Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/01/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular AGENDA JAN. 18, 2022 The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. in accordance with the most recent COVID-19 guidelines. Members of the public can attend in person or watch via webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859). Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports. EDA meeting at 6:20 p.m.; Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m. – council chambers Members of the public who want to address the city council during the regular meeting about items on the agenda can attend the meeting in person or call the number noted below next to the corresponding item. Call when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow instructions provided. Comments will be taken during each item in the order they are received and must relate to an item on the current city council agenda. • 952.562.2886 – consent agenda items 4a - 4g • 952.562.2887 – item 8a – Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, MN • 952.562.2888 – item 8b – Remote meeting guidelines and considerations • 952.562.2886 – item 8c – COVID-19 face covering policy options 6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – council chambers 1. Roll call 2. Approval of agenda 3. Approval of consent agenda and items on EDA consent calendar 3a. Subordination of mortgage - Mary Jo Rochel loan Recommended action: Motion to approve the proposed subordination of mortgage and adopt EDA Resolution pertaining to EDA loan to Mary Jo Rochel. 4. Approval of EDA minutes 4a. EDA meeting minutes of Dec. 6, 2021 5. Unfinished business – None 6. New business – None 7. Communications – None Meeting of Jan. 18, 2022 City c ouncil agenda 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – council chambers 1. Call to order 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition of donation 3. Approval of minutes 3a. Study session minutes of Nov. 22, 2021 3b. Study session minutes of Dec. 13, 2021 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar Recommended action: **Motion to approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 4a. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 36 pertaining to solar energy systems and approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4b. A pprove second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 36 pertaining to daycares and approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4c . A dopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions in front of 3049 Florida Avenue. 4d . Adopt Resolution accepting donation to the fire department from Park Coin for fire prevention programs and equipment. 4e . Adopt Resolution approving labor agreement between the city and the dispatchers employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two years, from Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2023. 4f . Approve the 2022-2024 cooperative agreement for the police mental health program. 4g . Adopt Resolution changing the name of the final plat for Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition to Belt Line Industrial Park 5th Addition. 5. Boards and commissions -- None 6. Public hearings -- None 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution declaring a Climate Emergency in St. Louis Park. Mayor is asked to read an excerpt of the resolution following the staff presentation. Meeting of Jan. 18, 2022 City c ouncil agenda 8b . Remote meeting guidelines and considerations Recommended action: Consider motion to adopt Resolution acknowledging the Omicron variant surge of the COVID-19 health pandemic and moving to remote meetings of the city council and advisory boards and commissions. 8c . COVID-19 face covering policy options Recommended action: Discuss policy options regarding face coverings/masks for indoor places of assembly in St. Louis Park. 9. Communications – None **NOTE: The consent calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a councilmember or a member of the public, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agendas will be posted on Fridays on the entrance doors to city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after 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: Economic development authority Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 3a Executive summary Title: Subordination of mortgage - Mary Jo Rochel loan Recommended action: Motion to approve the proposed subordination of mortgage and adopt EDA Resolution pertaining to EDA loan to Mary Jo Rochel. Policy consideration: Does the EDA support the proposed subordination of mortgage pertaining to the EDA loan to Mary Jo Rochel to enable her and her husband to refinance their home at 3700 Colorado Avenue South? Summary: As part of the land assemblage for the Excelsior & Grand redevelopment, the EDA entered into a Settlement Agreement (including a Promissory Note) with Mary Jo Rochel (formerly Mary Jo Rossi) in June 1999 in which the EDA agreed to loan Ms. Rochel $24,250 to enable her to purchase a replacement dwelling and current “Property” at 3700 Colorado Ave. South. That Note was secured by a second mortgage on her Property. The loan agreement provided that no payments would be required until the Maturity Date. In 2003, Ms. Rochel refinanced her first mortgage, triggering the Maturity Date under the Note and Mortgage, but at her request, the EDA agreed not to enforce payment in full of the Note. The terms of the Note and Mortgage remained in full force and effect. In July 2014, the Note matured. Ms. Rochel obtained a loan sufficient to allow her to pay off the entire principal balance of $24,250, but insufficient to pay off the accrued interest which had reached $25,486. The EDA agreed to a Forbearance and Loan Modification Agreement with Ms. Rochel in which the EDA waived calling an event of default, capped the accrued interest owed at $25,486 and extended payment of the accrued interest until the Property was sold. The $25,486 will be due upon sale of the Property. Any proposed revisions to the terms of the original Mortgage and Note require formal approval by the EDA. The Rochels wish to refinance their home again and have secured a loan commitment from Third Federal Savings and Loan Association. The bank has requested that the EDA’s mortgage be subordinated to the new home loan. The proposed Subordination is substantially similar to other such agreements the EDA has previously approved. The proposed Subordination has been reviewed by the EDA’s legal counsel who recommends its approval. Financial or budget considerations: None of the terms of the EDA’s mortgage have changed. The only change is the primary lender. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: EDA resolution Subordination of mortgage document available in CD Department Prepared by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Subordination of mortgage - Mary Jo Rochel loan EDA Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution approving subordination of mortgage Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) previously entered into a Settlement Agreement (including a Note) with Mary Jo Rochel (the “Borrower”) pursuant to which the EDA loaned the Borrower $24,250 related to the purchase of certain property at 3700 Colorado Avenue South (the “Property”), which Note was secured by a second mortgage on the Property (the “Mortgage”); and Whereas, the loan documents have been amended, most recently pursuant to a Forbearance and Loan Modification Agreement dated as of Sept. 15, 2014 (the “Forbearance Agreement”), to provide for an extended maturity and payment of the Note and all accrued interest upon certain conditions (the “Extended Maturity Date”), provided that the terms of the Note and Mortgage remain in full force and effect except as modified by the Forbearance Agreement; and Whereas, pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement, any proposed revisions to the terms of the original Mortgage and Note require formal approval by the EDA; and Whereas, the Borrower wishes to refinance the Property and has secured a loan commitment from Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland (the “Lender”), which Lender requires that the Authority Mortgage be subordinated to the Lender’s loan documents; and Whereas, the proposed Subordination of Mortgage (the “Subordination”) is substantially similar to subordinations the Authority has previously approved for similar projects, and does not modify or adversely affect the Authority’s rights under the Forbearance Agreement or Authority Mortgage; and Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority has reviewed the Subordination, and finds that the approval and execution of the Subordination are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority as follows: A.The Subordination as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the Subordination by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. B.The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the Subordination. C.Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: Subordination of mortgage - Mary Jo Rochel loan Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority January 18, 2022 Karen Barton, executive director Margaret Rog, president Attest Melissa Kennedy, secretary Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Minutes: 4a Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 6, 2021 1.Call to order President Brausen called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2.Roll call Commissioners present: President Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano Commissioners absent: none Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), CFO (Ms. Schmitt), Economic Development Manager (Mr. Hunt), Executive Director/Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick) 3.Approval of minutes 3a. EDA meeting minutes of Nov. 1, 2021 It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Kraft, to approve the Nov. 1, 2021, EDA meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4.Approval of EDA disbursements It was moved by Commissioner Mohamed, seconded by Commissioner Dumalag, to approve the EDA disbursements presented for the period of Oct. 23 through Nov. 26, 2021. The motion passed 7-0. 5.Reports - none 6.Old business - none 7.New business 7a. Adoption of amended and restated TIF Policy. EDA Resolution No. 21-36 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Page 2 Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 President Brausen left the meeting at 5:40 p.m. Vice President Rog presided over the meeting during his absence. Commissioner Spano thanked Mr. Hunt and staff for this report and all the work done to revise the TIF Policy per the EDA’s direction, noting that TIF is a critical tool that enables the city to realize it’s redevelopment vison and plans. Commissioner Harris stated one requirement, which is pending, is the diversity, equity, and inclusion policy. She noted this was brought forward by Commissioners Mohamed and Dumalag. She asked for details on this pending item. Mr. Hunt stated the policy is forthcoming to the EDA and council, is recognized in the amended and restated TIF policy, and when adopted will be considered part of the revised TIF policy. Commissioner Dumalag thanked staff for their work on this. She stated we are asking our development partners who do work in the city to think about diversity and inclusion and to keep it top of mind when proposing projects. Commissioner Mohamed thanked staff as well. Vice President Rog asked about the “not to exceed 10% development cost” and if this is a reduction compared to the total cost. Mr. Hunt stated this reflects current practice. He stated it is a benchmark, that the TIF request is not to exceed 10% of a project’s total development cost, adding it is now formalized in the TIF policy. Vice President Rog asked about developers’ disclosure of TIF requests, and if this is now formalized as well in the policy. Mr. Hunt stated yes, it is now formalized in the revised policy. Vice President Rog asked if a policy changes during developer negotiations, do policy changes need to be applied. Mr. Hunt explained the applicable policies depend on when the developer submitted their planning applications, and the policies in place at that time. Mr. Hunt stated developers need to have clarity as to which policy they will be expected to follow at the time of their application. Vice President Rog noted under item H, she has concerns around equity when developers need to demonstrate experience. She hoped for partnership opportunities on this going forward. Vice President Rog also noted she feels this is the early stage of the process and changes can be discussed prior. She noted she will contact staff about this at a future time. President Brausen returned at 5:45 p.m. and presided over the rest of the meeting. Commissioner Harris asked if there has been an instance when the city asked a developer to hold up until a policy was finalized. Mr. Hunt stated that staff has been proactive with developers and provides information to developers in advance, including information on forthcoming policy revisions being worked on by council, and not yet finalized. Page 3 Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 President Brausen stated he is supportive of the revised policy, adding this fosters the type of development we want to see in St. Louis Park. It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 21-36, approving amended and restated TIF policy. The motion passed 7-0. 7b. Subordination agreements – PLACE E-Generation One, LLC. EDA Resolution No. 21-37 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Commissioner Kraft asked about the EDA’s $975,000 loan to the developer. Mr. Hunt explained it is a loan that allowed the developer to pay for a portion of its land purchase from the EDA over a 10-year period. Commissioner Kraft asked about the original housing revenue bonds and if the city is being asked to increase the amount of those bonds or provide any additional funding. Mr. Hunt stated that the city is not being asked to increase the size of the original bonds and that the city is not being asked for any additional funding. Commissioner Kraft asked if existing bond holders approve this and if they have. Mr. Hunt stated yes. Elizabeth Bowling with the PLACE/Via Sol and E-Generation project, the developer’s representative, stated the specific financing was developed with a loan process and the existing institutional bond holders. Commissioner Kraft asked if the city has any increased financial risk for this agreement and if the city has outlaid any cash. Mr. Hunt stated there are no additional financial obligations involved with this. Commissioner Rog noted significant staff time has been expended on this project over the years and asked if the city will be able to recoup these costs. Mr. Hunt stated many of these costs will be recouped through the TIF district associated with the project. Commissioner Rog asked why an additional $10 million is needed to complete the project. Ms. Bowling explained after the 2018 series bonds were closed, there were extensive omissions in the plans which caused an 11-month delay to rectify. As a result, they filed a claim with their insurance company which has not yet been resolved. Additionally, there were design errors found in the field and so the design costs were expended twice. She stated nearly all their reserves were expended. She stated the rectification claim is still pending and COVID has slowed down this process, and supply chain issues added increased costs. She stated unless the claim paid out soon, all reserves would be expended, so additional funds for $10 million were sought. She Page 4 Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 stated they were also paying additional property maintenance expenses and all these things combined have caused this issue, and they hope to be able to secure the additional financing very soon. Commissioner Rog asked what happens if the insurance claim does not come through. Ms. Bowling stated putting the completion financing in place will help to service this additional debt, adding the bond holder is confident the project can service the total package. Commissioner Kraft stated the total additional cost is $10 million and asked what the buffer is now. Ms. Bowling stated the bond holders are also interested in this, adding there are additional sources they will draw from, including grants that are reimbursement-based. She stated this will provide several million dollars for the project, not part of the completion financing. She added there is also more funding for a buffer. Commissioner Dumalag stated the $10 million is in corporate debt and asked the developer who the debtholder is. Ms. Bowling stated she did not have authorization to publicly disclose this yet, but she has shared that information with staff. She added there is a bond holder ready to issue funds. Commissioner Dumalag stated she is confused as to why council was not notified sooner of this issue. Ms. Bowling stated they have been keeping staff informed of the issues surrounding the project ongoing. Commissioner Dumalag asked what is in the pipeline now. Ms. Bowling stated they are all in on completing Via Sol and E-Generation and that they are the organization’s top priorities. Commissioner Rog asked if staff feels confident with the financial issues here. Mr. Hunt stated based upon what staff has been told, the $10 million being provided by the lender to the developer and the stated outstanding grant amounts seemed correct. Commissioner Rog asked in the process is there any corroboration that happens, or any documentation of the cushion amounts. Ms. Ingram stated staff has confirmation there are reimbursement grants outstanding. She stated there is reason to believe there is cushion from the grants. Commissioner Rog asked what share of occupancy is required to meet financial obligations. Ms. Bowling stated 75% is required, noting there are some milestones as well. She added the existing bond holders and lawyers have gone over all the details of the project, and there are more than adequate funds available to fund the total project. Commissioner Rog asked about the bad plans approved and structural issues that needed to be redone, and if this is common or has ever happened before. Mr. Hunt stated this is unusual. Page 5 Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 Commissioner Spano asked what the total budget is currently for the project. Ms. Bowling stated it is $76,350,000 with the completion financing. Commissioner Spano asked what the contingency budget is at this point. Ms. Bowling stated there is a 5% contingency built in. Commissioner Spano asked what the margin of error is. Ms. Bowling stated another $8 million is accounted for. Commissioner Spano asked what percentage of the project is complete. Ms. Bowling stated 82% and after reinspection with contractors, it is now 76% taking into consideration the rework. Ms. Bowling stated if the amount they are borrowing is not enough, the bond holder has more contingencies, so the difference can be met, if more funds were needed. She stated there is a potential $8 million buffer. Commissioner Spano stated he is very concerned about this project and is not sure he can get to yes on this request. He stated he has concerns when she said, “let me explain this as it’s been explained to me”. He needs more of an assurance on this, adding he has approved previous requests for PLACE, but he has hit his limit now, especially when hearing about the upfront amounts needed to complete the work. He stated COVID has had tremendous impacts on supply chain and staff knows this; however, the council has not had these types of large requests in the past. He stressed this project has been in front of the council numerous times asking for funding repeatedly as well as extensions. He does not doubt the commitment, but