HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/05/10 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MAY 10, 2021
All meetings of the St. Louis Park City Council will be conducted by telephone or other
electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with
the local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056.
Some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the May 10, 2021 city
council joint study session with the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission. Meeting
participants will meet by electronic device or phone rather than by being personally present at
the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to
view the agenda and reports.
Members of the public can monitor the meeting by video and audio at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil
or by calling +1.312.535.8110 and using access code 372 106 61 for audio only. Cisco Webex
will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council members
and staff participating from multiple locations.
6:30 p.m. – STUDY SESSION
Discussion items
1. 6:30 p.m. Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
2. 7:30 p.m. Preliminary levy/budget discussion
3. 8:30 p.m. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
8:35 p.m. Communications/updates (verbal)
8:40 p.m. Adjourn
Written reports
4. Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
5. Perspectives update
6. Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
7. Completion of Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of city hall and on the text display
on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952-924-2525.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: May 10, 2021
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
Recommended action: Council to review the workplan and provide comments to HRC
commissioners.
Policy consideration:
•Does the human rights commission workplan and upcoming Summer of Action event
align with council goals and priorities?
•How can the HRC better support and advise the city council?
Summary: The human rights commission respectfully submit their annual report and 2021
workplan to city council for review and discussion. The workplan will be the focus of the council
discussion with the commission. The chair will provide a brief presentation of the work plan and
currently planned summer events.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration:
•St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to
create a more just and inclusive community for all.
•St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through
community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan
2020 annual report
Summer of Action overview
Summer of Action Artwalk call for artists
Prepared by: Darius Gray, community organizer
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
Discussion
Background: The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission is a 10-member advisory body
composed of 10 citizen volunteers appointed by the city council. The current make-up of the
Human Rights Commission is as follows: Virginia Mancini (Chair) Astein Osei (Vice Chair &
school representative), Andre Barajas (youth member), Yvette Baudelaire, Paul Baudhuin, Emily
Buchholz, Jamie Chismar, Maria Eustaquio, Li Livdahl (youth member) and Avi Olitzky.
Commissioners have an interest in being more public facing, therefore last year they hosted
their first event in several years, race equity 101. Efforts were halted due to the COVID-19
global health pandemic. This resulted in a brief hiatus of meetings from March to June 2020.
When meetings resumed, the commission began meeting regularly for their monthly meeting
virtually.
Upon the resuming of HRC meetings the commission had to navigate how to move their
mission and vision forward in the time of the pandemic. In addition to focusing on the
execution of their mission and vision, there was a desire to focus on more external community
engagement and partnership building. To achieve this end, the commission pivoted to
supporting others in their work by aiding in pop up events that focused on mask distributions,
voter registration and census completion.
In an effort to continue the work that was underway right before the pandemic, the
commission is focused on the internal and external structures of the HRC.
Internal focuses for the HRC can be outlined as:
•Review and update bylaws and make recommendations for revision to city council
•Review HRC materials and website
•Review city code and make recommendations for revision to city council
•Strengthen the relationship and partnership with city council to develop greater
understanding of how HRC can better support and advise city council
•Consider and discus how the HRC can support council in making public statements
•Seek to stay informed about current events to best support and advise city council
External focuses for HRC can be outlined as:
•Plan and execute Summer of Action series
•Build and strengthen partnerships with community members, community organizations,
local business, other commissions, and neighborhood associations
•Better understand community needs and assess what community wants to see from
HRC over the next few years
•Seek to stay informed about current events to best support community.
The items listed above will help guide the HRC’s work over the next year and are reflected in
the commission’s 2021 workplan.
Board and Commission
Annual Workplan
1
Work Plan Template│ Human Rights Commission
Time Frame Initiative Strategic
Priorities
Purpose
(see page 2 for definitions)
Outcome (fill in after
completed)
Whole of 2021 Continue to assess what the
community wants from the HRC &
continue to foster cross-organization
partnerships that meet the
community’s needs.
☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3
☐4 ☒ 5
☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council
requested)
☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Whole of 2021 Review and revise bylaws. And review
city code and make recommendations
for updates.
☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3
☐4 ☒ 5
☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council
requested)
☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Whole of 2021 Review and revise the Human Rights
Commission materials, including
takeaways and website.
☐New Initiative
☒Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☒1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3
☐4 ☒ 5
☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council
requested)
☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Whole of 2021 Consider and discus how the HRC can
support Council in making public
statements.
☒New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☒1 ☐ 2 ☐
3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council
requested)
☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Spring/Summer
& Fall of 2021
Plan and execute Summer of Action
series of events.
☐New Initiative
☐Continued
Initiative
☐Ongoing
Responsibility
☐1 ☐ 2 ☐
3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5
☐N/A
☒Commission Initiated Project
☐Council Initiated Project
☐Report Findings (council
requested)
☐Formal Recommendation (council
requested)
Page 3 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
2
City of St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities
1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development.
4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement
OR Other
Purpose: definitions
Board and Commission
Annual Workplan
Page 4 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
3
Modifications:
Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways:
•Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session.
•If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city
council approval at a council meeting.
•The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion.
Parking Lot
•Project initiated by the board or commission
Commission Initiated Project
•Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council
Council Initiated Project
•Initiated by the city council
•Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and report its findings or comments to the city council in
writing
•No direct action is taken by the board/commission
Report Findings
•Initiated by the city council
•Board and commission will study a specific issue or topic and makes a formal recommendation to the city council on
what action to take
•A recommendation requires a majoirty of the commissioners' support
Formal Recommandation
Board and Commission
Annual Workplan
Page 5 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
4
Items that are being considered by the board/commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the
board/commission decides they would like to move forward with an initiative.
Initiative Comments:
Board and Commission
Annual Workplan
Page 6 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
2020 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Human Rights Commission
I.2020 Goals and Key Initiatives: Provide a progress report on your 2020 goals and
list the most significant activities undertaken in 2020.
•February 2020. HRC hosted our first partnership-building event at the Treehouse.
Alicia Sojourner spoke and then we had a robust community discussion about racial
equity work in St. Louis Park. The individual Human Rights Commissioners made
good connections with strategic community partners who attended the event.
•March – June 2020. HRC was on hiatus.
•October 2020. HRC co-hosted a Birchwood community event to register voters, plug
the census, and hand out masks and other essential supplies.
•October 2020. Darius and several HRC members hosted pop-up voter registration
and census engagement events.
•September 2020 – December 2020. Several HRC members represented the HRC on a
cross-commission committee (along with members from the Multicultural Advisory
Committee and Police Advisory Commission) to review and update the St. Louis Park
Police Use of Force Policy.
II.2021 Goals: List your board/commission’s most important goals (up to 3) for 2021.
These goals should be statements that reflect the board/commission’s highest
priorities, which may or may not change from year-to-year. For each goal, list 1-2
key initiatives or activities that the Board/Commission will be working on in 20 21
that will help make progress toward that particular goal.
a.Goal 1 – Continue to build partnerships & collaborate with other community
organizations.
Page 7 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
2020 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Human Rights Commission
•Initiative 1 – Continue to connect with other community organizations
about what they’re hearing from and how they’re serving our
communities.
•Initiative 2 – Create and/or foster partnerships that are collaborative,
dynamic, and mutually beneficial. Whenever possible uplift and learn
from the work, successes, and learnings of partner organizations.
•Initiative 3 – Focus on gathering data from the community and meeting
stated needs, or encouraging City to meet those needs when applicable.
b.Goal 2 – Review and revise the HRC materials, including takeaways and the website .
•Initiative 1 – Compile and review existing HRC materials.
•Initiative 2 – Determine which types of materials the HRC would like to
use.
•Initiative 3 – Create or revise materials as needed.
•Initiative 4 – Update HRC bylaws and City code.
c.Goal 3 – Plan and execute Summer of Action series of events.
•Initiative 1 – Create an outline of events and potential partners to aid in
those events.
•Initiative 2 – build and strengthen partnerships and uplift work of others
throughout Summer of Action.
•Initiative 3 – Host series of events around various topics focusing on SLP,
especially uplifting social justice, community engagement and art.
III.Race Equity and Inclusion: How may you continue to incorporate or promote race
equity and inclusion in the key initiatives/activities identified in above?
The mission statement of HRC is to support community and St. Louis Park’s strategic
priority of racial equity and inclusion. Therefore, HRC sees incorporating racial equity
as fundamental to HRC’s current and future work. Continuing our work from 2020,
our intention is to build partnerships that enable HRC to easily support racial equity
in its own actions and support it indirectly via support of others working towards it.
