety of housing stock • House stock/ value Arts and Culture • Install sculptures rotating annually at intersections. Arts & Culture should be interactive. City/school district/ business – support high school. Students mentor with artist – hands- on – kids work with art. • A theater (like Hopkins) given we have 3 theater groups • Perhaps make theater in the park a revenue stream for the parks • Arts – have a theater (non-movie) • Arts & culture – develop pocket art – moves around; i.e. movies in park, bands, etc. • Like the theater – would like more • Keep things in the arts with new projects • Like that vacant buildings are being repurposed • Promote grass roots artistic expression Other • The sky is the limit • Schools • Open up access to BN • Generation differences - walk vs. cars • Reroute – negative issues • Future direction – protect housing, schools & community • Preserve what is important • Obsession with new development to the detriment of community • Disaster (chemical spill) preparedness? Purchase supplies; list of people you would contact; list of supplies; who would you call? • Sparks – kids finding out their sparks. Can they be connected by interest & not by age? Photography – intergenerational was fun. Interest can be intergenerational. Arts is a way to do that. • Resolve freight/LRT issue • LRT situations – Big potential • Convert M & S freight rail into a bike trail – connections/housing/environment • Reroute is stopped • Light rail added as transport to cities, not necessarily Mpls., St. Paul • Resolve the rail conflicts, not project problem, the interpersonal conflicts produce divisiveness • Target commuters/workers • Council support freight rail fight Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 7 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up • Light rail • Better representation of younger aged population at activities like this one held tonight • Develop leadership in these populations to reach them • To see these things be part of the culture, not led by city staff • Better diversity • Lennox – maybe need to look at future programming • Like to support neighborhood commercial/small business • Get more immigrants involved in process & projects • Go back to original visioning & start implementing more specific items. Don’t just say how current projects satisfy vision • Farmers Market weekend • Business districts being ignored, deteriorating • Utilize H.S. football stadium for festivals. Field locked up – Can’t use track, field, et al. • Circulator bus system • Keep clean, quiet neighborhoods. Keep diversity. • People are nicer now (society has changed). • Maintaining the good things we have. (Keep investing in assets/redevelopments) • Partnerships – Park Nicollet (future health care issues) • New generation (youth) – taking advantage of their energy 3. What had real meaning for you from what you just heard about the four vision areas? What surprised you? Community Connections • More walking trails in nature areas vs. recreation trails • Footbridge over RR tracks • High satisfaction of residents relates to connected/engaged • Block party – connectedness • Surprise – Connectivity – Highway 7/Louisiana – strength of neighborhoods • Connectivity – the feeling of being invited – north/south connections progress • Connected & Engaged – Lennox – brainstorming session – getting away from Senior Center – Baby Boomers. Depends on what programs they have. • Connected & Engaged – walking to business roads had decreased over time – others have more walkability • How bike commuters struggle. City, esp. 36th, could be developed as car free zone • Some neighborhoods very active • Plan by neighborhood – surprised Marjorie – more information • Disappointed in what has lead in connected & engaged – specifically diversity • Minority population not represented in community engagement • Would like to see seniors more addressed in the connected & engaged vision – isolated. Would like to see intergenerational interaction. Environmental Stewardship • Environment – WWNC • Green things/spaces – not cont. Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 8 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up • Bike commuting – How fits into system? Bike trails forgotten?! Wooddale intersection scary • Surprised – Westwood Nature Center, stocked lakes, opportunity, public art • Landscape help to buffer railroad • No consulting P.R. Need more (for landscape help) • Green possibilities – yards planning • That recycling is expanding & organics • Storm water management success by High School & 33rd • Surprise - Environmental stewardship – initiatives – first recycling city – ban burning (first) – Westwood Nature Center (26,000 people) • Surprised at the research being done at Westwood Nature Center • Impressed with environment – not surprised though • Recycling – public info – environment needs to be brought out to the public • Would like to see environmental stuff go out to the houses – environmental improvements • Environment – surprised by what city is doing at Westwood with invasive species – encouraged • Single hauler • Super bugs • Had not heard of Westwood and will be taking advantage of it • Liked idea of City going green Housing • Apartments overwhelming – too much traffic. Is there a study saying it’s needed? • Move Up in the Park – love program • Gear apartments toward senior housing. Don’t get feedback from apartment dwellers • Housing assistance opportunities • City helping improve multi-family housing • Surprise – Housing – commitment - 4-year inspections – City assistance for remodeling (book/guide published) • Housing statistics – surprised by them, encouraged though. Didn’t want SLP to become a community of renters only • Like the investment for multi-family housing, well-kept housing stock • Didn’t know you can ask for help for housing – low income – architectural service that is available • Want to stay in SLP – What about buying a foreclosed home/distressed and getting help/services • Meaningful – housing Arts and Culture • Having great participation in photo project/arts. Great diversity of residents • Surprise – Arts – no awareness • Nice to see public art taking off. More incorporated into buildings/projects • Large development – press developer to put in art. Put into plan development. • Art programs helped promote diversity, especially Children First projects. Would like to see more. • Arts – lots in the community & still don’t know some of what is happening, but not all Study Session Meeting of March 12, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 9 Subject: Vision Check-In Follow-Up • Arts – surprised by activity – unaware of these activities – unaware of how much is going on. Miss community group. Not impressed with bench sculptures on 36th Other • Surprised – reinvestment in housing • Not aware of activities • Impressed with environmental programs, wildlife • Bus (or business?) services are recent • Partnerships, neighborhood connections • Too specialized towards locals in mass communications – Excelsior & Grand. Need to move events around (“Parktacular”) • Council listens to concerns • Clean parks – Park & Rec • Website good • Infrastructure improvements • Reach out to citizens through survey. Get results?! Communication from City Council • Great job so far. Lots of diversity in vision projects • All 4 areas are important • Council trust is high • Say we’re diverse & engaged but look at the demographics of those in this room • Roundabouts on Hwy. 7/Louisiana Ave. – Really? • Gathered sense of accomplishment over time – Don’t notice how the small things change until you see how it all adds up • SLP seems to be getting better over time – doing it with financial consciousness • Vision process • Meaning – depth of what the city does • People like the community and want to stay. Seniors move from houses to senior homes in the community • SLP is genuinely interested in the community • Surprised – good changes – small changes over time make a difference • Didn’t hear anything about some recent senior incentives • The amount of stuff they do with the modest budget of a suburb • Light rail – concerns – city dropped lawsuit. City listened when the citizens talked • “Citizens for Minnehaha Creek Corridor” • Meaningful – being welcomed in – having a check-in • Depth • Reuse of buildings/sites. What else can we do? • Commercial buildings/sites • Surprised on dates for transportation improvements • Concerned about removing trees for LR stations • Surprised with the variety of programs