all the stretches and risks are concerning, and it is reasonable to say at some point, this is not working. Commissioner Spano stated this project will not be completed by the end of the year. He asked Ms. Ingram what happens if the council does not approve this project before the end of the year. Ms. Ingram stated the contract provides that if an event of default is incurable in its nature within 30 days, then the developer may provide reasonable assurances that they are working to address the event of default as quickly as possible. But the trustees would have a chance to still step in and prevent default, even if the EDA does not approve the 7th amendment. But if the developer receives the funding, they could continue with the project, even if the EDA does not approve of the 7th amendment. Commissioner Spano asked why this is being recommended for approval. Ms. Ingram stated construction is progressing, the EDA is receiving loan payments, and if the EDA pulls the plug, there will be no more payments toward the $975,000. This is the best course if the EDA wishes to continue to be paid. Commissioner Harris stated she is uneasy that this subordination would put the city 3rd in line. She asked if the developer has been working on the financing since April. Ms. Bowling stated they have been working on this and the insurance claim issue since last fall, but this new situation to provide for more financing has been worked on since April. Commissioner Harris asked about occupancy and management of the unit. Ms. Bowling stated they are working with a professional 3rd party management group. Page 6 Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 Commissioner Mohamed stated there has been a lot of back and forth on the project, as well as “if this, then that”. She stated she is very hesitant at this time. Commissioner Kraft stated this will be the 7th amendment, it feels like a lot, and he has concerns if something else happens and they are not able to complete it. He asked if there is any difference if the EDA does not approve the 7th amendment or not. Ms. Ingram stated the master subordination agreement puts EDA in 3rd position, and the 7th amendment allows the developer extra time. She continued if all of those are adopted, then if there is a default, the notice of default goes to the developer, the trustee of completion bond and the trustee of the 2018 bonds. She stated if the EDA approves the subordinations and not the 7th amendment, which does not change anything, the two trustees would still be ahead of the EDA. She added if the EDA approves the 7th amendment and not the subordinations, then there would only be the 2018 bond trustees and the developer. Commissioner Rog asked if the corporate bonds are dependent on the deadline being moved. Ms. Eddington, city bond counsel, stated the two subordination agreements are required by the bond holder group to provide the $10 million in additional funding. If the deadline is not extended, there will be questions within this group. She stated the $10 million in funding will help the project be completed. She also noted that if the bonds default the city has no responsibility but there may be press on the issue. She added the bond group will press to get the project done, as they will want to be paid back. President Brausen noted the ones at risk are the new bond holders, and they are willing to make a $10 million investment in this project because they think it can work. He added the city is not being asked to expend any additional assets of the city by extending this deadline, or by subordinating the debt, and the city is behind on $44 million already. He stated as a practical matter if this goes into default, the city will try to figure out how to cut their losses, and the $975,000 behind $44 million will be relatively small, with recourse to the TIF funds later. He stated the additional risk to the city, aside from the frustration the project is not yet done, this is not a substantial additional risk by extending the deadline. He stated he will support this. Commissioner Kraft appreciated this discussion, adding while the 7th amendment is concerning, he agrees with President Brausen’s comments and will support this as well. Commissioner Spano thanked staff for their fast response on this. Commissioner Dumalag stated if this passes, she would appreciate a check in on the project and more open communication in the future. Commissioner Mohamed agreed with Commissioner Dumalag’s comments and asked for access to daily logs and updates on the project. She stated constituents want answers and she wants to be sure she is answering correctly. Mr. Hunt stated staff will continue providing updates to the EDA. Page 7 Economic development authority meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: EDA meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 Commissioner Rog stated her constituents have watched this project and they are unhappy as deadlines have continued to be pushed back. She stated she does agree with President Brausen’s comments and will reluctantly support this. Commissioner Dumalag stated she will also support this and asked the developer to finish the project. Commissioner Harris stated it is in the best interest of the city to go forward with this. Ms. Barton stated the developer, at staff’s request, has provided weekly updates and updates to council, but will pass on the developer’s updates to the EDA going forward. Commissioner Spano stated he would like the updates also but added while he has been supportive of the project, he will not support the subordination agreement this evening. It was moved by Commissioner Mohamed, seconded by Commissioner Kraft, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 21-37 approving an amended and restated master subordination agreement and a subordination agreement with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Spano opposed). 7c. Seventh Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E- Generation One, LLC. Resolution No. 21-38. It was moved by Commissioner Mohamed, seconded by Commissioner Kraft, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 21-38 approving the seventh amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract between the EDA and PLACE E-Generation One, LLC. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Spano opposed). 8. Communications – none 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Tim Brausen, president Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Presentation: 2a Executive summary Title: Recognition of donation Recommended action: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the following donation being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda: From Donation For Park Coin $250 Fire department for fire prevention programs and equipment Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes City council study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Nov. 22, 2021 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Lynette Dumalag, Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog Councilmembers absent: Tim Brausen and Rachel Harris Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Sustainability Manager (Ms. Ziring), Director of Building and Energy (Mr. Hoffman) Guests: Becky Alexander, LHB 1. Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis Ms. Ziring presented the staff report. Ms. Alexander described the sections of the report including: • Changes in GHG emissions from 2015 • Drivers of change • City comparison • Progress toward carbon neutrality Councilmember Rog asked how traffic data is collected. Ms. Alexander stated it is collected through the black strips placed on roadways. Councilmember Kraft asked if residential waste data is known. Ms. Alexander pointed this out on the chart. Mayor Spano asked if the items that go into recycling are going to the recycler and not back into waste as contaminated. Ms. Ziring stated staff has confidence in what they have been tracking, so these numbers should be accurate. Councilmember Kraft asked if county waste was increasing and residential was decreasing through 2019. Ms. Alexander stated yes. Councilmember Rog asked if there is data on yard waste and where this fits into emissions. Ms. Alexander answered yes there is data on page 13 of the report to show residential yard waste. Councilmember Dumalag asked if those with a landscaping service are included in this yard waste data. Ms. Alexander stated no, this data is limited to homeowners’ yard waste. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Study session minutes of November 22, 2021 Councilmember Mohamed noted lifestyle changes with less driving and working from home and asked if that is why some of the data is lower than in past years. Mr. Alexander agreed this was a factor in the transportation data. She stated on the energy side it did not decrease as much, but if cities can focus on energy reduction, especially with commercial buildings, there could be changes. Councilmember Kraft stated he appreciated this data, and it is useful. He noted, given that 2020 was an anomaly, it feels like 5 years is a long time to wait for the next set of data. Ms. Ziring stated staff does look at data and track progress, adding there could be similar analysis or overview of program areas that feed into the climate action plan. She noted they are planning to do a dashboard to give the public a sense of where the city is at any given time. Councilmember Kraft liked the dashboard idea and asked to add a link back to the data as well. He is concerned about waiting too long to gather additional data. Mr. Hoffman stated gathering data several years down the road will show trends. Ms. Ziring added LHB will update the Regional Indicators annually as well. Councilmember Kraft asked what the big messages are to be taken from all of this. Ms. Ziring stated decarbonization and working on natural gas consumption are the priority. She stated they will come back to council to discuss their programs for 2022. Councilmember Kraft stated he refers to natural gas as fossil gas, as it is more accurate. He added on the electricity side, most of the multi-family will be in residential. He explained that commercial energy will be even more important to address. Ms. Ziring agreed. Councilmember Rog thanked staff for their work on this report. She asked when this will be online for residents to review. Ms. Ziring stated she will be working on posting it. Councilmember Rog stated when this data is reviewed from the resident’s perspective, it might be helpful to add data about cost savings for both residents and commercial businesses. She stated this will further engage people. She suggested renaming yard waste to mulch, compost, or habitat, and pointed to research on yard waste and how there is no need for folks to remove the leaves from their yards each year as they can be helpful for other forms of habitat. Councilmember Rog stated leaf blowers also give off significant emissions, adding that yard tools should be investigated further. She mentioned vehicle miles traveled and reducing those, asking if the city looks at bike mileage data. Ms. Ziring stated she will follow up with engineering staff. Councilmember Rog stated this needs to be addressed and with many more multifamily buildings coming on-line soon, this will be important to watch. Councilmember Dumalag stated she also had a call about leaf blowers and asked if something can be done on this. She noted 5 years might be too late to make changes as 2030 is the mid- term timeframe. She suggested segregating multi-family buildings in the electricity data, and then not segregated in the waste data. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: Study session minutes of November 22, 2021 Mayor Spano referenced Councilmember Brausen’s thoughts that emissions concern might relate to size of homes and if that is a potential solution. He asked if fees could be looked at for larger homes, incentivizing those homes that are energy efficient, and thinking about ways to encourage less consumption. He is looking forward to staff recommendations adding we need to do more. Mayor Spano asked if an electric leaf blower is a concern, adding he guessed leaf blowers are much lower contributors on the list and the city should focus on the bigger emissions problems first. He stated there is a lot of data here and it can be confusing. He suggested staff look at how to present the data and tell a compelling story. He stated staff needs to think about those who do not look at data much, or understand data, so he encouraged staff to be creative here when setting it up for residents to review. Mayor Spano asked about the travel data and when there will be usable data that is collected in 2022. Ms. Ziring stated she assumes 2023 but will check with engineering staff and report back. Mayor Spano asked about residential electric and gas efficiency and if there are ways the city can work on this to move the data. He encouraged staff to think about this. Ms. Ziring stated promoting solar will help to move numbers and for residential, all of the Home Energy Squad visits, including changing lighting and making recommendations that then turn into projects, are very helpful. Mayor Spano asked what most significantly stands in our way to making these changes right now. Ms. Ziring stated it is a combination of regulatory codes and behaviors, some of which are due to COVID, but that we are asking the community to take action. Councilmember Kraft asked what is standing in the city’s way in the short term and long term. He stated the city can influence and band together with other cities. He added decarbonization and vehicles are the two areas of concern, noting the decarbonization area involves commercial and residential buildings. He stated the most significant impact in the short term should be commercial buildings, noting ARPA dollars can be used for transformational change. Councilmember Kraft stated there are more multifamily buildings coming, and because most have TIF requests the city can influence green building requirements that can have an impact for the next 20-30 years. 2. Systems project update Ms. Kennedy reported on the project. Councilmember Rog suggested the item related to BIPOC home ownership is not completed. Ms. Keller stated this program is in place now, and staff would bring back more information on the pilot program in the future. Ms. Kennedy added staff now understands and has policy direction from the council that this is an area they would like to focus on and provide more opportunities. There is no additional policy direction needed at this time. She noted staff will continue to provide the council with updates if conditions change, new programs are developed, or if additional direction from council is needed. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: Study session minutes of November 22, 2021 Councilmember Rog asked how new items will be requested going forward. Ms. Kennedy stated the council will continue to submit a form to request new items and then staff will do an initial review and provide some basic information that will hopefully help council have a better understanding up front of the amount of work and resources that would be required, a projected timeline, and how the item may be connected to other projects or initiatives already planned or in progress. She noted staff will also include a disposition recommendation, but council will ultimately decide as a group which items move forward. She added staff will also appreciate council answering questions and identifying goals or desired outcomes up front. She stated once the new online request system is in place staff will have council try it to see how it works and can adjust as needed along the way. Ms. Kennedy referenced a sample 2022 systems calendar for 2022 – 2023 with projects on the docket. She noted staff is still working through the calendar and this is only an example for now, and the schedule of systems will be based on many factors including: • Readiness • Capacity • Items/work already in progress or scheduled • Depth of preparation and analysis required for discussions • Other variables/dependencies • Block scheduling • Flexibility • Workflow transitions • Sense of urgency Councilmember Kraft asked if there will be a regular rotation for the systems discussion, possibly annually. Ms. Keller stated staff would commit to discussion of projects annually and will reevaluate regularly to help understand if progress is being made. Councilmember Kraft asked if staff’s vision for this is more effective and more responsive or more effective and less responsive. Ms. Keller stated it is more effective and more responsive as there is still an urgency factor involved and other items are in the queue, so council and staff can move forward on priorities in a more strategic way. Councilmember Rog asked how the calendar syncs with the study session request system. Ms. Kennedy stated once the council agrees to add an item and provides direction on the prioritization or sense of urgency, then staff will put the item on the schedule. Councilmember Rog asked if the two-month period is guided by council or staff or a combination. Ms. Kennedy stated a combination of both. Councilmember Rog stated her concerns around the commercial idea for public parks; it is a year from now. Ms. Kennedy explained the item was already discussed with council once and staff received the direction they needed from council to continue to move forward. She reiterated that items that are already in progress, have a specific time component, or that require additional council direction will not be halted. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: Study session minutes of November 22, 2021 Ms. Keller stated staff wants to help council adapt to this new process and recognizes that this will need to change and evolve along the way. Ms. Kennedy added staff also wants to help council get to the outcomes they want to achieve and have a clear understanding of what that will require. She noted sometimes staff sees recurring themes come up throughout the year that are handled one at a time to get them off the list, but the core issue is never really addressed because there hasn’t been the opportunity or capacity for a more in-depth analysis. Hopefully this new approach will present opportunities to address items more thoroughly, achieve council’s desired outcomes, amplify the great work being done in the city, and show how the work is guided by the city’s strategic priorities. Councilmember Mohamed stated this new process makes sense to her and will eliminate bouncing around from topic to topic. Mayor Spano noted Councilmember Brausen had weighed in stating he supports the process presented by staff. Mayor Spano stated council has a pre-disposition to wanting to talk about things. He noted things that are more pressing and important are then discussed most often. He asked how council will get past the idea that everything is priority and must be discussed now. Ms. Kennedy stated this is something that staff is working through and is hopeful that the initial review process will help council better understand the variables involved and decide, based on the current timeline and capacity, where new items fit into the schedule. If there is a real sense of urgency from council on a particular item, then things will need to shift to accommodate those items in the schedule. She noted this is going to require a different mindset at times to think about how items are connected, and how they impact other work already being done within the various systems. Councilmember Dumalag stated she likes this approach as it keeps council and staff honest. She is excited about the pilot and likes that adjustments are at council’s discretion. Councilmember Kraft stated he likes this process as well because it will make council more reflective and responsive and when done well, this will move items faster through the system. Councilmember Mohamed stated for this to work, council will have to prioritize more within this new way of thinking, and exercise discipline within the system. Councilmember Rog stated she appreciates council’s ideas being brought forward, while being discerning is also important. She feels concern or a loss that there might be less collegial support of ideas with the new process. Ms. Kennedy stated that is not the intention, but that will be something the council will need to work through as a group. The council still ultimately decides which items will be added to the schedule and councilmembers will still present their ideas to their colleagues, just as they have done in the past. Councilmember Rog stated sometimes there are ideas brought up that fail a first time and then pass the second time, such as the CSAH 25 truck parking issue. Ms. Kennedy stated that will be City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: Study session minutes of November 22, 2021 up to council to continue to work through and the option is still available to councilmembers to bring items up multiple times if they choose to do so. Ms. Kennedy reviewed the systems pilot example for environmental stewardship. Councilmember Rog stated one category missing is mitigation. Ms. Kennedy stated the items included are based on council-requested items and existing items that were already being worked on. Councilmember Rog asked if the sub-categories can be added in under the priorities. Ms. Keller answered yes, they can be included, noting staff already uses that information as a guide for their work. Councilmember Dumalag stated she sees this process as keeping council accountable for the year prior. Councilmember Rog added she likes having information to add to her newsletter for residents in her ward, so the more the city can generate good will on stories, the better. Mayor Spano stated he is looking forward to this, noting council will always visit the high priorities of the community and then refine. He added this is more of a shift now and he is excited to try this new process. 3. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization Councilmember Rog referenced the MnDOT written report and asked why the city needs to wait until January 2022 to submit this letter. She stated the letter can be submitted at any time, so she would like to do it now but added that MnDot requires the city to provide the use of this land. Mayor Spano stated there is no offer or letter at this point and there is also no timeline. Councilmember Rog stated there is clearly a strong public sentiment to preserve this land as open space. She noted she heard folks loud and clear, and each letter was forwarded to staff as part of the public record to be included in the future report. She added one possibility is that the area be maintained by volunteers. Councilmember Kraft referenced the Wooddale Station written report. He stated this is a higher TIF request and he would expect the list to show where there is non-compliance within the policy. He wanted to point this out and make sure it is accurately represented as a yes. He added a percentage is noted and, in another place, there is a ratio mentioned and they do not match up. Ms. Keller stated it follows the policy as to when the application was received. She added, however, that going forward staff could list out the date for each iteration. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: Study session minutes of November 22, 2021 Councilmember Dumalag noted on the Wooddale Q & A, the purchase agreement has not yet been fully executed. Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Written reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 4 October 2021 monthly financial report 5. MnDOT excel land update – Toledo Ave and 28th St 6. Application for Tax Increment financing Assistance – Wooddale Station 7. Aldersgate resolution of support for Minnesota Housing Finance 8. West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Minutes: 3b Unofficial minutes City council study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 13, 2021 The meeting convened at 8:35 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog Councilmembers absent none Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), Interim Deputy City Manager/Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), CFO (Ms. Schmitt), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Sustainability Manager (Ms. Ziring), Building and Energy Director (Mr. Hoffman), Sustainability Specialist (Ms. Pottorff) Guests: Melisa Bayer, ESC Chair 1. Overview of 2022 sustainability division programs Ms. Ziring presented the report. She explained the Climate Action Plan, progress since 2019, and noted at this time the city is challenged in meeting its goals due to the pandemic. She described ways the ESC and staff will be working to reach climate goals. Councilmember Rog stated the preservation of existing trees is as important, if not more valuable, than planting new ones. Ms. Ziring agreed and stated that tree preservation falls across divisions and she would like to get the staff’s opinion. Councilmember Rog referenced wind power and asked if there is a future for wind power generation in St. Louis Park. Ms. Ziring stated she does not see a future in wind power in St. Louis Park because of limited wind resources, adding there is more opportunity for solar. Councilmember Harris asked for more detail on the dashboard. Ms. Ziring stated she is working with staff on what would be the most valuable metrics for the public to see on the dashboard. Councilmember Harris asked if electric vehicle metrics would be included. Ms. Ziring stated yes, they can be. Councilmember Harris asked if bus lines can also be included to focus on multiple means of transportation. Ms. Ziring stated yes, there can be much included on modes of transportation. Councilmember Rog asked how properties will be identified that participate in the de-paving pilot. Ms. Ziring stated she will take an aerial view of the city and look at areas of heat islands to see if all the parking is being used all the time, then talk with property owners. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Study session minutes of December 13, 2021 Councilmember Harris asked if areas where flash flooding occurs in the city are being identified and if plantings can be done in these areas, to assist residents with this issue. She noted a location in Ward 3 where this happens, which is an environmental issue, adding she does not want it to be forgotten. Ms. Ziring stated stormwater engineering staff works on this daily and she meets with them to look at rainwater incentive programs and ways to collaborate. Councilmember Brausen appreciated the programs and approach. He noted drive-thrus are areas of idling and asked if the zoning ordinance can address these uses. Councilmember Kraft stated this is an impressive list of programs as well as the analysis. He looks forward to the dashboard and encouraged measurements to be included. He asked what the biggest risk and biggest constraint are. Ms. Ziring stated participation will be the biggest risk and reminding the public about the benefits of participating in programs will be key and will need to be repeated. She noted the biggest constraint is time, and that the constant learning process, design, and communicating and administering the programs all takes time. Councilmember Kraft asked what can be done to assist with constraints of time and participation and would this involve hiring a consultant or other measures. He asked Ms. Ziring to think about this and get back to council. Councilmember Dumalag asked about fees, if lowering the solar fees might help, and would any of the programs mentioned help alleviate this. Mr. Hoffman stated the permit costs are very small and the incentive with solar sundown assists. He stated permit costs are paid by the contractor and programs turn the profit back to the property owner. Mayor Spano stated years ago when the council was starting on climate action, he noted solar was discussed, the programs now are building, and this feels like the manifestation of years of that work. He thanked Ms. Ziring for her work. He also noted the dashboard and asked how will staff develop the data, show it, how will it be usable, and will consultants be hired to do this work. Ms. Ziring stated at this time no consultants will be hired and staff is looking at dashboards that currently exist and will model after these. Mayor Spano stated he would encourage the use of outside consultants who can build dashboards so it will be useful and impactful. Mr. Hoffman stated this is certainly something staff will investigate. Councilmember Rog stated council will continue to help promote programs in the community and asked if there is one-page of information that would be useful for council to pass on to folks. Ms. Ziring stated she would send information to the council. 2. Climate emergency resolution Ms. Pottorff and Marisa Bayer, Chair of the ESC, presented to the council. Mayor Spano asked about edits and how it reflects St. Louis Park better. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Study session minutes of December 13, 2021 Ms. Pottorff explained the areas that were edited including the bullet points and addition of city projects making it specific to St. Louis Park. Mayor Spano asked if the climate investment fund is in alignment with the resolution. Commissioner Bayer stated yes and there are ways in the future to make sure this is ongoing and dedicated funding. Mayor Spano stated this is lengthy and asked how much consideration was there to eliminating the data points. He also asked is there any way some of this can be trimmed. Commissioner Bayer stated they did not discuss removing anything and wanted to include the data to back the claims within the resolution. Mayor Spano stated he read an article about declaring emergencies and that they might become counterproductive. He stated he supports this but asked if the ESC had discussed this at all and if any edits were made to the language. Commissioner Bayer stated yes, they had discussed this on the commission and with Councilmember Kraft in attendance. Commissioner Bayer stated the conversation was very productive and they decided a coordinated effort across cities would be helpful to address this. Ms. Ziring added the ESC also included a clause in the resolution that talked about ongoing action and ongoing engagement with state and federal leaders. Mayor Spano stated he wanted to be thoughtful about this in light of many people who might not agree, and how to reach those folks. Commissioner Bayer stated they also discussed how to address this with the community and keep those conversations going. Councilmember Mohamed stated typically she does not like resolutions without action behind it. She does support this and is proud to have this show the city’s values. Councilmember Harris asked who is the intended audience. Mr. Hoffman stated if the media is leveraged along with residents, it will be a call to action. He added the second audience is the legislature and getting the message to as many representatives and senators as possible. Councilmember Harris stated she likes the call to action and outreach to the community. She added most people do not pay attention to legislation and asked if a more condensed version could be presented to the media and Park Perspective, to reach residents and help them see where they can fit into the issue and assist with engagement. Ms. Ziring stated she will speak with communications staff on this. Councilmember Rog stated she likes the current form it is written in and would hate to see it condensed. Councilmember Harris stated she would like to see both the full document and a condensed version. Mayor Spano made suggestions on how to condense and tighten up the document in several areas. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: Study session minutes of December 13, 2021 Councilmember Kraft supports the document, the work of the ESC, and appreciated their comments and challenges to him when he attended the meeting to discuss this. He stated emphasizing bold action locally is important as well as mobilizing the community. He stated some of the changes mentioned are good but starting with a common message is best. He supports this and the time to do this is now. Councilmember Dumalag stated she supports the resolution but believes the document should include source citations, as well as a possible executive summary. Councilmember Rog stated she supports the document as is and does not believe source citations are needed, adding what needs to be there is there. Ms. Ziring stated the resolution started with a template and 90% of the document was not written by staff. Councilmember Dumalag stated someone with a scientific background will ask for citations. Councilmember Brausen thanked staff for all their work on this and he will support this. Councilmember Kraft added the caucus is working with Great Plains Institute and their media person, who is working on a strategy. Councilmember Rog expressed her support of the document and staff’s work on this. It was the consensus of the council to have staff use the recommendations noted, make revisions, and bring back the document to council in January for finalization. Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) Councilmember Mohamed appreciated the report on the daycare ordinance. Councilmember Brausen is supportive of the Bridgewalk HIA and thanked staff for the report. Councilmember Rog stated she is not clear if the city recovers the entire HIA amount, as debt service is tied to this. Ms. Keller stated staff can put together a report on how HIA’s work and provide it to council. Councilmember Kraft stated he is more interested in how HIA’s perform and a status report on this. Councilmember Dumalag stated her concerns if the seller sells, do they have to pay. Councilmember Rog asked about the daycare report and if a daycare is near a park and if they do not have appropriate equipment, is this a limitation and how would that be addressed. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: Study session minutes of December 13, 2021 Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 3. Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 4. Solar energy systems ordinance amendment 5. Daycare ordinance amendment ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 36 pertaining to solar energy systems and approve the summary ordinance for publication. Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed ordinance establishing regulations in the zoning code for solar energy systems? Summary: The purpose of the ordinance is to clarify that solar energy systems are permitted throughout the city. It also clarifies and establishes conditions specific to solar energy systems. The code generally favors building mounted systems and allows those very broadly. It also allows and establishes conditions for ground mounted systems as either accessory or principal uses. The ordinance also relocates accessory structure regulations from the yard encroachment section to the accessory structure regulations section of the zoning code. Solar energy systems are important to the city’s renewable energy strategies and goal to reduce carbon emissions. One way the city has guided and measured our progress regarding policies, programs, procedures and activities to support renewable solar energy is through SolSmart. SolSmart is a national designation program recognizing cities, counties, and regional organizations that foster the development of mature local solar markets. To achieve the SolSmart gold designation, the highest level, the city must adopt an ordinance which explicitly states that solar energy systems are permitted as accessory uses in each major land use district and demonstrate that there are no significant regulatory barriers to installing them. The broader changes to better and more explicitly allow solar energy systems led to a code review and clarifications for other types of accessory structures, including swimming pools. While it was not initially the purpose of the code review, the ordinance includes language clarifying how other accessory structures are regulated. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on December 8, 2021. No comments were received. The planning commission recommended approval provided the ordinance allow freestanding solar energy systems in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts and allow solar energy systems over parking lots. The ordinance was revised to do so before city council consideration. City council unanimously approved the first reading of the ordinance on January 3, 2022. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Ordinance; Summary ordinance Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems Ordinance No. ____-22 Ordinance regarding Solar energy systems The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, the comprehensive plan identifies solar energy as a viable option for reducing greenhouse gasses and recommends amendments to the city code to allow solar energy systems. Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on December 8, 2021 on the ordinance, and Whereas, the city council considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (case no. 21-40-ZA), and Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City Code: Section 1. Definitions. Chapter 36, Section 4 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text (place new text in alphabetical order): Ornamental structures are built or placed in the landscape for decorative or horticultural purposes and are accessory to and detached from the principal structure. They do not have solid walls or a solid roof. These include but are not limited to trellises, arbors, arches, pergolas, gateways, flagpoles, fountains, birdbaths, birdhouses, and yard sculptures. These do not include trees, shrubs or other vegetation *** Solar energy system - building-integrated. A solar energy system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building-integrated systems include but are not limited to active photovoltaic or hot water systems that are contained within roofing materials, windows, walls, skylights, and awnings, or passive systems that are designed to capture direct solar heat. Solar energy system - building-mounted. A solar energy system affixed to a principal or accessory building. Solar energy system - freestanding. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is placed on, or anchored in the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure. Garages, carports or similar structures that incorporate building-integrated or building-mounted solar energy systems shall not be classified as City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems freestanding solar energy systems and shall instead be subject to regulations governing accessory structures. Solar collector surface. Any part of a solar energy system that absorbs solar energy for use in the system's transformation process. The collector surface does not include frames, supports, and mounting hardware. Solar energy. Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat or light by a solar collector. Solar energy system. A device or structural design feature intended to provide for collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for heating or cooling, electricity generating, or water heating. Section 2. Planned Unit Development, administrative amendments. Chapter 36, Section 32(d)(9) is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: 5.The zoning administrator may approve amendments to the approved landscaping plan to accommodate solar energy systems provided the solar energy system meets the requirements of this chapter, the amendment does not result in a reduction to the number of approved trees and shrubs, landscaping elements integral to the overall design of the PUD are not impacted, landscaping utilized for the intent of screening is not impacted, and properties subject to tree replacement requirements meet the replacement requirements. Alternatively, the zoning administrator may refer amendments to the city council for approval as either a minor or major amendment to the PUD. Section 3. Continued planned unit development, administrative amendments. Chapter 36, Section 32(f)(3)b. is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: 3.The zoning administrator may approve amendments to the approved landscaping plan to accommodate solar energy systems provided the solar energy system meets the requirements of this chapter, the amendment does not result in a reduction to the number of approved trees and shrubs, landscaping elements integral to the overall design of the PUD are not impacted, landscaping utilized for the intent of screening is not impacted, and properties subject to tree replacement requirements meet the replacement requirements. Alternatively, the zoning administrator may refer amendments to the city council for approval as either a minor or major amendment to the PUD. Section 4. Conditional use permits, administrative amendments. Chapter 36, Section 33(c) is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (9)Administrative amendment. The zoning administrator may approve amendments to the approved landscaping plan to accommodate solar energy systems provided the solar energy system meets the requirements of this chapter, the amendment does not result in a reduction to the number of approved trees and shrubs, landscaping elements integral to the overall design of the CUP are not impacted, landscaping utilized for the intent of screening is not impacted, and properties subject to tree replacement requirements meet the City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 4 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems replacement requirements. Alternatively, the zoning administrator may refer amendments to the city council for approval as either a minor or major amendment to the CUP. Section 5. Yard encroachments. Chapter 36, Section 73(a) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following struck-out text (renumber accordingly): (3)Ornamental structures that are a minimum of three feet from any lot line. Maximum 15 foot height limit except as allowed for flagpoles per Section 36-78. (4)Ornamental structures within the three foot yard area up to six feet tall in the rear and side yards and up to three and one-half feet tall in the front yard. (5)Arbors, pergolas, arches, gateways or similar open structures over purposeful pedestrian walkways that extend between properties, between front and back yard areas, or from the public right-of-way to a house or garage. Maximum one such structure per lot line with a maximum ten foot height and ten foot width within the required three foot yard area. Section 6. Yard encroachments. Chapter 36, Section 73 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following struck-out text: (d) Rear yard. The following shall not be encroachments on rear yard requirements provided no permanent structure is placed in an easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement: (1)Detached outdoor picnic shelters, gazebos and recreational equipment that are a minimum of three feet from the rear and side lot lines. (2)Swimming pools, whirlpools, saunas and tennis courts provided they are a minimum of five feet from the rear lot line, are enclosed by a privacy fence that screens the view from neighboring properties, and any associated accessory structures such as the required fence, decks, patios, and heating equipment meet all Code requirements including subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section, section 36-74 and section 36-162. Section 7. Height limitations. Chapter 36, Section 78 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (d)building integrated solar energy system extending not more than three feet above the limiting height of the building. Section 8. Park and open space district regulations. Chapter 36, Section 151(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (9)Solar energy systems. Section 9. Residential district regulations - restrictions and performance standards. Chapter 36, Section 162(b) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended delete the following struck-out text and to add the following underlined text: City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 5 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems (b)Definitions. For the purpose of subsections (d), and (e), and (f) of this section, and of section 74 (fences) of this chapter, the listed terms are defined and illustrated as follows: Section 10. Residential district regulations - restrictions and performance standards. Chapter 36, Section 162(d)(1) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: a.Accessory structures located in the rear and side yards shall be a minimum of three feet from the lot line if over six feet in height. Accessory structures that are located in the front yard and are over four feet in height shall be located at least 15 feet from the lot line abutting the street opposite the front face of the house, three feet from internal side lot lines, and in the case of a lot with more than one street frontage, nine feet from all other lot lines abutting a street. b.Arbors, pergolas, arches, gateways or similar open structures over purposeful pedestrian walkways that extend between properties, between front and back yard areas, or from the public right-of-way to a house or garage may be located up to the property line with the following conditions: 1.No more than one such structure per lot line 2.The structure shall not exceed 10 feet in height and width and three feet in depth. Section 11. Residential district regulations - restrictions and performance standards. Chapter 36, Section 163(d)(1) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: h.Swimming pools, whirlpools, saunas, sport courts, and swing set/climbing structures are permitted in the backyard and side yards only and shall meet the following requirements: 1.They are a minimum of five feet from the rear lot line. 2.They meet the same side yards as required for the principal building. 3.A six-foot privacy fence shall be required to screen the portion of the swimming pool, whirlpool, or sport court located within 25 feet of the rear lot line. Section 12. Residential district regulations - restrictions and performance standards. Chapter 36, Section 163(d)(7) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (7)Permit required. All accessory buildings (including accessory buildings 200 square feet or less in area) and detached decks shall obtain a zoning or building permit prior to installation and must be anchored in a manner approved by the city. Section 13. R-1 single-family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 163(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (17)Solar energy systems. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 6 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems Section 14. R-2 single-family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 164(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (17)Solar energy systems. Section 15. R-3 two-family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 165(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (17)Solar energy systems. Section 16. R-3 two-family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 165(f)(5) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following diagram after the existing text: Section 17. R-4 multiple-family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 166(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (16)Solar energy systems. Section 18. R-C high-density multiple-family residence district. Chapter 36, Section 167(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (17)Solar energy systems. Section 19. C-1 Neighborhood commercial district. Chapter 36, Section 193(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (7)Solar energy systems. Section 20. C-2 General commercial district. Chapter 36, Section 194(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (10)Solar energy systems. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 7 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems Section 21. O Office district. Chapter 36, Section 223(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (7)Solar energy systems. Section 22. BP Business park district. Chapter 36, Section 233(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (9)Solar energy systems. Section 23. Industrial park district regulations. Chapter 36, Section 243(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (14)freestanding solar energy system. The conditions are as follows: a.The area of the system shall not exceed 70% of the lot size. b.Soils shall be planted and maintained for the duration of operation in perennial, pollinator-friendly vegetation to prevent erosion, manage run off, and improve soil. Vegetation should include a mix of grasses and wildflowers native to the region. c.Foundations. A qualified engineer shall certify that the foundation and design of the solar panels racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate conditions. d.Power and communication lines. Power and communication lines running between banks of solar panels and to nearby electric substations or interconnections with buildings shall be buried underground. Exemptions may be granted in instances where shallow bedrock, water courses, or other elements of the natural landscape interfere with the ability to bury lines, or distance makes undergrounding infeasible, at the discretion of the zoning administrator. Section 24. I-G General industrial district. Chapter 36, Section 244(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (18)freestanding solar energy system. The conditions are as follows: a.The area of the system shall not exceed 70% of the lot size. b.Soils shall be planted and maintained for the duration of operation in perennial, pollinator-friendly vegetation to prevent erosion, manage run off, and improve soil. Vegetation should include a mix of grasses and wildflowers native to the region. c.Foundations. A qualified engineer shall certify that the foundation and design of the solar panels racking and support is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate conditions. d.Power and communication lines. Power and communication lines running between banks of solar panels and to nearby electric substations or City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 8 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems interconnections with buildings shall be buried underground. Exemptions may be granted in instances where shallow bedrock, water courses, or other elements of the natural landscape interfere with the ability to bury lines, or distance makes undergrounding infeasible, at the discretion of the zoning administrator. Section 25. I-G General industrial district. Chapter 36, Section 244(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (10) Solar energy systems. Section 26. MX-1 vertical mixed use district. Chapter 36, Section 264(f) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (14) Solar energy systems. Section 27. MX-2 Neighborhood mixed use district. Chapter 36, Section 265(f) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (10) Solar energy systems. Section 28. PUD-1. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 1(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (5) Solar energy systems. Section 29. PUD-2. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 2(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (6) Solar energy systems. Section 30. PUD-3. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 3(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (9) Solar energy systems. Section 31. PUD-4. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 4(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (8) Solar energy systems. Section 32. PUD-5. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 5(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (10) Solar energy systems. Section 33. PUD-6. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 6(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (6) Solar energy systems. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 9 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems Section 34. PUD-7. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 7(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (9)Solar energy systems. Section 35. PUD-8. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 8(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (8)Solar energy systems. Section 36. PUD-9. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 9(b)(2) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strike-out text and add the following underlined text: e.Solar Panels Solar energy systems. i.Rooftop of building mounted systems. 1.Roof or building mounted solar systems may exceed the maximum allowed height in the PUD zoning district by 3 feet. ii.Ground or accessory structure mounted solar systems. 1.The height of a ground or accessory structure mounted solar system, measured when oriented at maximum design tilt, shall not exceed 20 feet. Section 37. PUD-9. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 9(c)(2) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strike-out text and add the following underlined text: h.Solar panels Solar energy systems. i.Roof or building mounted solar systems may exceed the maximum allowed height in the PUD zoning district by 3 feet. Section 38. PUD-9. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 9(d)(3) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strike-out text and add the following underlined text: f.Solar panels Solar energy systems. i.Roof or building mounted solar systems may exceed the maximum allowed height in the PUD zoning district by 3 feet. Section 39. PUD-9. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 9(e)(2) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strike-out text and add the following underlined text: h.Solar panels Solar energy systems. i.Roof or building mounted solar systems may exceed the maximum allowed height in the PUD zoning district by 3 feet. Section 40. PUD-10. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 10(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (7)Solar energy systems. Section 41. PUD-11. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 11(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 10 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems (7)Solar energy systems. Section 42. PUD-12. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 12(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (8)Solar energy systems. Section 43. PUD-13. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 13(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the following strike-out text and add the following underlined text: (7)Solar panels. Roof or building mounted solar systems shall not exceed the maximum allowed height in PUD 13. Solar energy systems. Section 44. PUD-14. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 14(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (7)Solar energy systems. Section 45. PUD-15. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 15(b)A (Accessory uses) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: AB. Accessory uses: *** 7.Accessory utility structures including: i.Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii.Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. Section 46. PUD-16. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 16(b)2 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: h.Accessory utility structures including: i.Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 11 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems iii.Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. Section 47. PUD-17. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 17(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: 1.Accessory utility structures including: a.Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. b.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. c.Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. Section 48. PUD-18. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 18(b)2 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: g.Accessory utility structures including: i.Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii.Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. Section 49. PUD-19. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 19(b)2 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: g.Accessory utility structures including: i.Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii.Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 12 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems Section 50. PUD-20. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 20(b)3 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: h.Accessory utility structures including: i.Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii.Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. Section 51. PUD-21. Chapter 36, Section 268-PUD 21(b)3 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: g. Accessory utility structures including: i.Small wind energy conversion system as defined in 36-4 Definitions. ii.Solar energy systems. A solar energy system with a supporting framework that is either place on, or anchored in, the ground and that is independent of any building or other structure; or that is affixed to or an integral part of a principal or accessory building, including but not limited to photovoltaic or hot water solar energy systems which are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings. iii.Cisterns and rainwater collection systems. Section 52. Architectural design. Chapter 36, Section 366(c)(1)a of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text (renumber accordingly): 9.wall mounted solar energy system. Section 53. Architectural design. Chapter 36, Section 366(d)(3)a of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: 4.Solar collector surface and its frame shall be exempt from rooftop screening requirements. Section 54. Solar energy systems. Chapter 36, Section 369 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text (renumber accordingly): Sec. 36-369. Solar energy systems. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 13 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems (a)Purpose. Regulations governing solar energy systems are established to provide for appropriate locations for solar energy systems, to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, and to promote safe and effective use of solar energy to increase opportunities for generation of renewable energy. (b)Findings. (1)The city of St. Louis Park desires to encourage the use of local renewable energy. (2)It is in the city’s best interest to promote sustainable building design and management practices to serve the needs of current and future generations. (3)Solar energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy resource and its conversion to electricity or heat reduces dependence on nonrenewable energy resources and decreases the air and water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources. (4)Distributed solar photovoltaic systems will enhance the reliability and power quality of the power grid and make more efficient use of St. Louis Park’s electric distribution infrastructure. (5)Solar energy is an underused local energy resource and encouraging the use of solar energy will diversify the city’s energy supply. (c)Administrative review process. (1)Permit required. A permit shall be issued prior to the installation of a solar energy system. (2)Submittal requirements. An application for a solar energy system shall be filed on a form approved by the zoning administrator. In addition, the applicant shall submit the following: a.Written evidence that the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site has been informed of the applicant's intent to install a solar energy system, unless the applicant does not plan, and so states so in the application, to connect the system to the electricity grid. b.All solar installations must comply with applicable building, electric and plumbing codes. (3)In general. The zoning administrator may impose such conditions and require such guarantees deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the public interest and to ensure compliance with the standards and purposes of this zoning ordinance and policies of the comprehensive plan. (d)Standards by zoning district. Solar energy systems are allowed as provided in each zoning district and must comply with the provisions of this ordinance. (1)Building-mounted solar energy systems. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 14 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems a.Building mounted solar energy systems are permitted as an accessory use in all zoning districts. b.Building-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the dimensional standards applicable to the structure it is attached to. c.Notwithstanding the height limitations of the zoning district, building mounted solar energy systems shall not extend higher than three (3) feet above the ridge level of a roof on a structure with a gable, hip, or gambrel roof and shall not extend higher than ten (10) feet above the surface of the roof when installed on flat or shed roof. d.The solar collector surface and mounting devices for building-mounted solar energy systems shall be set back not less than one (1) foot from the exterior perimeter of a roof for each one (1) foot that the system extends above the parapet wall or roof surface, if no parapet wall exists, on which the system is mounted. Solar energy systems that extend less than three (3) feet above the roof surface shall be exempt from this provision. e.All solar energy systems using a reflector to enhance solar production shall minimize glare from the reflector that affects adjacent or nearby properties. Measures to minimize nuisance glare include selective placement of the system, screening on the north side of the solar array, modifying the orientation of the system, reducing use of the reflector system, or other remedies that limit glare. (2)Freestanding solar energy systems. a.Freestanding solar energy systems located in a residential district shall be considered an accessory structure and are governed by all the regulations as such except that they are not permitted in the front yard or side yard abutting the street. b.Freestanding solar energy systems located in all other zoning districts shall be considered accessory structures unless stated otherwise in a zoning district. Freestanding solar energy systems as accessory structures are governed by all the regulations as such with the following exceptions: 1.Freestanding solar energy systems shall be located at least three feet from the interior side and rear lot lines not adjacent to residential zoning districts. 2.Freestanding solar energy systems are not permitted in the front yard or side yard abutting the street required for accessory structures unless installed over parking lots or parking structures. 3.Freestanding solar energy systems cannot exceed 20 feet in height, measured from the ground to the highest point of the system. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 15 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems c.The area of a freestanding solar energy system shall be determined by drawing the smallest possible polygon around the perimeter of the solar collector surfaces as arranged on the ground. d.The solar collector surface shall not be included when determining pervious/impervious surface. Determination shall defer to the surface material underneath the solar collector surface. e. The area of the solar collector surface of freestanding solar energy systems shall be included in the maximum allowed size for accessory buildings unless otherwise noted in this chapter. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, solar energy systems installed over parking lots and parking structures shall not count toward the maximum solar collector surface area allowed. f.The supporting framework for freestanding solar energy systems shall be constructed of materials designed for permanent outdoor use. g.All abandoned or unused freestanding solar energy systems shall be removed within twelve (12) months of the cessation of operations. h.All solar energy systems using a reflector to enhance solar production shall minimize glare from the reflector that affects adjacent or nearby properties. Measures to minimize nuisance glare include selective placement of the system, screening on the north side of the solar array, modifying the orientation of the system, reducing use of the reflector system, or other remedies that limit glare. Section 55. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading January 3, 2022 Second reading January 18, 2022 Date of publication January 27, 2022 Date ordinance takes effect February 11, 2022 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Page 16 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – solar energy systems Summary for publication Ordinance No. ____-22 An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park zoning ordinance regarding solar energy systems This ordinance amends Chapter 36 of the City of St. Louis Park city code relating to solar energy systems in the zoning ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Jake Spano /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 27, 2022 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading and adopt Ordinance amending Chapter 36 pertaining to daycares and approve the summary ordinance for publication. Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed ordinance amending daycare regulations in the zoning code? Summary: The purpose of the ordinance is to reduce barriers in the zoning code that make it more difficult to locate a daycare in St. Louis Park than in many other cities by amending the zoning regulations pertaining to daycares in the following manner: 1.Follow state regulations applicable to outdoor activity areas. 2.Allow city parks to be utilized to meet a portion of the required outdoor activity area. 3.Eliminate the minimum distance requirement from principal arterial roads (major highways such as Highways 100, 394, 169 and 7). 4.Have consistent requirements across all zoning districts for daycare uses. The amendment to allow daycare centers to use city parks was presented to the parks and recreation advisory commission on Dec. 8, 2021 for comment. The PRAC supported the amendment and shared the planning commission’s expectation that a sidewalk or trail connect the daycare center to the park and that the park has age-appropriate equipment. The ordinance includes conditions for use of the city park which includes a sidewalk or trail connection from the daycare to the park and a condition that the park must have age-appropriate equipment. City park and recreation staff will be engaged to review and approve equipment and its location when equipment is proposed by the daycare center operator to be located in a city park. The planning commission reviewed the proposed ordinance in study session on Nov. 3, 2021 and conducted a public hearing on Dec. 8, 2021. No comments were received at the public hearing, and the planning commission recommended approval. City council unanimously approved the first reading of the ordinance on Jan. 3, 2022. Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Ordinance; Summary ordinance Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares Ordinance No. ____-22 Ordinance regarding daycares The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on December 8, 2021 regarding the ordinance, and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (case no. 21-41-ZA), and Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City Code: Section 1. R-1 single-family residence district. Chapter 36-163(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (4)Family day care facilities serving 14 or fewer persons with the following condition: a.No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a A licensed family day care facility may have one outside employee. Section 2. R-1 single-family residence district. Chapter 36-163(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (11)Group day care/nursery school in a religious institution, community center, or academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions: a.At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided. b.The on-site outdoor activity outside play areas shall be are enclosed with a fence. c.Dropoff and loading points are established which do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements. c.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Section 3. R-2 single-family residence district. Chapter 36-164(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (4)Family day care facilities serving 14 or fewer persons with the following condition: a.No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a A licensed family day care facility may have one outside employee. Section 4. R-2 single-family residence district. Chapter 36-164(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares (11)Group day care/nursery school in a religious institution, community center, or academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions: a.At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided. b.The on-site outdoor activity outside play areas shall be are enclosed with a fence. c.Dropoff and loading points are established which do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements. c.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Section 5. R-3 two-family residence district. Chapter 36-165(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (4)Family day care facilities serving 14 or fewer persons with the following condition: a.No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that a A licensed family day care facility may have one outside employee. Section 6. R-3 single-family residence district. Chapter 36-165(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (11)Group day care/nursery school in a religious institution, community center, or academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions: a.At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided. b.The on-site outdoor activity outside play areas shall be are enclosed with a fence. c.Dropoff and loading points are established which do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements. c.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Section 7. R-4 multiple-family residence district. Chapter 36-166(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (2)Group day care/nursery school in a religious institution, community center, or academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions: a.At least 40 square feet of The on-site outdoor activity areas shall be enclosed with a fence. outside play space per pupil is provided. b.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c.The play area shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. Section 8. R-4 multiple-family residence district. Chapter 36-166(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (4)Family day care facilities serving 14 or fewer persons with the following conditions: City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares a.No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that aA licensed family day care facility may have one outside employee. Section 9. R-C high-density multiple-family residence district. Chapter 36-167(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (2)Group day care/nursery school in a religious institution, community center, or academic educational institution complying with all of the following conditions: a.At least 40 square feet of The on-site outdoor activity areas shall be enclosed with a fence. outside play space per pupil is provided. b.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c.The play area shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. Section 10. R-C high-density multiple-family residence district. Chapter 36-167(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (4)Group care/nursery school. The conditions are as follows: a.No person is employed at the residence who does not legally reside in the home except that aA licensed family day care facility may have one outside employee. Section 11. C-1 neighborhood commercial district. Chapter 36-193(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (2)Group care/nursery school. The conditions are as follows: a.A minimum of at least 40 square feet of The on-site outdoor activity areasoutside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space shall be enclosed by a fence. b.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. cb. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c.The play area shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. Section 12. C-2 general commercial district. Chapter 36-194(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (3)Group care/nursery school. The conditions are as follows: a.A minimum of at least 40 square feet of The on-site outdoor activity areasoutside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space shall be enclosed by a fence. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 5 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares b.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. cb. An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c.The play area shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. Section 13. O office district. Chapter 36-223(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (2)Group care/nursery school. The conditions are as follows: a.The use shall be permitted only as a part of a larger development which contains at least one other principal use. b.A minimum of at least 40 square feet of The on-site outdoor activity areasoutside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space shall be enclosed by a fence. b.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. c.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. d.Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway as defined in the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. Section 14. BP business park district. Chapter 36-233(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (2)Group care/nursery school. The conditions are as follows: a.The use must have a minimum of 40 square feet of The on-site outdoor activity areasoutdoor area per child dedicated to outdoor activity or be within ¼ mile of a city park shall be enclosed by a fence. b.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. cb. The use may not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of a single-story building. For multi-story buildings, the use is allowed on the ground floor only, and may not exceed or 50% of the ground floor in a multi-story building. c.Provision shall be made for drop-off and pick-up of children or students. d.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 6 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares Section 15. I-P Industrial park district. Chapter 36-243(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (1)Group day care/nursery schools. The conditions are as follows: a.The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area. b.The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees. c.A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space shall be enclosed by a fence. d.An off-street dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. e.Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines. f.No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as defined on the comprehensive plan. Section 16. I-P Industrial park district. Chapter 36-243(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (4)Group Daycare/Nursery Schools. a.A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence. b.An off-street dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c.Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines. d.No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as defined on the comprehensive plan. e.The daycare facility, including the outdoor play area, shall be no closer than 350 feet to any property containing a sexually oriented business. f.The neighboring industrial uses shall not have an adverse impact on the operations and health, safety and welfare of the proposed group daycare/nursery school. The characteristics of such impacts shall be analyzed by the planning, fire and health officials, and shall include, but not be limited to, dust, truck traffic, odors and hazardous materials. Section 17. I-P Industrial park district. Chapter 36-243(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (10)Group day care/nursery schools. The conditions are as follows: a.The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area. b.The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees. c.The on-site outdoor activity areas shall be enclosed by a fence. d.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 7 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares Section 18. I-G general Industrial district. Chapter 36-244(c) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (1)Group day care/nursery schools. The conditions are as follows: a.The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area of a building. b.The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees. c.A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space shall be provided per pupil and such space shall be enclosed with a fence. d.An off-street passenger dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. e.Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined in the comprehensive plan as a principal arterial. Section 19. I-G general Industrial district. Chapter 36-244(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (3)Group Daycare/Nursery Schools. a.A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence. b.An off-street dropoff and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. c.Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines. d.No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as defined on the comprehensive plan. e.The daycare facility, including the outdoor play area, shall be no closer than 350 feet to any property containing a sexually oriented business. f.The neighboring industrial uses shall not have an adverse impact on the operations and health, safety and welfare of the proposed group daycare/nursery school. The characteristics of such impacts shall be analyzed by the planning, fire and health officials, and shall include, but not be limited to: noise, dust, truck traffic, odors and hazardous materials. Section 20. I-G general Industrial district. Chapter 36-244(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (10)Group daycare/nursery schools. The conditions are as follows: a.The use shall occupy a maximum of ten percent of the gross floor area of a building. b.The use is intended primarily for the benefit of employees. c.The on-site outdoor activity areas shall be enclosed with a fence. d.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 8 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares Section 21. MX-1 vertical mixed use district. Chapter 36-264 Table 36-263(b) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text. Place in alphabetical order: COMMERCIAL USES Group daycare/nursery school PC PC Section 22. MX-1 vertical mixed use district. Chapter 36-264(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text: (8)Group daycare/nursery school a.The on-site outdoor activity areas shall be enclosed with a fence. b.