Page 8 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
2020 Annual Report
Board or Commission: Human Rights Commission
IV.Strategic Priorities: How is the commission’s work supporting the strategic
priorities?
The HRC’s work can impact most if not all of the strategic priorities in some way. The
HRC’s goals and initiatives are most specifically geared toward building social capital
and uplifting racial equity within St. Louis Park.
Page 9 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
Human Rights Commission
Summer of Action Overview
Summer of Action Kick Off: George Floyd Memorial Walk
June 6, 6 – 8:30 p.m.
Veterans’ Memorial Amphitheater, 3700 Monterey Drive
The St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission invites you to join the George Floyd memorial walk, which
will include speakers, music, reflective conversation, and family friendly arts activities.
Schedule of events:
•6 – 7 p.m. Tabling, art activities, food trucks
•7 – 8:15 p.m. Program and walk
•8:15 – 8:30 p.m. Wrap up
This event will kick off the human rights commission summer of action series, with monthly citywide
events and neighborhood activities focused on race equity and activism.
Education & Race Equity (Date TBD)
•Community Panel Discussion What changes are happening in SLP schools?
•Community participants will work together to create curriculum and brainstorm ideas for
additional projects in the schools
Policing & Race Equity & Community Policing (Date TBD)
•Panel replicating forum on community policing held late Winter 2021
Food Justice/Climate/ environmental Justice (Mid-summer)
Partner with SEEDS Feeds and Environment and Sustainability Commission
•Tree planting
•Gardening workshop
Social Safety Net/Poverty (Date TBD)
•Panel with local nonprofits addressing various economic based issues.
Religion and Race Equity in SLP (Date TBD)
•Panel with local religious leaders to discuss their work regarding race equity and social justice.
•What were religious institutions doing during Civil Rights?
History of Social Justice in SLP and the progression to where we are
now? (Date TBD)
•Content and focus still being developed.
Page 10 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
Housing & Just Deeds (Late Summer)
•Presentation from Mapping Prejudice Project
•Implement removal of language from deeds
•Housing staff to share current and future programs and projects
•Community Housing Team present their work
Page 11 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission - Summer of Action
Social Justice and Racial Equity Art-Walk - Call for Artists
Artists and community members are invited to create an artwork for the
Human Rights Commission Summer of Action Art-Walk around the themes
of Social Justice and Racial Equity: reflection, memorial, healing, and
commitment to action. Participants must create the work on a provided
2'x2' piece of plywood—acrylic paints and brushes will be provided, or you
may use your own materials, provided they are able to withstand rain and
wind. Artwork will be displayed along the trail at Wolfe Park beginning June
6 at the kickoff event of the HRC Summer of Action, and left on display for
one month. Up to 30 participants will be selected to
participate—participants who identify as Black, Indigenous, or people of
color will be given priority. We welcome artwork from people of all ages as
well as families working together, and recognize that understanding and
expression of the project themes will vary based on age and lived experience.
Click Here to Submit Your Interest in Participating as an Artist
This project is organized by the City of St. Louis Park's Human Rights Commission and St. Louis Park
Friends of the Arts, for display in public parks. As such, artwork with words or content that is profane,
violent, or overtly political may not be displayed. If you have questions about whether your design meets
these criteria, please contact us before beginning your work.
The Summer of Action is a summer-long series of events to foster social capital and community
engagement with particular focus on race equity and social justice-oriented topics. This series will
provide community members opportunities to deepen knowledge and build capacity by taking actions
on topics that are important to them. The Summer of Action will create a more engaged, informed and
inclusive community in St. Louis Park.
Eligibility:Anyone who has a meaningful connection to St. Louis Park.
Materials Pick-up and Completed Artwork Drop-off Dates:
Materials pick-up and completed artwork drop-off are at the SLP Rec Center parking lot, located at 3700
Monterey Drive. Participants who are unable to pick-up or drop-off at the scheduled times or location
will have the opportunity to arrange alternate pick-up and drop-off methods.
●Materials Pick-up:Tuesday, May 11, 4:30-6pm / OR Saturday, May 15, 10am-noon
●Completed Artwork Drop-off: Saturday, May 29, 10am-noon / OR Tuesday, June 1, 4:30-6pm
Contact:
Jamie Marshall,jamie@slpfota.org
SLP Friends of the Arts, Executive Director
Darius Gray,dgray@stlouispark.org
City of St. Louis Park, Community Organizer
Page 12 Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 1)
Title: Human Rights Commission 2021 workplan review
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: May 10, 2021
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Preliminary levy/budget discussion
Recommended action: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the study session
discussion about the 2022 preliminary budget and levy. Staff is preparing a presentation that
goes through some budget and levy information for 2022 and beyond. Staff is looking for
guidance on preliminary levy amounts and capital funding challenges as we start the budget
process.
Policy consideration: Given that the city’s current capital plan, particularly related to Connect
the Park, living streets/gap sidewalk improvements, and Municipal State Aid (MSA) road
projects, is a driver of future debt service levy needs, how aggressive should the city continue
to be related to the CIP? Should staff pursue other funding options such as a local option sales
tax?
Summary: In 2019 council and staff discussed the anticipated financial challenges related to the
city’s capital plan and the projected need for very large levy increases to fund the plan,
particularly related to Connect the Park, neighborhood sidewalk improvements, and MSA street
improvement needs. The concept of a local option sales tax, particularly for the MSA street
improvement needs, was seriously discussed by council but was not pursued at that time.
These challenges were also discussed as part of preparing the 2021 budget and levy and certain
adjustments were made to the city’s capital plan and related debt service levy needs to help
mitigate some of the impacts. As we start the process of preparing the 2022 budget the
financial needs of our capital plan still remain for the short and long term.
During this study session discussion staff will present projections on levy needs for 2022 and
beyond based on operating assumptions and the capital plans in place
Financial or budget considerations: Details regarding budget and levy will be discussed at the
work session.
Strategic priority consideration: All areas of the adopted strategic priorities are impacted by
the city’s budget and financial health.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Preliminary levy/budget discussion
Discussion
Background: During the Oct. 14, 2019 and Dec. 9, 2019 study sessions staff identified
significant funding challenges related to the city’s capital plan and funding shortfalls for MSA
road improvements. The concept of a local option sales tax was analyzed to help fund the MSA
needs, but in the end the council decided not to pursue the special legislation needed to
implement that course of action. These same challenges were discussed in 2020 while
preparing the 2021 budget and capital plan. During this study session staff will present the
short and longer-term financial challenges that remain.
Budget Realities
As we start the 2022 budget cycle, we have several operational areas we can realistically
anticipate budget increases. All our union contracts are up for renewal as of Dec. 31, 2021. Our
peer group cities are trending toward 3% increases. We have a maximum increase for our
health insurance of 9%, it may be less, but we will anticipate the full 9% for now. A surprise this
year has been large increases in certain products and materials (wood, vehicles, etc.). We will
adjust the budget accordingly as we work through the expense categories. Lastly, we are asking
all departments to evaluate fees and service charges during the 2022 budget process.
As state earlier, some of the largest challenges we face during the budget process is how to
fund our capital projects. MSA street improvement needs and a projected shortfall in funding
were discussed in 2019 and 2020. Layered on top of that are Connect the Park funding needs
and the increase in costs to our pavement management program mostly related to filling in gap
sidewalks. Our franchise fees are enough to cover basic pavement management needs. Any
additional improvements, such as filling in sidewalk gaps, are paid for with debt and
subsequently a debt levy.
As we have discussed in the past, another factor to consider with adding new infrastructure is
the additional cost to maintain it. Here are examples of estimates of increased operating costs
for a couple of projects.
•Zarthan Roundabout/Cedar lake Rd $ 1,250 per year
•Beltline roundabout $ 8,100 per year
While these are not significant as compared to the city’s overall budget it is something to keep
in mind as we create new infrastructure.
Debt Realities
As was discussed last fall, we need to levy an additional $563,850 in 2022 to make our debt
payment for the 2020 Connect the Park and sidewalk projects. We are also committed to
raising the debt levy by $793,759 in 2023 for our 2021 project commitments. This amount is
lower than the $1.3 million originally projected and is the result of adjustments to the CIP.
Nevertheless, these increases make up a sizable portion of our levy increase. If we continue
with the proposed MSA, Connect the Park, and sidewalk addition projects as currently
scheduled in the CIP, without alternative funding sources we will continue adding sizable debt
levy increases in the coming years.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Preliminary levy/budget discussion
Budget Baseline
Looking at our long-term financial plan for 2022 we will need around a 6.02% levy increase to
maintain our current operations and capital projects. The anticipated debt service levy
represents 4.12% of the projected 6.02% levy increase This does not include any additional staff
or new programs like our climate investment initiatives. As staff works through the budget, the
general estimate we have for an increase may not be enough depending on inflation.
Levy Scenario’s
At Monday evening we will look at some levy scenarios. The scenarios are to give a high level
look at where we anticipate future levies going based on inflation and our capital plans. Our
two largest levy years are 2024 and 2025. To change our anticipated future levy increases, the
council is asked to direct staff to do one of the following:
• Direct staff to make changes to Connect the Park, sidewalk additions, and/or MSA
projects
• Direct staff to pursue new funding source for the projects
• All of the above
Council may also direct staff to proceed as planned if the numbers are in line with expectations.
To stay at a high level, we will talk about levy expectations as a percent. A 1% levy increase is
around $350,000. Example: Direction may be to keep future total levies at 5% or less, with no
more than 1.5% of the increase for new capital. In this example, for anything more that 1.5%
staff will need direction on how that is managed e.g. is it moved to a different year, cancelled,
or is another funding source identified for it.
Next Steps: The budget process is starting for staff on May 14. Staff will compile the numbers,
requests, and changes and bring back the operational piece of the budget for discussion on July
12. The capital equipment/improvements will be back at a study session on Aug. 9 for discussion.
We may add an additional date for discussion of capital or funding sources based on direction
received from the council. Here is a more detailed schedule:
July 12 Discussion on 2022 budget
Aug. 9 Capital Equipment/Improvement study session
Sept. 13 Preliminary Budget/Levy discussion
Sept. 20 Regular meeting to approve 2022 preliminary tax levies
Oct. 11 Study session for utility rates and City fees
Oct. 18 Regular meeting to adopt 2022 utility rates, 2nd reading of fees ordinance (consent)
Nov. 22 Study session to discuss 2022 budget and levy (if needed)
Dec. 6 Truth in Taxation hearing
Dec. 20 Approval of 2022 budget, final property tax levies (City and HRA), and 2022-2031
capital plans
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: May 10, 2021
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Recommended action: The city council and city manager to set the agenda for the special study
session scheduled for May 17, 2021 and the regularly scheduled study session on May 24, 2021.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the special study session scheduled
for May 17, 2021 and the regularly scheduled study session on May 24, 2021.
Also attached to this report is:
- Study session discussion topics and timeline
-Proposed topics for future study session discussion
Topic Proposed by Councilmember
Corridor parking policy review Larry Kraft and Jake Spano
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Tentative agenda – May 17 and May 24, 2021
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Study session topic proposal form
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Maria Solano, interim administrative services officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
May 17, 2021.
Immediately following city council meeting
Special study session – council chambers
Tentative discussion items
1.City manager (CM) recruitment – administrative services (2 – 3 hours)
Council will review top candidates and select semi-finalists or finalists and provide direction
to staff on next steps. In order to preserve confidentiality of candidate identities at this open
public meeting, names will not be provided, and council will be asked to refer to candidates
by designated number and not reference any local cities where candidates may be currently
employed. This will be a discussion facilitated by consultants from GovHR USA and they will
provide further guidance on this topic.
May 24, 2021.
6:30 p.m. Study Session – council chambers
Tentative discussion items
1.CM recruitment – administrative services (TBD)
Based on council direction from May 17, semi-finalist interviews may be conducted virtually
at this meeting. This meeting may not be needed if council identifies 4 or fewer finalists or
appoints a subcommittee to conduct semi-finalist interviews.
2.Reduction in speed limits – engineering (60 minutes)
At the Jan. 25, 2021 study session, council provided staff with direction of their support to
implement speed limit changes on city streets based on a safety, engineering, and traffic
analysis. Since that meeting the community has been given an opportunity to ask staff
questions regarding the recommendations. At this meeting staff will provide the council with
a summary of questions received for discussion.
3.Future study session agenda planning – administrative services (5 minutes)
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.
Written reports
4.April 2021 monthly financial report
5.SWLRT PLACES art temporary installment locations
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Study session discussion topics and timeline
Future council items
Priority Discussion topic Comments Timeline for
discussion
1 Council meetings – agenda and video
presentation TBD
2 Inclusionary housing policy – requiring
family size units Staff has prepared a report to council 5/10/21
(written report)
3 Public process expectations and
outcomes
Staff is working on the approach for
undertaking this discussion. 3rd qtr. 2021
5 Community and neighborhood sidewalk
designations
To be combined w/ Connect the Park
discussion. 3rd qtr. 2021
6 Transportation commission 3rd qtr. 2021
7
Easy access to nature, across city,
starting w/ low-income n’hoods /
WHNC Access Fund
*On hold pending direction from school
district.*On hold
8 Zoning code size limits for houses In process (New related topic to be
proposed by Councilmember Rog) 4/26/21
9 Public forums at council mtgs 9/23/19 SS. Staff is researching options. 3rd qtr. 2021
11 STEP discussion: facilities STEP has entered into purchase
agreement for two adjacent properties. On hold
+ Vehicle idling ESC is reviewing and will provide
recommendation TBD
+ Semi-trailer truck parking TBD
+ Land acknowledgements TBD
Council items in progress
Priority Discussion topic Comments Next Steps
- Policing discussion Discussed 7/27/20, 9/29/20 & 2/22/21. TBD
4 Creating pathways to home ownership
for BIPOC individuals and families Discussed at 2/8/21 council meeting.
Program being developed.
In process
(June)
10 Boards and commissions general review Discussed 1/25/21. Revisit after the
annual workplan process. 3rd qtr. 2021
- Conversion therapy ban
Report on 2/22/21. Resolution adopted
3/15/21. HRC to review and make
recommendations on ordinance.
TBD
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: May 10, 2021
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
Recommended action: No action at this time. Staff proposes amending the inclusionary
housing policy to require the inclusion of three bedroom or larger size units in developments
with 50 or more units and to clarify language related to the provision of on-site vehicle parking
for the affordable units.
Policy consideration: Does the council approve amending the inclusionary housing policy to
add a requirement that three-bedroom units be included in buildings with 50 units or larger and
clarify language related to parking provisions for affordable units?
Summary: The inclusionary housing policy was initially approved in June 2015 and amended in
May 2017, August 2018, and April 2019. This topic was ranked priority 2 for council discussion.
The current policy requires new market-rate multi-family residential rental properties with ten
or more units that receive financial assistance from the city, seek PUD land use approvals or
request a comprehensive plan amendment, to include units affordable to low income
households in the development. In the case of a for-sale property, developers are required to
make a payment to the city in lieu of including affordable units in the project. Based on the
council’s interest in creating rental opportunities for larger families and the need to clarify
language related to parking requirements for the affordable units, staff is proposing the
following two amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Policy:
1. Developments with 50 units or greater will be required to include a minimum number of
three bedroom or larger sized units in the development. The specific number of three
plus bedroom units required per development will be based on the total number of
units in the development.
2. If underground or enclosed parking is the only on-site parking option available for
residents, an enclosed parking stall must be offered to the tenant at a discount from the
market rate fee. The market rate parking fee will be discounted to a level equal to the
affordability level as the affordable units in the development.
Financial or budget considerations: City staff time to implement, manage and monitor
compliance of the inclusionary housing policy as the number of developments subject to the
policy continues to increase.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Amended inclusionary housing policy
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, housing supervisor/deputy community development director
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
Discussion
Background: The inclusionary housing policy was initially approved in June 2015 and amended
in May 2017, August 2018, and April 2019. The current policy requires new market-rate multi-
family residential rental properties with ten or more units that receive financial assistance from
the city, seek PUD land use approvals or request a comprehensive plan amendment to include
units affordable to low income households in the development. In the case of a for-sale
property, the developer is required to make a payment in lieu of including affordable units. The
number of affordable units required in each development is dependent on the level of
affordability of the units and the total number of units in the development. Developers can
choose to include units affordable to households whose incomes are at 30%, 50%, or 60% area
medium income (AMI).