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. c.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Section 23. MX-2 neighborhood mixed use district. Chapter 36-265(d) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (8) Group daycare/nursery school. a.The on-site outdoor activity areas shall be enclosed with a fence.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. b.Ground level outdoor play areas: i.Shall be at least 1,500 square feet in total area and provide at least 75 square feet of area per child in the area at any given time. a.An off-site park meeting these standards may meet this requirement, if the park is within 2,000 feet of the school ii.Shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any roadway defined on the Comprehensive Plan as a principal arterial. b.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. c.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Section 24. PUD-17. Chapter 36-268-PUD 17 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: (c)Accessory uses. 3.Family day care serving 14 or fewer persons. a.A licensed family day care facility may have one outside employee. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 9 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares Section 25. PUD-19. Chapter 36-268-PUD 19 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text: b) Uses 1.Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in PUD 19: a.Multiple-family dwellings. Uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including but not limited to, the residential leasing and property management office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly room or general amenity space. b.Group daycare/nursery schools complying with the following conditions: i.At least 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil is provided. ii.The on-site outdoor activityoutside play areas shall beare enclosed with a fence. ii.City parks may be utilized to meet up to 50 percent of the required outdoor activity areas with the following conditions: 1.The park must have age-appropriate play equipment. 2.There is a clearly defined and maintained sidewalk or improved trail connecting the facility to the park. iii.Dropoff and loading points are established which do not interfere with traffic and pedestrian movements.An off-street passenger loading area shall be provided in order to maintain vehicular and pedestrian safety. Section 26. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading January 3, 2022 Second reading January 18, 2022 Date of publication January 27, 2022 Date ordinance takes effect February 11, 2022 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Page 10 Title: Second reading of zoning text amendment – daycares Summary for publication Ordinance No. ____-22 An ordinance amending the St. Louis Park zoning ordinance regarding daycare requirements This ordinance amends Chapter 36 of the City of St. Louis Park city code relating to daycare requirements in the zoning ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Jake Spano /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: January 27, 2022 Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Traffic Study 753 – Authorize permit parking at 3049 Florida Avenue Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions in front of 3049 Florida Avenue. Policy consideration: This authorization of parking restrictions is allowed per the city’s special parking permit policy, Sec. 30-160. Summary: In December 2021, staff received a request from a resident at 3049 Florida Avenue for a medical needs parking permit. The resident requires curbside access to vehicles adjacent to their property due to mobility concerns. This request was made shortly after the property directly to the south at 3053 Florida Avenue received medical needs parking signage in December 2021. This resulted in additional on-street parking in front of 3049 Florida that has made it difficult for the requestor to access the property. With the two properties being adjacent to each other, there will now be a zone of permit parking from the north side of 3049 to the south side of 3053 Florida Avenue. The additional signage for 3049 Florida Avenue will be installed this spring after the ground thaws. The city’s code (Sec. 30-160) and past practice allow for permit parking in these types of situations. It has been the city’s practice to use permit parking, which can be removed when the individual needing access no longer resides there or no longer needs the access. Staff considers the request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking at 3049 Florida Avenue. This recommendation is based on the following: • A resident of the household has limited mobility and is eligible for a parking permit. • Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be mitigated. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of enacting these controls is $300 and will come out of the general operating budget. Parking signs can last on the street for roughly 10 years. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. Supporting documents: Resolution Location map Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study 753 – Authorize permit parking at 3049 Florida Avenue Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution authorizing installation of permit parking in front of 3049 Florida Avenue Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received a valid and complete application for permit parking at 3049 Florida Avenue; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park allows for special parking permits for persons with disabilities or medical needs under the city’s code Sec. 30-160; and, Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the engineering director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install permit parking at 3049 Florida Avenue Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study 753 – Authorize permit parking at 3049 Florida Avenue Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: Accept donation to fire department from Park Coin Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting donation to the fire department from Park Coin for fire prevention programs and equipment. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept this donation with restrictions on the use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. Park Coin is graciously donating to the fire department an amount of $250.00. The donation is given with restrictions. Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used for fire prevention programs and equipment. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Cary Smith, fire marshal Reviewed by: Steve Koering, fire chief Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Accept donation to fire department from Park Coin Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution approving acceptance of donation to fire department Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of any donation; and Whereas, the city council must ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donors; and Whereas, the donations from Park Coin is directed toward fire prevention programs and equipment. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of St. Louis Park that this donation is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4e Executive summary Title: 2022-2023 LELS #220 Public Safety Dispatchers Labor Agreement Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving labor agreement between the city and the dispatchers employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two years, from Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2023. Policy consideration: Does council approve the labor agreement between the city and the union? Summary: Staff is pleased to bring this two-year contract with our public safety dispatchers bargaining group to council for approval. Items listed follow the approved compensation plans, budget discussions and are effective Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2023. Our discussions in negotiation were productive and resulted in this agreement. Of our six bargaining groups, this is the third group (after police lieutenants and local 49 maintenance employees) settled for 2022 and beyond. We are in active negotiations with our remaining three groups (patrol, sergeants, fire). Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the 2022 budget and will be used to develop 2023 budgets. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, human resources officer Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: 2022-2023 LELS #220 Public Safety Dispatchers Labor Agreement Discussion Background: The city and the dispatch union group have negotiated and come to agreement on the following changes to the contract: • Duration of two years (Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2023). • Wage increases of 3% for 2022 and 2023. • Hourly market adjustments each year of $0.50/hour, consistent with our compensation program regarding 85th percentile. − Comment: The 2022 general wage increase is consistent with nonunion employees. Prior to negotiations, HR conducted a review of our approved market. In accordance with our compensation plan, market adjustments were added to ensure that our group remains at our target pay of the 85th percentile. • Adding double time for unscheduled work on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day, consistent with other bargaining groups. • Addition of an “equity statement” confirming the city and union’s agreement to work together to advance the strategic priorities of the city for racial equity. Next steps: Staff recommends approval. All items noted above are and will be included in the 2022 and beyond budgets. The proposed contract is on file with the city clerk. More detail is available upon request. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Title: 2022-2023 LELS #220 Public Safety Dispatchers Labor Agreement Resolution No. 22-___ Resolution approving labor agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local #220 Public Safety Dispatchers Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2023 Whereas, the city and the union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the terms and conditions of a labor agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act, and Whereas, the city council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its charter; Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the mayor and city manager are authorized to execute a collective bargaining agreement, city contract #______ between the City of St. Louis Park and LELS #220 (Public Safety Dispatchers), effective Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2023. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4f Executive summary Title: Cooperative agreement for the police mental health program Recommended action: Motion to approve the 2022-2024 cooperative agreement for the police mental health program. Policy consideration: Does council wish to approve the amendment to the existing cooperative agreement for the police mental health program? Summary: The current cooperative agreement with Hennepin County Human Services provides the police department with an embedded licensed social worker to assist with the department’s response to mental health calls in the city. This pilot program has proven to be an asset to the department’s response to mental health calls and we are expanding the role from a shared position with the Hopkins Police Department to a full-time position with both departments. The move to full-time positions created the need for council to approve a contract amendment on Jan. 3, 2022 that allowed for a shared position until Hennepin County could officially approve the full-time positions. Hennepin County has approved the full-time positions and the new two- year contract provides our police department with a full-time licensed social worker from Feb. 1, 2022 through Jan. 31, 2024. The cooperative agreement amendment has been reviewed and approved by the St. Louis Park City Attorney. Financial or budget considerations: The cost of the Hennepin County Licensed Social Worker has been approved in the 2022 budget for $54,000 annually. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Cooperative agreement for police mental health program Prepared by: Mike Harcey, police chief Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ST. LOUIS PARK This Joint Powers Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the County of Hennepin, Minnesota (“COUNTY”) on behalf of its Human Services and Public Health Department (“HSPHD”), 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and City of St. Louis Park, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“CITY”) on behalf of its police department (referred to herein as “POLICE DEPARTMENT”) pursuant to the authority conferred upon them by Minn. Stat. § 471.59. The parties to this Agreement may also be referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties”. WHEREAS, COUNTY is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota and its Human Services and Public Health Department is empowered to provide general and emergency public services that support and protect the physical, mental and behavioral health of individuals in Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, CITY is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota and its POLICE DEPARTMENT is empowered to provide law enforcement and general and emergency public services in a manner that supports and protects the physical safety and physical, mental and behavioral health of individuals in the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to jointly and cooperatively coordinate their expertise and delivery of services to further the interests of providing follow-up care by a Senior Social Worker (“SSW”) embedded with POLICE DEPARTMENT to prevent reoccurrences of emergency crises in a manner that most effectively and efficiently supports and protects the physical, mental and behavioral health of individuals in the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits realized by each Party, the Parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to enable COUNTY to provide social work services to POLICE DEPARTMENT to further the interests of providing follow-up social services in a manner that most effectively and efficiently supports and protects the physical, mental and behavioral health of individuals in the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County as detailed herein, and for POLICE DEPARTMENT to secure such services from COUNTY and to establish the terms on which such services shall be provided. 2. PROJECT/PROGRAM A. The Parties shall cooperate and collaborate to perform services associated with the Embedded SSW Program (the “Program”), as further described and outlined in Exhibit A: Description of Services. B. The Parties shall perform at all times in accordance with the provisions herein, including but not limited to the data provisions. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program 3. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall be from February 1, 2022, through January 31, 2024, unless terminated earlier in accordance with the cancellation/termination provisions of this Agreement. 4. CONSIDERATION A. CITY shall pay to COUNTY ($60,000) sixty thousand dollars annually (the “Annual Payment”) for each year of the term of this Agreement. B. The SSW will be hired, employed, and equipped by HSPHD and participate in supervision and training by HSPHD in accordance with local, state, federal, and professional licensure requirements. C. Commencing May 1, 2022, and then on successive three months intervals, HSPHD shall submit an invoice to CITY for one quarter of the Annual Payment. D. CITY will make payment to COUNTY within thirty-five (35) days from receipt of the invoice. If the invoice is incorrect, defective, or otherwise improper, CITY will notify HSPHD within ten (10) days of receiving the incorrect invoice. Upon receiving the corrected invoice from HSPHD, CITY will make payment within thirty-five (35) days. E. Further, the Parties expressly agree that neither this Agreement nor either Party’s performance hereunder obligates or commits either Party to enter a subsequent contract or engagement with any other. 4. LIABILITY AND NOTICE A. Each Party shall be liable for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent provided by law and, further, each Party shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other (including their present and former officials, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, and subcontractors), from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the indemnifying Party, anyone directly or indirectly employed by it, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions it may be liable, in the performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 shall apply to any tort claims brought against COUNTY and/or CITY as a result of this Agreement. B. To the fullest extent permitted by law, action by the Parties to this Agreement is intended to be and shall be construed as a “cooperative activity” and it is the intent of the Parties that they shall be a deemed a “single governmental unit” for the purposes of liability, as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subdivision 1a(a), provided further that for purposes of that statute, each Party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other Party to this Agreement except to the extent they have agreed in writing to be responsible for the acts or omissions of the other Party. The total liability for the Parties shall not be added together to exceed the limits on governmental liability for a single governmental unit. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program C. Duty to Notify: Each Party shall promptly notify the other Party of any actual or suspected claim, action, cause of action, administrative action, criminal arrest, criminal charge, or litigation brought against the party, its present and former officials, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, and subcontractors which arises out of this Agreement. INSURANCE Each Party warrants that it has a purchased insurance or operates under a self-insurance program in accordance with applicable law and sufficient to manage potential liability arising hereunder, including but not limited to workers compensation insurance. INDEPENDENT PARTIES D. It is understood that the relationship between COUNTY and CITY as to the subject matter of this Agreement constitutes only the understandings set forth in this Agreement. E. It is further agreed that, notwithstanding any other formal, written agreements or contracts which may exist between COUNTY and CITY, nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of partners between the Parties hereto or as constituting either Party as the agent, representative, or employee of the other for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Each Party is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. Each Party will secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any personnel of a Party or other persons engaged in the performance of any work or services required by that Party shall have no contractual relationship with the other Party and will not be considered employees of the other Party. No Party shall be responsible for any claims related to or on behalf of the other Party’s’ personnel, including without limitation, claims that arise out of employment or alleged employment under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 268) or the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 176), or claims of discrimination arising out of state, local, or federal law, against a Party, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind from the other Party, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 5. NONDISCRIMINATION In accordance with COUNTY’s policies against discrimination, CITY shall not exclude any person from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender expression, gender identity, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or public assistance status. No person who is protected by applicable law against discrimination shall be subjected to discrimination. 6. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY Except as herein specifically provided, no other person, customer, employee, or invitee of any Party or any other third party shall be deemed to be a third party beneficiary of any of the provisions herein. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 5 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program DATA COUNTY and CITY, their officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and subcontractors, shall abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, and all other applicable state and federal law, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy, confidentiality, disclosure of information, medical records or other health and enrollment information, and as any of the same may be amended, as well as the data and data sharing provisions set forth in Exhibit A. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. RECORDS – AVAILABILITY/ACCESS Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 16C.05, subd. 5, the Parties, the State Auditor, or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., of the Parties which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Parties and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. The Parties shall maintain these materials and allow access during the period of this Agreement and for six (6) years after its expiration, cancellation or termination. MERGER, MODIFICATION, AND SEVERABILITY A. The entire understanding between the Parties is contained herein and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the Parties relating to the subject matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. B. Any alterations, variations or modifications of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the Parties. Except as expressly provided, the substantive legal terms contained in this Agreement including but not limited to Indemnification; Liability and Notice; Merger, Modification and Severability; Default and Cancellation/Termination or Minnesota Law Governs may not be altered, varied, modified or waived by any change order, implementation plan, scope of work, development specification or other development process or document. C. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION A If either Party fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, fails to administer the work so as to endanger the performance of the Agreement or otherwise breaches or fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, it shall be in default. Unless the Party’s default is excused in writing by the non-defaulting Party, the non-defaulting Party may upon written notice immediately cancel or terminate this Agreement as to the defaulting Party or in its entirety. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 6 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program B. This Agreement may be canceled/terminated with or without cause by either Party upon thirty (30) days written notice. Either Party may immediately cancel or terminate this Agreement if the terminating party determines that the health and welfare of a member of the public is at risk. Upon cancellation/termination, property or surplus money, if any, acquired as a result of the operation of this Agreement shall be distributed to the Parties in proportion to contributions of the Parties. C. Either Party’s failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. D. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to either Party under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity. NOTICES Unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing, any notice or demand which must be given or made by a Party under this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator at the address given in the opening paragraph of this Agreement with copies to HSPHD as detailed below. Notice to CITY shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of this Agreement with a copy as detailed below. HSPHD: Leah Kaiser Senior Department Administrator Hennepin County 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 leah.kaiser@hennepin.us POLICE DEPARTMENT Michael Harcey Chief of Police St. Louis Police Department 3015 Raleigh Avenue South St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or termination of this Agreement do survive such term, cancellation or termination. Such provisions include but are not limited to: INDEPENDENT PARTIES; LIABILITY AND NOTICE; INSURANCE; DATA; RECORDS-AVAILABILITY/ACCESS; DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION; MARKETING AND PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE; and MINNESOTA LAW GOVERNS. MARKETING AND PROMOTIONAL LITERATURE CITY agrees that the terms, “Hennepin County” and “Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department”, the name of any elected official, or any derivatives thereof, shall City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 7 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program not be utilized in any promotional literature or advertisements of any type without the express prior written consent of COUNTY. This Paragraph 15 does not prohibit members of the POLICE DEPARTMENT from speaking freely to the public about the social worker program without prior COUNTY consent. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The laws of the state of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the Parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, state of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the Parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the state of Minnesota. (The remainder of this page intentionally left blank.) City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 8 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program The Parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions set forth in this Agreement. COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION Reviewed for COUNTY by COUNTY OF HENNEPIN the County Attorney’s Office: STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of Its County Board Date: ________________________ ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of County Board Date: And: County Administrator Date: CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: ___________________________________ Title: __________________________________ Date: __________________________________ By: __________________________________ Title: __________________________________ Date: __________________________________ City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 9 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program POLICE DEPARTMENT and HSPHD staff will work collaboratively to prevent reoccurrences of emergency crises. Roles and Responsibilities of Parties A. POLICE DEPARTMENT will provide office space for the Senior Social Worker (SSW). B. POLICE DEPARTMENT will run DSL lines at designated office space, as needed, if SSW is otherwise unable to access to COUNTY network. C. POLICE DEPARTMENT will work with the HSPHD Social Work Unit Supervisor (SWUS) to establish criteria for referrals. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT will work with the SWUS to develop a referral process. E. POLICE DEPARTMENT will track referrals and repeat calls. F. POLICE DEPARTMENT will track mental health calls that involve weapons, use of force and transportation holds being written. G. POLICE DEPARTMENT will accompany the SSW to home visits as needed. H. HSPHD will be responsible for providing the SSW with equipment that is necessary for completing their work. This includes but is not limited to laptop computer, cell phone, printer, and office supplies. I. The SSW will report directly to the HSPHD SWUS. J. HSPHD will be responsible for transportation/mileage expenses for the SSW. The SSW will be responsible following the HSPHD transportation/mileage reimbursement policies. K. The SSW will provide short-term assistance to individuals in order to connect the individuals with internal and/or community resources to help meet their needs. Services will be provided in an ethical and culturally sensitive manner. L. After being assigned a case, the SSW will complete a file clearance of the various systems to determine if the individual is open to social services, county of financial responsibility, and public assistance programs. M. The SSW will meet the individual, assess the individual’s needs, note formal and informal supports, and determine where gaps exist. N. The SSW will request a new or updated diagnostic assessments as needed. O. The initial assessment should include the risks to the safety and stability of the individual as well as the individual’s ability to address such concerns. The SSW City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 10 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program will also evaluate the need for emergency services and if needed will assist in making those connections. P. The SSW will work with the individual to develop an initial plan that addresses gaps that exist in the individual’s support system and will work with the individual to identify and connect with community resources. This plan will be signed by both the individual and the SSW. Q. The SSW will ensure that release of information forms are signed and that other paperwork is completed in a timely manner. R. Client information can only be shared with law enforcement when there is an ongoing emergency situation and the client information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the individual or other people. Information disclosed would be limited to that necessary to address the emergency situation. S. If community and/or county resources are needed, the SSW will collect information needed to determine eligibility for those services. The SSW will facilitate referrals to appropriate resources. T. The SSW will collaborate with other involved parties as indicated. U. If eligible for county operated or contracted case management services, the SSW will complete the necessary paperwork to transfer the individual to case management. V. The SSW will document all activities and data as requested for tracking purposes. W. Participation is voluntary, and the individual served has a right to refuse services. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 11 Title: Cooperative Agreement for the Police Mental Health Program Goals of the Police-Mental Health Unit include, but are not limited to: A. More timely engagement of SSW with individuals; B. Increased use of community resources to support individuals; C. Increased use of public assistance programs; D. Increased use of non-urgent health care systems; E. Improved engagement of current service providers; F. Ongoing collaboration and learning between HSPHD and POLICE DEPARTMENT; G. Improving the quality of life for those who have encounters with law enforcement; H. Reducing use of force, injury or death to officers and community members; I. Reducing rate of arrests/prosecution of persons in mental health crisis and increase the number of persons who remain in community settings with services and supports; J. Creating cost-savings through reduction of incarceration and hospitalization resulting from mental health crisis; K. Reducing repeat calls and visits for the same issue; L. Improving efficacy of law enforcement response to emergency and non-emergency mental health issues; and M. Increasing public satisfaction with the response to mental health emergencies and other metrics developed utilizing key stakeholder and community input. Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4g Executive summary Title: Final plat name change for “Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition” Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution changing the name of the final plat for Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition to Belt Line Industrial Park 5th Addition. Policy consideration: Not applicable. Summary: On Sept. 20, 2021 city council approved resolution 21-106 approving the preliminary and final plat of Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition for the property located at 3510 Beltline Boulevard. This resolution was recorded with Hennepin County by the city clerk’s office on Oct. 21, 2021. During the county’s preliminary review of the final plat document, it was determined that the plat name “Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition” has previously been used in the county. To record the new final plat, it must have a unique name. Staff recommends city council approve a new resolution to reference the new name of the final plat “Belt Line Industrial Park 5th Addition.” Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager Karen Barton, community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Final plat name change for “Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition” Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution acknowledging the final plat name change from “Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition” to “Belt Line Industrial Park 5th Addition” Whereas, the city council adopted Resolution 21-106 on Sep. 20, 2021 approving the final plat of Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition; and Whereas, Resolution 21-106 was recorded on Oct. 21, 2021 as Torrens Document No. T5889220 with the Hennepin County Recorder; and Whereas, the plat name of Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition has already been used in Hennepin County, Minnesota; and Whereas, the name of the final plat will change to “Belt Line Industrial Park 5th Addition” to satisfy Hennepin County requirements. Now therefore be it resolved that the city council hereby acknowledges the change in the name of the final plat from “Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition” to “Beltline Industrial Park 5th Addition.” Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Page 2 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 4g) Title: Final plat name change for “Belt Line Industrial Park 3rd Addition” Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Action agenda item: 8a Executive summary Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution declaring a Climate Emergency in St. Louis Park. Mayor is asked to read an excerpt of the resolution following the staff presentation. Policy consideration: Is the council supportive of a resolution declaring a Climate Emergency in St. Louis Park? Summary: St. Louis Park is experiencing the impacts of climate change, and now is the time to make a powerful statement reaffirming the city’s commitment to a sustainable future. To help achieve a healthy, just, and thriving future for all, staff proposes that the city council join with other Minnesota communities in declaring a Climate Emergency. As many as 20 Minnesota cities and counties are declaring a Climate Emergency this month as part of an effort led by the Minnesota Climate Caucus. This effort will serve as a call to action, sending a message to state and federal elected officials that local governments statewide are taking steps to address climate change and are demanding increased legislative and financial support—an appeal to consider climate in every decision made. The effort will also commit the city to programs that help every resident, employee, business owner, and visitor to St. Louis Park take action toward a collective future for all. The resolution declaring a Climate Emergency in St. Louis Park was discussed at the Dec. 13, 2021 city council study session, which was helpful to further refine the resolution and communicate the resolution’s meaning to the public. The Climate Emergency resolution commits the city to a slate of 2022 program, project, and policy initiatives administered by the city’s sustainability division. The Climate Emergency resolution will also launch the “2022 Year of Climate Action” in St. Louis Park that will spur increased engagement through community-wide events led by the Environment and Sustainability Commission. Financial or budget considerations: None Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion Excerpt of resolution Resolution Prepared by: Annie Pottorff, sustainability specialist Reviewed by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager Brian Hoffman, director of building and energy Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota Discussion Background: A climate emergency declaration is an action taken by a governing body to acknowledge humanity is in a climate crisis and current policies are not enough to mitigate the dire impacts of climate change. The St. Louis Park community is experiencing many of these impacts, which pose a threat to the city’s quality of life, infrastructure, and economic vitality. Though climate change will impact all of us, it will not be felt equally: the greatest burdens are already being shouldered by historically marginalized and underserved communities. Our youngest generation, and the future children and grandchildren of St. Louis Park, are also at great risk of experiencing an extremely hot, volatile, and inequitable future. But it is not too late for bold action. Over 2,000 jurisdictions in 34 countries worldwide have declared a climate emergency, including three in Minnesota: Crystal Bay Township, Minneapolis, and Duluth. These climate emergency declarations provide an official record of governing bodies committing support to take emergency action and often include a comprehensive package of follow-up steps. St. Louis Park now has a unique opportunity to declare a Climate Emergency resolution in coordination and collaboration with other Minnesota communities. In the fall of 2021, Councilmember Kraft coordinated with the Minnesota Cities Climate Caucus, a voluntary, statewide, non-partisan group of elected officials and leaders, to draft and coordinate a joint climate emergency declaration. As many as 20 additional Minnesota communities are in discussion with their own elected officials and leadership to declare a climate emergency this month. A declaration made by collective voices across Minnesota will remind state and federal policymakers that their constituents need courageous climate leadership and investments in climate mitigation and adaptation. At the Dec. 13, 2021 council study session on the climate emergency resolution, council noted their support for declaring a climate emergency and provided suggestions for revising the resolution and announcing it at a subsequent council meeting. Present considerations: Climate Emergency resolution Minnesota is already witnessing the impacts of climate change, including drought, higher annual temperatures, sustained heat waves, flooding, and forest fires. Cities around the world, including St. Louis Park, are leading action to implement the Paris Agreement goals by joining the Cities Race to Zero campaign. Over 800 cities have pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 50% or more by 2030. Communities across the state are witnessing this international call for action, as well as experiencing the need to immediately curb local emissions. The Minnesota Cities Climate Caucus is coordinating this joint climate emergency declaration to increase visibility for climate action and leverage state and federal assistance. Other cities proposing a climate emergency declaration as part of this effort include neighboring Bloomington, Eden Prairie, and Golden Valley, and greater Minnesota communities including Grand Rapids, Moorhead, and Rochester. Each community that is declaring a climate emergency has adapted the resolution to include City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota next steps applicable to their city, such as creating a Climate Action Plan or establishing an environmental commission. The attached Climate Emergency Resolution originally authored by the Cities Climate Caucus and modified and approved by the St. Louis Park Environment and Sustainability Commission declares that a climate emergency threatens our city, region, state, nation, humanity, and the natural world. It cites scientific research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showing that: human influence has warmed the atmosphere and land; human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years; with every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger; and that to achieve the goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be halved by 2030 and reach net zero global emissions by 2050 (IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). During discussion of a potential Climate Emergency resolution, members of the Environment and Sustainability Commission expressed concern that a resolution without a call to action for both the council and the community would be symbolic and unhelpful in spurring additional change. Because of this, St. Louis Park’s resolution includes a clear statement of commitments: implementation of the city’s 2022 sustainability programs and projects, launch of a “2022 Year of Climate Action,” a call for continued collaboration from the caucus, and a renewal of the city’s commitment to equitable and just climate action. 