Present Considerations:
Larger size unit requirement
Based on the council’s interest in promoting the creation of rental opportunities for larger
families, it is proposed that the Inclusionary Housing Policy be amended to include the following
language:
Developments with 50 units or greater are required to include a minimum number of
three-bedroom or larger size units. The specific number of three-plus bedroom size
units required per development is based on the total number of units in the
development as noted in the table below.
Building Size – total
residential units
Required Minimum Number of
three bedroom or larger units
50 - 74 2
75 – 99 3
100 - 124 4
125 - 149 5
150 – 174 6
175 + 7
Developments for the exclusive occupancy of senior residents are exempt from this
requirement.
The 50 unit or greater development size threshold for this requirement was established in
recognition of the increased cost of developing three-bedroom units and the decreased rent
revenue generated per square foot by larger size units. Larger developments can more easily
absorb additional construction and operating costs associated with including larger units. Also,
the requirements listed above are the minimum number of larger size units that must be
included in a development. The city can utilize the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as a tool to
encourage developers to exceed the minimums requirements.
Parking requirement
Building sites available in St. Louis Park for multi-family residential developments are often
limited in size. Adequate space for surface parking is typically very limited and often reserved
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
for visitors or commercial business parking. In order to meet zoning related parking
requirements developments most often rely on underground or enclosed parking. Although it
is important that the affordable tenants have access to adequate parking, it is also recognized
that underground and enclosed parking is expensive to build. In order to provide a reasonable
option that will ensure tenants have access to on-site vehicle parking while avoiding the parking
requirements from being a deterrent to including a greater number of affordable units in a
development, the following parking requirements are proposed:
The Inclusionary Policy requires that at least one on-site parking stall (either surface or
enclosed) be provided for each affordable unit. If adequate on-site surface parking exists
as determined by the city based on the development’s parking plan, the requirement
will be met by providing a surface space to the resident at no additional cost to the
tenant. If underground or enclosed parking is the only on-site parking option available
for residents, an enclosed parking stall must be offered to the tenant at a discounted
rate. The market rate parking fee will be discounted based on the affordability level of
the inclusionary units in the development as follows:
Inclusionary affordability level Parking fee cost to resident
30 % AMI Free – included in rent
50% AMI 50% of the market rate fee *
60% AMI 60% of the market rate fee
*Example: if the market rate fee for parking is $100 per month, residents in inclusionary units at the 50%
AMI affordability level will pay $50 per month.
For developments utilizing a combination of surface parking and enclosed parking to
meet the inclusionary parking requirements, a waiting list will be established, and
parking options will be offered based on placement on the list.
City approval must be obtained for any proposed alternative to the parking
requirements noted in the Policy.
Next Steps: Upon approval of the amended Inclusionary Housing Policy, the new requirements
will become effective immediately for any future residential housing developments required to
comply with the policy.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
Inclusionary Housing Policy
This policy promotes high quality housing for households with a variety of income levels, ages
and sizes in order to meet the city's goal of preserving and promoting economically diverse
housing options in our community.
The city recognizes the need to provide affordable housing to households of a broad range of
income levels in order to maintain a diverse population and to provide housing for those who
live or work in the city. Without intervention, the trend toward rising housing prices in new
developments will continue to increase. As a result, this policy is being adopted to ensure that a
reasonable proportion of each new development receiving city financial assistance, seeking
PUD land use approvals or requesting a comprehensive plan amendment include units
affordable to low-and-moderate income households and working families or in the case of for-
sale units, make a payment in lieu of including affordable units.
The requirements set forth in this policy further the city’s housing goals and the city’s
comprehensive plan to create and preserve affordable housing opportunities. These
requirements are intended to provide a structure for participation by both the public and
private sectors in the production of affordable housing.
I. Applicability and minimum project size
This policy applies to market rate multi-unit residential developments that receive financial
assistance from the city, seek PUD land use approvals or request a comprehensive plan
amendment, and includes:
a) new developments that create at least 10 multi-family dwelling units; or
b) any mixed-use building that creates at least 10 multi-family dwelling units; or
c) renovation or reconstruction of an existing building that contains multi-family
dwelling units that includes at least 10 dwelling units; or
d) any change in use of all or part of an existing building from a non- residential use
to a residential use that includes at least 10 dwelling units.
II. Affordable dwelling units
General requirement
Rental developments and for-sale developments subject to this policy shall provide a minimum
number of affordable dwelling units or a payment in lieu subject to the requirements listed
below.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
Calculation of units and payment in lieu required.
For development of multi-family dwelling units:
a) The required number of affordable dwelling units or corresponding payment in
lieu is based on the total number of dwelling units that are approved by the city
or the number of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) dwelling units
that are being demolished or converted to a use other than low-income dwelling
units in connection with construction of the development.
b) To calculate the number of affordable dwelling units or payment in lieu required
in a development the total number of approved dwelling units shall be
multiplied by five percent (5%), ten percent (10%), fifteen percent (15%) or
twenty (20%) depending on the affordability standard. If the final calculation
includes a fraction, the fraction of a unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole
number.
c) If an occupied rental property with existing dwelling units is remodeled and/or
expanded, the number of affordable dwelling units shall be based on the total
number of units following completion of renovation/expansion. At least five
percent (5%), ten percent (10%) or twenty percent (20%) shall be affordable,
depending on the affordability standard.
d) NOAH dwelling units that are being demolished or converted to a use other than
low-income dwelling units in connection with construction of the development
must be replaced in the new development on a one-for-one basis. New
developments must include a minimum number of affordable dwelling units
equal to at least five percent (5%) to twenty percent (20%) of the total number
of dwelling units in the development or the number of naturally occurring
affordable housing dwelling units that are being demolished or converted,
whichever is greater. Any deviation from replacing NOAH units on a one-for-one
basis requires city approval.
*A NOAH unit is defined as a unit in which the amount of rent charged is
affordable to a household whose income is at or below 60% area median
income based on bedroom size, or for a for-sale unit, affordable to a
household whose income is at or below 80% AMI.
e) For-sale home ownership developments will be required to pay a payment in lieu
of including affordable units in the development. The payment in lieu will be an
amount equal to the difference between the average market rate sale price of
the for-sale units in the development and the for-sale home purchase amount
affordable to a household with an income at or below eighty percent (80%) AMI.
The amount of the difference will be multiplied by a number equal to fifteen
percent (15%) of the total number of for-sale units in the development.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
III. Affordability level
The required number of affordable dwelling units within a residential project subject to this
policy shall meet an income eligibility and rent affordability standard for the term of the
restriction as follows:
a) Rental Projects:
a. At least twenty percent (20%) of the units shall be affordable for
households at sixty percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or
b. At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be at affordable for
households at fifty percent (50%) AMI, or
c. At least five percent (5%) of the units shall be affordable for households
at thirty percent (30%) AMI.
b) Demolished or converted NOAH units:
NOAH units demolished or converted to a use other than affordable housing in
connection with the construction of the new development must be replaced on
a one-for-one basis or at rate and affordability level as noted in III. a, whichever
is greater. The new units must be comparable in bedroom size to the units
demolished or converted and be affordable to households at 60% AMI or below.
*A NOAH unit is defined as a rental unit in which the amount of rent
charged is affordable to a household whose income is at or below 60%
area median income based on bedroom size or a for-sale unit affordable
to a household whose income is at or below 80% AMI. NOAH status for
rental units will be based on the rents charged on the date 6 months
prior to the submitting of a development application.
c) For-sale projects:
For-sale home ownership developments will pay a payment in lieu of including
affordable units in the development. The payment in lieu will be an amount equal
to the difference between the average market rate sale price of the for-sale units in
the development and the current for-sale home purchase amount affordable to a
household with an income at or below eighty percent (80%) AMI. The payment will
be multiplied by a number equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of for-
sale units in the development.
NOAH pricing for for-sale dwelling units shall be determined at time of issuance of
the occupancy permit.
d) Rent and sale price level
Rental unit: The monthly rental cost for an affordable dwelling unit shall include
rent, utility costs, parking and any other non-optional monthly occupancy charges.
Surface parking for all inclusionary units if available and enclosed parking for
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
inclusionary units at the 30% AMI affordability level shall also be included in the
monthly rent for the unit. The maximum rent amount shall be based on the
metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size and
calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
posted by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit
Program.
For-sale projects: The qualifying affordable sale price for an owner-occupied
affordable dwelling unit shall be based on a homeownership unit affordable to a
household with income at or below eighty percent (80%) AMI for the metropolitan
area that includes St. Louis Park calculated annually by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and posted by the Metropolitan Council.
e) Period of affordability
For rental developments subject to this policy, the period of affordability for the
affordable dwelling units shall be at least twenty-five (25) years.
IV. Larger size unit requirement
Developments with 50 units or greater are required to include a minimum number of 3
bedroom or larger size units. The specific number of three bedroom or larger size units required
per development is based on the total number of units in the development as noted in the
table below.
Building Size – total
residential units
Required Minimum Number of 3
Bedroom or larger size units
50 - 74 2
75 – 99 3
100 - 124 4
125 - 149 5
150 – 174 6
175 + 7
Developments for the exclusive occupancy of senior residents are exempt from this requirement.
V. Parking requirement
The Inclusionary Policy requires that at least one on-site parking stall (either surface or
enclosed) be provided for each affordable unit. If adequate on-site surface parking exists as
determined by the city based on the development’s parking plan, the requirement will be met
by providing a surface space to the resident at no additional cost to the tenant. If underground
or enclosed parking is the only on-site parking option available for residents, an enclosed
parking stall must be offered to the tenant at a discounted rate. The market rate parking fee
will be discounted based on the affordability level of the inclusionary units as follows:
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
Inclusionary affordability level Parking fee cost to resident
30 % AMI Free – included in rent
50% AMI 50% of the market rate fee *
60% AMI 60% of the market rate fee*
*Example: if the market rate fee for parking is $100 per month, residents of inclusionary units at the 50%
AMI affordability level will pay $50 per month.
For developments utilizing a combination of surface parking and enclosed parking to meet the
inclusionary parking requirements, a waiting list will be established and parking options will be
offered based on placement on the list. Only inclusionary unit residents with a tenant owned
vehicle are eligible for parking at no charge.
The resident’s monthly rent shall include the availability of adequate on-site parking for at least
one vehicle per affordable unit. If adequate on-site surface parking is not available, one
underground parking stall must be assigned to the unit; the cost of which is included in the
maximum rent amount. City approval must be obtained for any proposed alternative to the
parking requirements noted in the Policy.
VI. Location of affordable rental dwelling units
Except as otherwise specifically authorized by this policy, the affordable dwelling units
shall be located within the development.
VII. Standards for inclusionary rental units
Size and design of affordable units
The size and design of the affordable dwelling units should be consistent and comparable with
the market rate units in the rest of the project and is subject to the approval of the city. The
interior of affordable dwelling units is not required to be identical to the market rate units but if
units are smaller than the other units with the same number of bedrooms in the development,
city approval must be obtained.
If naturally occurring affordable housing dwelling units are being demolished or converted to a
use other than lower-income dwelling units in connection with construction of the
development, an equal number of affordable units with a comparable number of bedrooms to
the units demolished or converted must be included in the new development.
Exterior/interior appearance.
The exterior materials and design of the affordable dwelling units in any development subject
to these regulations shall be indistinguishable in style and quality with the market rate units in
the development. The interior finish and quality of construction of the affordable dwelling
units shall at a minimum be comparable to entry level rental housing in the city. Construction
of the affordable dwelling units shall be concurrent with construction of market rate dwelling
units.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
VIII. Integration of affordable dwelling units
Distribution of affordable rental housing units.
The affordable dwelling units shall be incorporated into the overall project unless expressly
allowed to be located in a separate building or a different location approved by the city
council. Affordable dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the building.
Number of bedrooms in the affordable units.
The affordable dwelling units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion
as the market rate units. The mix of unit types, both bedroom and accessible units, of the
affordable dwelling units shall be approved by the city.
Tenants
Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income eligible families during the
period of affordability. A household that was income eligible at initial occupancy may remain in
the affordable dwelling unit for additional rental periods as long as the income of the
household does not exceed one-hundred forty percent (140%) of the applicable AMI.
Affordable units must be administered in compliance with the rules and procedures stated in
St. Louis Park’s Inclusionary Housing Program Guide.
IX. Alternatives to on-site development of affordable dwelling units
This section provides alternatives to the construction of affordable dwelling unit’s onsite. The
alternatives are listed in subsection (c), below.
a) The alternatives must be:
1. Approved by the city council; and
2. Agreed to by the applicant in an Affordable Housing Performance
Agreement with the city; and
3. Applicant must show evidence acceptable to the city that a formal
commitment to the proposed alternative is in place.
b) This section does not apply unless the applicant demonstrates:
1. The alternative provides an equivalent or greater amount of affordable
dwelling units in a way that the city determines better achieves the goals,
objectives and policies of the city’s housing goals and Comprehensive
Plan than providing them onsite; and
2. Will not cause the city to incur any net cost as a result of the alternative
compliance mechanism.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
c) If the conditions in (b) are met, the city may approve one or more of the
following options to providing affordable dwelling units that are required by this
policy.
1. Dedication of existing units: Restricting existing dwelling units which are
approved by the city as suitable affordable housing dwelling units
through covenants or contractual arrangements. The city shall determine
whether the form and content of the restrictions comply with this policy.
Off-site units shall be located within the City of St. Louis Park. The
restriction of such existing units must result in the creation of units that
are of equivalent quality and size of the affordable dwelling units which
would have been constructed on-site if this alternative had not been
utilized.
2. Off-site construction: Offsite construction of affordable units must be
constructed within the city and should be located in proximity to public
transit service at a site approved by the city.
3. Partnering with an affordable housing developer: Participation in the
construction of affordable dwelling units by another developer on a
different site within the city.
4. Proposed alternative: An alternative proposed by the applicant that
directly provides or enables the provision of affordable housing units
within the city. The alternative must be approved by the city and made a
condition of approval of the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.
X. Non-discrimination based on rent subsidies:
Developments covered by the policy must not discriminate against tenants who would pay their
rent with federal, state or local public assistance, including tenant based federal, state or local
subsidies, including, but not limited to rental assistance, rent supplements, and Housing Choice
Vouchers.
XI. Affordable housing plan
a) Applicability
Developments that are subject to this policy shall include an Affordable Housing Plan
as described below. An Affordable Housing Plan describes how the developer
complies with each of the applicable requirements of this policy.
b) Approval
1. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be approved by the city.
2. Minor modifications to the plan are subject to approval by the city
manager. Major modifications are subject to approval by the city
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 11
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
council. Items that are considered major and minor will be designated
in the Affordable Housing Plan.
c) Contents
The Affordable Housing Plan shall include at least the following:
1. General information about the nature and scope of the development
subject to these regulations.
2. For requests of an alternative to on-site provision of affordable housing,
evidence that the proposed alternative will further affordable housing
opportunities in the city to an equivalent or greater extent than
compliance with the otherwise applicable on-site requirements of this
policy.
3. The total number of market rate units, and for rental developments, the
number of affordable dwelling units in the rental development.
4. The floor plans for the affordable dwelling units showing the number of
bedrooms and bathrooms in each unit.
5. The approximate square footage of each affordable dwelling unit and
average square foot of market rate unit by types.
6. Building floor plans and site plans showing the location of each
affordable dwelling unit.
7. The pricing of each ownership dwelling unit shall be determined at time
of issuance of the occupancy permit. At time of sale this price may be
adjusted if there has been a change in the median income or a change
in the formulas used in this ordinance.
8. The order of completion of market rate and affordable dwelling units.
9. Documentation and specifications regarding the exterior appearance,
materials and finishes of the development for each of the affordable
dwelling units illustrating that the appearance of affordable units are
comparable to the appearance of the market-rate units.
10. An Affordable Dwelling Unit Management Plan documenting policies
and procedures for administering the affordable dwelling units in
accordance with the Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.
11. Any and all other information that the city manager may require that is
needed to achieve the council’s affordable housing goals.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 12
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
XII. Recorded agreements, conditions, and restrictions
a) An Affordable Housing Performance Agreement shall be executed between the
city and a developer, in a form approved by the city attorney, based on the
Affordable Housing Plan described in Section VII, which formally sets forth
development approval and requirements to achieve affordable housing in
accordance with this policy and location criteria. The Agreement shall identify:
1. the location, number, type, and size of affordable housing units to be
constructed;
2. sales and/or rental terms; occupancy requirements;
3. a timetable for completion of the units; and
4. restrictions to be placed on the units to ensure their affordability and
any terms contained in the approval resolution by the city as applicable.
b) The applicant or owner shall execute any and all documents deemed necessary
by the city manager, including, without limitation, restrictive covenants and
other related instruments, to ensure the affordability of the affordable housing
units in accordance with this policy.
c) The applicant or owner must prepare and record all documents, restrictions,
easements, covenants, and/or agreements that are specified by the city as
conditions of approval of the application prior to issuance of a zoning
compliance permit for any development subject to this policy.
d) Documents described above shall be recorded in the Hennepin County
Registry of Deeds as appropriate.
e) Inclusionary Housing Program Guide: The affordable units will be managed and
operated in compliance with rules and regulations outlined in the Inclusionary
Housing Program Guide.
XIII. Definitions
a) Affordable Dwelling Unit: The required affordable dwelling units within a
residential project subject to this policy shall meet an income eligibility and rent
affordability standard for the term of the restriction as follows:
1. Rental Projects:
a. At least twenty percent (20%) of the units shall be affordable for
households at sixty percent (60%) Area Median Income (AMI), or
b. At least ten percent (10%) of the units shall be at affordable for
households at fifty percent (50%) Area Median Income.
c. At least five percent (5%) of the units shall be affordable for
households at thirty percent (30%) Area Medium Income.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 13
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
2. For-Sale Projects:
The qualifying affordable sale price for an owner-occupied affordable
dwelling unit shall be based on a household income of eighty percent
(80%) AMI for the metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park
calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
b) Affordable Housing Plan: A plan that documents policies and procedures for
administering the affordable dwelling units in accordance with the Affordable
Housing Performance Agreement.
c) Affordable Housing Performance Agreement: Agreement between the city and
the developer which formally sets forth development approval and
requirements to achieve Affordable Housing in accordance with this policy.
d) Financial Assistance: The Inclusionary Affordable Housing Policy applies to all
new and renovated multifamily residential buildings receiving city financial
assistance, seeking PUD land use approvals or request an amendment to the
comprehensive plan.
Financial Assistance is defined as funds derived from the city and includes but is
not limited to the following:
1. City of St. Louis Park Funds
2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
3. City Housing Rehabilitation Funds
4. Revenue Bonds (private activity bonds are negotiable)
5. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) & Tax Abatement
6. Housing Authority (HA) Funds
7. Land Write-downs
e) NOAH units:
1. Rental units: A rental unit is defined as a NOAH unit if the amount of
rent charged is affordable to a household whose income is at or below
60% area median income based on bedroom size.
2. Ownership unit: A for-sale unit is defined as a NOAH unit if the price of
the home is affordable to a household whose income is at or below 80%
AMI.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 4) Page 14
Title: Inclusionary housing policy proposed amendments
f) Tenant paid rent: The monthly rent for an affordable dwelling unit shall include
rent, utility costs, parking and any other non-optional monthly occupancy
charges. Surface parking for all inclusionary units if available and enclosed
parking for inclusionary units at the 30% AMI affordability level shall also be
included in the monthly rent for the unit. The rent shall be based on the
metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size and
calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
posted by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax
Credit Program.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: May 10, 2021
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Perspectives update
Recommended action: No action required. Report for information purposes only.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: Perspectives Inc. is a non-profit organization serving mothers and their children to
break the cycles of poverty, homelessness, addiction, racial disparity, and trauma. Perspectives
has been serving St. Louis Park and the surrounding communities for 45 years, providing mental
health/recovery services, furnished apartments, case management, food, nutrition education,
child reunification, children’s programming, and employment assistance. Additional information
about Perspectives can be found on their website at https://www.perspectives-family.org.
Perspectives has been actively promoting and pursing a $15 million capital campaign for the
past several years, called Seed the Change, to expand and remodel their facility in St. Louis
Park, located at 3381 Gorham Avenue. This project will provide for the expansion of their Kids
Connection classrooms, their Kids Café, a new and culturally sensitive trauma-informed out-
patient mental and chemical health treatment program, and state of the art early childhood
development center. Perspectives has secured approximately $2 million from a number of
major corporations and foundations including Target, Cargill, Best Buy, General Mills, Wells
Fargo, Pohlad, and Otto Bremmer. Last May, the City of St. Louis Park sponsored a State
bonding grant in the amount of $4.5 million towards the project and was notified of award in
October. And just recently, Perspectives received an additional $2.8 million in grant funding
from the Peter J. King Foundation. Perspectives is continuing their capital campaign and
anticipates breaking ground in 2022.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity
and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all.
Supporting documents: Seed the Change Capital Campaign brochure
Prepared by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
A $15M CAPITAL CAMPAIGN
Perspectives, Inc. Announces
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN: PUBLIC PHASE
BREAKING GROUND IN 2022
Creating a diverse, equitable, and inclusive environment
for underserved women and their children.
Perspectives, Inc., located in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, enters its 45th year as an award-winning non-profit.
Learn more about Perspectives online at perspectives-family.org.
Study Sessino meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Perspectives update Page 2
Perspectives’ Board of Directors is excited to announce the public
phase of our Seed the Change Capital Campaign. Fourteen million
of the dollars raised will be used to rehab 22,000 existing square
feet of our Family Center, as well as develop 16,000 square feet of
new program space.
This ambitious project includes the expansion of our Kids
Connection classrooms, our Kids Cafe, a new culturally sensitive,
trauma-informed, out-patient mental and chemical health treatment
and state-of-the-art early childhood development center. The
remaining one million will be used for capacity building. When
completed, the new Family Center, with its enhanced security and accessibility, will have over 38,000
square feet of trauma-informed space to serve mothers and children.
Why We Exist
Perspectives is committed to breaking cycles of poverty,
homelessness, addiction, racial disparity, and trauma. We provide
a comprehensive, holistic model of supportive housing, which
includes a two-generational approach that addresses historical
trauma and empowers individuals to seek pathways to healing.
Who We Serve
Mothers and their children living in Perspectives’ current and future supportive housing campuses.
Together they are emerging from the cycles mentioned above. Our population of focus also includes
underserved children enrolled in St. Louis Park School District, who need additional social, emotional,
and educational support.
Breaking Cycles for Over Four Decades by Rebuilding Hope and Dignity
•Furnished Apartments•Case Management•Individual Therapy•Outpatient Treatment and
Mental Health Services•Transportation and Childcare•Family Reunification•Pre-natal and Postnatal Care
•Extended Day Social and Emotional
Programing•Summer Programming for
Elementary Children•Early Childhood Development
Program•The Cargill Kids Cafe - Food
Stability, Nutrition, Gardening and
Culinary Skills•Children’s Mental Health Therapist
Mother’s Programming Children’s Programming
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Jeannie Seeley-Smith, President & CEO
(612) 247-5595
jss@perspectives-family.org
Study Sessino meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 5)
Title: Perspectives update Page 3
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: May 10, 2021
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
Recommended action: This is a report from the ESC’s Environmental Justice work group
intended to provide information to the council about environmental justice in St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None currently. Attached is a report written by the ESC’s Environmental
Justice work group and approved by the commission explaining the topic of environmental
justice and potential actions the city can take. This is part of the ESC’s continuing efforts to
foster regular communication with the city council through periodic written reports and
memos.
Summary: The attached report details the research the commission has been conducting on
environmental justice and opportunities to take action in St. Louis Park. After George Floyd’s
death, and following continued protests over police violence against Black Americans, there has
been renewed examination across the country and the commission of the links between racism
and environmental harms. As the report highlights, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color are
often disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change, including extreme heat,
extreme cold, poor air quality, and groundwater flooding. For interrelated reasons, these
communities have also been disproportionately vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus. The
commission recognizes that racial justice and climate justice are intertwined, and a more
equitable and thriving future for St. Louis Park cannot be achieved without consideration of
both.
The report highlights how the commission has been educating itself, includes an introduction to
environmental justice, and explains how a changing climate exacerbates the impacts of
environmental injustice. The report also summarizes actions taken by other communities to
integrate justice and equity into environmental goals, mapped to St. Louis Park’s Climate Action
Plan goals. Finally, the report lays out recommendations for immediate action, mid-term ideas
for the council to consider, and plans for continued follow-up on this topic.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority considerations: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity
and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. St. Louis Park is
committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Environmental Justice in St. Louis Park (report approved by ESC)
Prepared by: Annie Pottorff, sustainability specialist
Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
Environmental Justice in St. Louis Park
The Environmental & Sustainability Commission (ESC) has been taking an effort internally to
educate itself and create an action plan on the issue of Environmental Justice and its overlap
with Climate Change. When reviewing this document, we ask Council to keep in mind St. Louis
Park’s Vision 3.0 to be a leader in racial equity and inclusion and environmental stewardship.
Content below is divided into three sections: (1) Introduction & Overview, (2) Actions Made by
Other Communities, and (3) Recommendations and Action Items for St. Louis Park.
Introduction & Overview
Introduction: Environmental Justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and involvement of all people
regardless of race, income, country of origin with respect to development, implementation and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.1 No population should bear a
disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences from industrial, municipal and
commercial operations (US Department of Energy). Today this is not the case, both industrial
and climate change impacts are felt at a disproportionate rate by minority and low-income
communities. Home ownership is a helpful indicator of equality, and we see in SLP that there is
a 42.8% gap in home ownership for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC).2 We should
keep this local disparity in mind as we think through the topic of EJ. There are two main areas
of impact: Industrial/Housing Toxin and Pollution Exposure and Climate Change Impacts.
Industrial/Housing Toxin and Pollution Exposure:
•Urban:
o Toxin Exposure: Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States 1987 - United Church
of Christ Commission for Racial Justice found that race was the #1 factor on
where toxic facilities were located.3
o Energy Cost Burden: Low-Income households and communities of color are more
likely to live in older less efficient housing resulting in an overburdening of
energy costs. American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy report found that
Black (+43%), Hispanic (+20%) and Native American (+45%) HHs spend more of
household income than whites on energy - based on data from 2017 American
Housing Survey from Census Bureau’s.4
o Health Impacts: Pollution exposure greater than energy level consumptions -
Black Americans (+56%), Hispanics (+63%), while Non-Hispanic Whites are
exposed to 17% less air pollution than consumption.5
‘Asthma Alley’ in NYC Mott Haven neighborhood (97% Hispanic or Black),
asthma hospitalizations are 5x national average and 21x other NYC
neighborhoods. Neighborhood home to four highways, Fresh Direct
warehouse, WSJ printing presses and more.6
‘Cancer Alley’ along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, home to 150 fossil fuel and petrochemical facilities. This area
has 7 of the 10 highest cancer risk subdivisions that census has tracked
nationally. The highest concentration of these facilities are in areas with
the highest Black and low-income neighborhoods.7
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
• Rural: Indigenous communities are often left with pollution impact left on their land
especially when there is a valuable resource such as oil.
o Dakota Pipeline: Concerns include risks to water safety and quality if there is an
oil leak and destruction of sacred tribal burial grounds.7
o Line 3 Approval: Controversy over this approval causing 12 of 17 members of
MPCA advisory board to resign. Environmental and tribal groups are still suing
and protesting against the project.8
Climate Change Impact:
• Increased Natural Disasters and Wealth Impacts: As storms become stronger and more
frequent, low-income and communities of color are not provided the resources to
rebuild and are seeing wealth disparities increase.
o A 2018 study focusing on data from 1990-2013 showed that 99% of all US
counties had significant damage from natural disasters. Controlling for multiple
variables, the study found that while White residents increased wealth in these
areas, minority communities lost wealth. One specific example in Harris County,
Texas saw disaster related wealth race gap increase $87,000.9
• Heat Islands: As temperatures continue to rise, impacts are intensified in areas with
more concrete and less tree/plant cover which increases health risks in vulnerable
populations.10
o SLP Heat Map:
• Pregnancy Outcomes: High heat and air pollution exposure have direct links to
underweight and stillborn births. African American mothers and babies have a higher
exposure rate to heat and pollution than the general population, this risk is in addition
to the already higher pregnancy and birth risks seen in minority groups.11
• Land Resources Deterioration and Impacted Livelihoods Indigenous Peoples:12
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
o Fires, Floods and Forests Impacts: Warmer temperatures and droughts lead to
tree loss, loss of wildlife and biodiversity and increased fire risks.
o Water Quality and Quantity: Droughts, decreased snowfall and other
precipitation has caused springs to dry. Communities also are more likely to have
poor or no water infrastructure.
o Forced Relocation: Loss of community and culture, health impacts and economic
impacts from Climate Change.
Actions Made by Other Communities
Many communities are thinking about justice and equity in their environmental stewardship
efforts. Here’s a sample of actions underway elsewhere mapped to our own Climate Action
Plan goals:
Goal 1: Reduce energy consumption in large commercial buildings
• University of Minnesota in 2016 upgraded part of its power plant to a more efficient,
less polluting technology. The location of this was near a low-income housing
development that housed many recent immigrants. The MPCA and the university hosted
a public meeting and included informational sheets that were translated into a few
common languages among the residents to ensure they understood the new
development plans.
Goal 4: Reduce energy consumption in residential buildings
• BlocPower in Brooklyn, New York is upgrading low income housing HVAC with “efficient
electric-powered heat pumps.”14 These systems can pay for themselves but require a lot
of up-front investment. BlocPower helps with custom planning software and financing.
• Boston is considering upgrading air filters and high-quality HVAC systems13, especially
for those living in affordable housing. The pandemic is a reminder that quality indoor air
systems are critical to the health of our community.
• Los Angeles is focusing on temperature reduction in low income areas by improving the
tree canopy and laying a lighter shade of pavement to reduce heat island effects.13
• Orlando partners with Solar Energy Loan Fund to update heating and AC systems and
reduce utility costs for residents.13
• Richmond created an equity index map to target areas where more green space is
needed or where heat islands should be addressed.13
Goal 6: Reduce vehicle emissions
• In Carmel, Indiana, bike lanes are viewed as an equity measure by creating an affordable
transportation option.13
• St. Paul is working to expand car sharing service into low income neighborhoods.13
• Minneapolis 2040 Housing Plan Built Form Rezoning is promoting housing choice,
affordability and density.19
Projects promoting climate resilience or other environmental justice goals:
• Houston is focusing on flood resilience in underinvested communities.13
• Oakland is supporting Community Land Trusts to promote housing stewardship,
community wealth creation and allow current residents to stay in the community.13
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
• North Minneapolis Appetite for Change is promoting healthier communities and
connection to land with vegetable gardens.18
• Minneapolis is designating areas of the city as “Green Zones.”15 “A model for
government to own up to this racist history and move towards collaborative problem-
identification and problem solving with impacted residents. The idea for Green Zones
came from environmental justice leaders who demanded a seat at the table during the
development of the City [of Minneapolis]’s first Climate Action Plan in 2012.”
• Minneapolis Air Pilot Project - In 2014, the MPCA designed the Air Pilot Project “to
identify ways to reduce air emissions, better understand air quality in Minneapolis, and
improve engagement with communities” (MPCA). During this pilot project, the MPCA
worked with 12 different facilities to discuss ways the facilities could voluntarily reduce
their emissions in areas of lower socioeconomic status.
• Permit Update for Smith Foundry - Another part of the MPCA’s environmental justice
framework implementation includes reviewing the agency’s “regulatory strategy of
prioritizing review and evaluation of expired permits, permit reissuances, and non-
expired permits in areas of environmental justice concern to identify possible ways to
reduce risk” (MPCA).
Recommendations and Action Items for St. Louis Park
• Current: Continue to keep Environmental Justice front of mind when evaluating policies
that impact St. Louis Park Residents
o Tree Planting: The ESC supports the use of a tree equity tool for prioritizing
future planting and suggests focusing on reducing heat islands near multi-family
housing and socially vulnerable populations.
o Connect the Park Goal Updates: The ESC supports the revised Connect the Park
goals and strategies presented in the March 1 study session.
o 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Mobility Priorities: The ESC supports the
focus of higher density development in SLP and specifically along the light rail
station areas and a shift away from single-occupancy vehicle transportation.
Additionally, the ESC supports the Mobility System goal to ensure the quality and
function of the transportation system contributes to the equitable outcomes for
all people. With the shift to higher density areas the ESC would like to put an
emphasis on ensuring that ample affordable housing options will be available in
these highly desired areas.
o Capital Improvement Planning: The ESC encourages the City Council to continue
to evaluate whether the projects funded are improving environmental justice
and are prioritizing underserved populations.
• Mid-Term: Additional thought starters beyond actions being pursued today
o Take a step back during discussions and think, do we have the right people in the
room? Are the communities that are being impacted here to give input? How
can we make community engagement more accessible?
o Monitor and review air quality, traffic patterns and the subsequent health
impacts and overlay with social vulnerability index. Are there policies that could
be updated? Are there new partnerships that could be pursued?
o Explore policy ideas on how to fix incentive misalignment in rental properties as
it relates to energy efficient upgrades. How can we fix the gap between
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
qualifying for affordable housing but not qualifying for assistance with upgrades?
What additional incentives can be made to encourage energy efficient upgrades
to existing multi-unit buildings?
o Consider including energy efficiency disclosures in Point-of-Sale home
inspections and within lease paperwork. Think of it as a Fuel Economy Label for
housing (perhaps produced by the Home Energy Squad).
• Future: The Environmental and Sustainability commission will follow-up with council
with specific new policy recommendations that address Environmental Justice in new
ways.
Appendix:
Definitions:
• Environmental Justice: Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with
respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no population bears a
disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from
industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or from the execution of federal, state,
and local laws; regulations; and policies. Meaningful involvement requires effective
access to decision makers for all, and the ability in all communities to make informed
decisions and take positive actions to produce environmental justice for themselves. (US
DOE) See also: environmental racism, environmental intersectionality.
• Climate Equity: Climate equity ensures that all people have the opportunity to benefit
equally from climate solutions while not taking on an unequal burden of climate
impacts. (ICLEI) Climate change poses the greatest threat to those that are the least
responsible – generally people that are already vulnerable to deep-rooted challenges
such as poverty. Conversely, those who have contributed the most to climate change
have much better capacity to protect themselves from its impacts. As the effects of
climate change mount, so does the urgency of addressing this equity challenge. (WRI)
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Environmental Justice Statement: “The
MPCA is committed to making sure that pollution does not have a disproportionate
impact on any group of people — the principle of environmental justice” (MPCA). The
MPCA ensures it fosters fair policies and procedures with environmental justice as a
core priority. The agency’s top strategies include additional consideration during the
permitting, environmental review, and remediation processes. The MPCA also
“maintains a policy on tribal consultation as well as guidance on air and water permit
consultation with Tribal Nations.”16
• History: Please refer to the article linked here for an overview of the history of the
Environmental Justice Movement. With little to no protections against industry, groups
started protesting as early as the 1960’s for healthier living and working environments.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/environmental-justice-movement
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC) Environmental Justice report
Resources:
1. Environmental Justice - https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice
2. Demographic Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units -
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Owner%2FRenter%20%28Householder%29%20Characteristics&g=1600000US
2757220&tid=ACSST5Y2018.S2502&hidePreview=false
3. The Environmental Justice Movement - https://www.nrdc.org/stories/environmental-justice-movement
4. Report: Black households spend almost 50 percent more on utilities than white households -
https://grist.org/justice/report-black-households-spend-almost-50-percent-more-on-utilities-than-white-households/
5. ‘Asthma Alley’: why minorities bear burden of pollution inequity caused by white people -
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/04/new-york-south-bronx-minorities-pollution-inequity
6. Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ Is Getting Even More Toxic - But Residents Are Fighting Back -
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/louisiana-cancer-alley-getting-more-toxic-905534/
7. Why the Native American pipeline resistance in North Dakota is about climate justice -
https://theconversation.com/why-the-native-american-pipeline-resistance-in-north-dakota-is-about-climate-justice-
64714
8. Army Corps of Engineers grants final federal Line 3 permit - https://www.startribune.com/us-army-corps-of-
engineers-approves-key-line-3-permit/573172221/
9. Natural disasters widen racial wealth gap - http://news.rice.edu/2018/08/20/natural-disasters-widen-racial-wealth-
gap-2/
10. Metropolitan Council Climate Vulnerability Assessment - https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning/Local-
Planning-Assistance/CVA/Tools-Resources.aspx
11. Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks, Affecting Black Mothers Most -
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/climate/climate-change-pregnancy-study.html
12. Indigenous People, Lands, and Resources - https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/indigenous-peoples
13. Green Biz racial justice article - https://www.greenbiz.com/article/8-cities-share-how-racial-justice-embedded-their-
climate-plans
14. NPR BlocPower article - https://www.npr.org/2020/10/18/916586592/fighting-climate-change-one-building-at-a-time
15. Minneapolis Green Zones description - http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/sustainability/policies/green-zones
16. MPCA environmental justice policy and framework - https://www.pca.state.mn.us/about-mpca/mpca-and-
environmental-justice
17. We Act Climate Justice Actions - https://www.weact.org/whatwedo/areasofwork/climate/
18. NPR North Minneapolis Appetite for Change article - https://www.npr.org/2020/11/23/938198603/minneapolis-
group-is-growing-food-to-protect-members-from-effects-of-racism-dise
19. Minneapolis 2040 Housing Plan - https://minneapolis2040.com/implementation/built-form-rezoning-study#Goals
20. Environment and Sustainability Commission compiled list of EJ Resources - https://stlouisparkorg-
my.sharepoint.com/personal/apottorff_stlouispark_org/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?e=4%3aHwyl4R&at=9&share=
EY_4ynG8VARPhhWmN7Y4nWsB6GnCUVhozzxyitXhK0b6oA
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: May 10, 2021
Written report: 7
Executive summary
Title: Completion of Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
Recommended action: None.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: On June 19, 2017, the city council approved HGA Architects and Engineers to design
a new interpretive center at Westwood Hills Nature Center. The contractor bids were awarded
for construction of the project on November 19, 2018. The estimated total project budget was
$12.5 million. The bids, price quotes, construction costs, contingency, and consultants totaled
$12,345,492.76. The final cost was $12,268,797.66 or $46,556.10 less than the contracted
amount awarded.
This amount does not include $404,500 for the north water feature. This water feature was
reimbursed 100% by a grant from the Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission. The
water feature adds water quality improvements above and beyond the project scope as well as
providing a teaching tool.
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost has been calculated as follows:
Approved project amount $12,345,492.76
Final cost of project $12,268,797.66
Project difference $ 46,556.10
This project was financed by issuing a 20-year G.O. (General Obligation) bond in early 2019 to
coincide with the start of the project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Jason T. West, recreation superintendent
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Title: Completion of Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
Discussion
Background: The process for construction of a new nature center facility began in 2015 with
the development of a master plan. The common themes that emerged from the master plan
study are as follows:
•Move the building location closer to the parking lot for convenience and accessibility yet
keeping it tucked into natural setting as much as possible.
•Create a gathering area where people can use the indoor space without interfering with
the classrooms.
•Increase the size of meeting rooms to accommodate approximately 50 people in each
small multi-purpose room and open up to have the capacity for approximately 150
participants for special events and large gathering space.
•Increase the number of parking stalls to accommodate all users of the building and
outside amenities.
•Design the interpretive center building to be energy efficient.
•Repurpose the current interpretive center location as an outdoor education/community
gathering space.
Staff believes we have incorporated all of these common themes into the design and
construction for the new building with the exception of the 150-person capacity. The final
design includes two multi-purpose rooms with a seated capacity of 50 people each and one
room that can accommodate up to 30 people. Retractable dividers allow all rooms to open into
a single large space to accommodate up to 130 people for a variety of uses.
Based on council direction, staff have worked with HGA Architects and Engineers and RJM
Construction to design and build an all-electric powered building with a goal of “zero energy”,
which means one hundred percent of the building’s energy needs on a net annual basis are
supplied by on-site renewable energy.
During construction some unexpected items came up such as dewatering due to high
groundwater levels, certain winter conditions, and utility infrastructure. There were change
orders that were approved on the project, but the increased cost of the change orders was
offset by contingency and cost saving modifications during construction.
The project budget also includes $50,000 for public art inside the building. Staff worked with
Friends of the Arts (FOTA) and the arts and culture task force to create a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit artists to design and create art pieces for the new nature center
building. The process included diversity, inclusivity and access into the arts and culture of
WHNC.
The exhibits encompass five different learning areas that include the different habitats in
Westwood Hills Nature Center. There is a woodland exhibit, prairie exhibit, wetland exhibit,
pollinator exhibit, discovery touch table and the live program animals in aquariums and
terrariums.
Study session meeting of May 10, 2021 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Title: Completion of Westwood Hills Nature Center Project
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed is calculated as
follows:
Approved project amount $12,345,492.76
Final cost of project $12,268,797.66
Project difference $ 46,556.10
This project was approved by issuing a 20-year G.O. (General Obligation) bond in early 2019 to
coincide with the start of the project.