2022 sustainability programs and projects The sustainability division has multiple program, project and policy initiatives planned for 2022. Sustainability division-administered programs will continue to focus primarily on building energy efficiency and renewables (Climate Action Plan goals 1-5). Building energy use makes up 60 percent of the city’s emissions—with two-thirds coming from commercial and industrial buildings—and must be a continued focus of programs, as council recognized during the November 22 study session on the city’s 2015-2020 greenhouse gas emissions analysis. Within the building energy sector, improving existing buildings will continue to be the most important path for reaching energy goals, as new buildings will make up a small fraction of the city’s total building stock and are likely to be significantly more efficient than existing buildings. Additionally, while the electricity grid grows cleaner by the day, the emissions factor of natural gas/fossil gas does not fluctuate, which means that programs that reduce and/or eliminate natural gas consumption must be a priority. Climate Champions will continue to be the primary tool for promoting electricity and natural gas efficiency and conservation. An electric heating and cooling pilot is also slated for 2022. While electrification (also known as fuel switching) is listed in the CAP as one of the post-2030 “Advanced Strategies,” staff recognizes that replacing fossil gas-fueled HVAC equipment and appliances with electricity-powered alternatives will need to begin sooner if the city is to reach its building energy emissions targets. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota Additional program highlights include: • Climate Champions energy assessment, cost share, and recognition program for commercial, industrial, and multifamily property owners. • Building Operations Champions cost share program to offset the cost of Building Operator Certification (BOC) training for commercial, industrial, and multifamily building maintenance personnel in efficient operations. • Solar Sundown, a continuing cost share program to offset the costs of rooftop solar for all property owners. • A tree growing program to incentivize property owners to plant and maintain trees to capture and store carbon dioxide, balancing carbon that is emitted through buildings, waste, and travel. Additional programs and projects include: an idling reduction fleet policy and public education campaign, climate equity map and Environmental Stewardship dashboard, and an electric vehicle charging master plan (dependent on external partners). St. Louis Park is committed to environmental justice. Whenever possible, sustainability programs are designed to provide the greatest economic, health and/or environmental benefit to those who have been historically underserved or burdened. 2022 Year of Climate Action The Climate Emergency resolution will launch the “2022 Year of Climate Action” in St. Louis Park designed to spur increased engagement through community-wide events. This will include, but will not be limited to, Ride & Drive electric vehicle events, potential neighborhood level sustainability competitions, increased Environment & Sustainability Commission presence at community events, strengthened local partnerships, and additional tabling and presentation opportunities at various locations around the city. Systems Approach wrap-up Using the systems approach to grouping agendas and actions, the following items were brought to council under the Environmental Stewardship strategic priority: • Greenhouse gas emissions inventory and analysis (Nov. 22, 2021) • 2022 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions List (Dec. 6, 2021) • Letter to Public Utilities Commission re: Tariffed On-Bill financing (Dec. 6, 2021) • Overview of 2022 sustainability programs (Dec. 13, 2021) • Climate Emergency resolution (Dec. 13, 2021; Jan. 18, 2022) Today’s council meeting concludes the 2022 sustainability program items for council action under the Environmental Stewardship strategic priority. Financial considerations: Council has approved the budget for the new Climate Investment Fund created for 2022 to fund the sustainability division incentive programs outlined, providing cost sharing to leverage resident and business investment. Staff will report on success of the programs and projected future year funding when council begins the 2023 budget process. Next steps: Staff will continue to develop and launch the city’s 2022 sustainability programs, including cost-sharing incentives for residents and business owners for a range of projects including energy efficiency improvements, solar panel installation, and tree planting. The “Year of Climate Action” will also kick off and all events will be publicized as they get underway. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota EXCERPT: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota January 18, 2022 Whereas, St. Louis Park has just this past year experienced numerous climate change related impacts including a record June heat wave, a December tornado watch, dangerous air quality from drought-fueled forest fires where even healthy people were encouraged to remain inside, and water restrictions from the same drought, making it clear that the climate crisis is not only a future issue — it is affecting us here and now; and Whereas, the greatest burden from an inadequate response to the climate crisis is felt by historically marginalized or underserved communities as well our youngest generation; and Whereas, in Minnesota, the ten warmest and wettest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998; and Whereas, our State did not meet its 2015 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions goal, and is not yet on track to reach our future targets; and Whereas, recent scientific research indicates that to achieve the goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be halved by 2030 and reach net zero global emissions by 2050; and Whereas, we have already reached a temperature increase of nearly 1.1 degrees Celsius (nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit); and Whereas, a transition to a clean energy economy, if not carefully planned, would have a disruptive impact on the livelihoods of many in our community while a well-planned transition may provide expanded job opportunities for local residents; and Whereas, St. Louis Park strategic priorities include commitments to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all and in environmental stewardship; and Whereas, 2,012 jurisdictions in 34 countries including Minnesota leaders Duluth, Minneapolis, and Crystal Bay Township, have already declared climate emergencies; Now therefore be it resolved that St. Louis Park declares that a climate emergency threatens our city, region, state, nation, humanity and the natural world. Be it further resolved St. Louis Park commits to working for a just transition and climate emergency mobilization effort and will: • Implement a range of innovative projects, programs, and public awareness campaigns throughout 2022 and beyond. • Use this declaration as the launch for a “2022 Year of Climate Action” in St. Louis Park. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota • Collaborate with surrounding cities and local partners to identify and work together on larger, regional sustainability projects. • Support the counties and cities across the state joining this declaration. • Use all available tools to ensure climate action in St. Louis Park is equitable and just. Be it further resolved St. Louis Park calls on the Minnesota legislature and executive branch to immediately and aggressively take action through policymaking and funding to support cities of all sizes around Minnesota to both mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Be it further resolved St. Louis Park calls on the federal government to immediately commit resources to support the climate mitigation, adaptation and resiliency efforts of cities large and small. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota January 18, 2022 Whereas, St. Louis Park has just this past year experienced numerous climate change related impacts including a record June heat wave, a December tornado watch, dangerous air quality from drought-fueled forest fires where even healthy people were encouraged to remain inside, and water restrictions from the same drought, making it clear that the climate crisis is not only a future issue — it is affecting us here and now; and Whereas, extreme weather has created new challenges for St. Louis Park’s infrastructure and finances and poses a threat to the economic vitality of our residents and businesses; and Whereas, the greatest burden from an inadequate response to the climate crisis is felt by historically marginalized or underserved communities as well as the youngest generation, including the children and grandchildren of St. Louis Park; and Whereas, in Minnesota, the ten warmest and wettest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998, warming surface waters are leading to a significant loss of fish habitat for many prominent species as well as increasing the risk of harmful algae blooms, forests are changing as native northern species are strained by warming temperatures, crops are stressed by cycles of drought and floods, home insurance rates are rising far faster than the national average from an average of $368 in 1998 to $1,348 in 2015, and faster warming winters are leading to new pests as well as shorter winter recreation seasons; and Whereas, the bi-partisan Next Generation Energy Act, passed by the Minnesota State Legislature and signed by then Governor Tim Pawlenty in 2007, committed our State to achieving to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050; and Whereas, our State did not meet its 2015 goal, and is not yet on track to reach our future targets; and Whereas, in April 2016 world leaders from 175 countries, including the United States, recognized the threat of climate change and the urgent need to combat it by signing the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreeing to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius”; and Whereas, we have already reached a temperature increase of nearly 1.1 degrees Celsius (nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit) as compared to pre-industrial times and the death and destruction already wrought by this level of global warming demonstrate that the Earth is already too hot for a safe, just, and healthy life for many around the world, as attested by increased and intensifying wildfires, floods, rising seas, diseases, droughts, and extreme weather; and City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota Whereas, in August 2021 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change, released a report that stated, “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere and land,” and that “Human influence has warmed the climate at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years,” and “with every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger”; and Whereas, recent scientific research indicates that to achieve the goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be halved by 2030 and reach net zero global emissions by 2050; and Whereas, a transition to a clean energy economy, if not carefully planned, would have a disruptive impact on the livelihoods of many in our community while a well-planned transition may provide expanded job opportunities for local residents; and Whereas, federal Justice40 guidelines and screening tools are forthcoming, which will direct 40% of the overall benefits from federal investments in climate and clean energy to disadvantaged communities; and Whereas, local community organizations will have opportunities to receive Justice40 benefits, and the City of St. Louis Park can increase awareness of Justice40 and help build capacity for organizations to take full advantage of Justice40; and Whereas, St. Louis Park strategic priorities include commitments to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all and in environmental stewardship; and Whereas, 2,012 jurisdictions in 34 countries including Minnesota leaders Duluth, Minneapolis, and Crystal Bay Township, have already declared climate emergencies in order to focus attention on the need for rapid action to address climate change; Now therefore be it resolved that St. Louis Park declares that a climate emergency threatens our city, region, state, nation, humanity and the natural world. Be it further resolved St. Louis Park commits to working for a just transition and climate emergency mobilization effort and will: • Implement a range of innovative projects, programs, and public awareness campaigns for businesses and residents throughout 2022 and beyond, including around solar energy, energy efficiency, natural resources, and more. • Use this declaration as the launch for a “2022 Year of Climate Action” in St. Louis Park that will spur increased engagement through community-wide events. • Collaborate with surrounding cities and local partners to identify larger, regional sustainability projects, and when applicable, work together to pursue state and federal climate action funding for those projects. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Title: Resolution declaring a climate emergency in St. Louis Park, Minnesota • Support the counties and cities across the state joining this declaration to meet regularly, share ideas, and align goals to continue advocating for state and federal legislation. • Use all available tools to ensure climate action in St. Louis Park is equitable and just, including but not limited to consideration of inclusive involvement and engagement, policy and program design, populations and people who are more likely to benefit or be burdened, and accessible communications. • Advocate for the federal Justice40 guidelines and screening tool to be released as soon as possible and communicate the importance of this initiative with fellow communities, local leaders, and state representatives, while strengthening relationships with community organizations that would benefit from Justice40 funding. Be it further resolved St. Louis Park calls on the Minnesota legislature and executive branch to immediately and aggressively take action through policymaking and funding to support cities of all sizes around Minnesota to both mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, including providing funding and resources for the development and implementation of climate action plans. Be it further resolved St. Louis Park calls on the federal government to immediately commit resources to support the climate mitigation, adaptation and resiliency efforts of cities large and small, to invest in the infrastructure needed for a sustainable future, to ensure that investment is at the scale needed, and to provide the necessary global leadership to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council on January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Action agenda item: 8b Executive summary Title: Remote meeting guidelines and considerations Recommended action: Consider motion to adopt Resolution acknowledging the Omicron variant surge of the COVID-19 health pandemic and moving to remote meetings of the city council and advisory boards and commissions. Policy consideration: Does the city council want to declare it is not currently practical or prudent to conduct in person public meetings of the city council or city advisory boards and commissions due to the current conditions of the pandemic and transition to remote meetings? Summary: The city council requested a review of the remote meeting guidelines and consideration of options to conduct remote meetings due to the Omicron variant. Additionally, the council requested a draft resolution changing city council and board and commission meetings to remote at this time. Meetings of public bodies are governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D, Open Meeting Law. Public bodies can conduct meetings remotely, provided numerous conditions are met which ensure that all members of the body can see and hear one another, and members of the public can similarly monitor the meeting. The State has updated its guidance following the expiration of the State’s emergency order which has impacted the conditions in which council members or commissioners are allowed to appear remotely. The report summarizes the requirements for remote participation both without an emergency resolution and with one in place and provides a recommendation that, if the council determines it is not practical and prudent to continue appearing in person, the attached resolution is adopted. The resolution encompasses all St. Louis Park public bodies and treats city council and boards and commissions in the same manner. Financial or budget considerations: None. Funds are included in the 2022 budget. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Remote meeting guidelines for public bodies Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: Remote meeting guidelines and considerations Discussion Background: Meetings of public bodies are governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13D, Open Meeting Law. Public bodies can conduct meetings remotely, provided numerous conditions are met which ensure that all members of the body can see and hear one another, and members of the public can similarly monitor the meeting. The statute applies to all public bodies; for St. Louis Park, this applies to both the city council and our boards and commissions. The State’s interpretation of Chapter 13D has changed over time, impacting the options in front of local governments. St. Louis Park city attorney’s interpret current guidance from the State as follows: 1.Unless an emergency ordinance or resolution similar to the one considered in this action is adopted, all council members must participate in person, excepting any whose remote participation includes being present in a public location such that the public could attend. Due to COVID restrictions, this option is not advisable for any members who have tested positive or are in quarantine/self-isolating. Further, the location of the member(s) appearing remotely must be noticed at the time the agenda is published. At least one member must be physically present at the regular meeting location and members of the public be allowed to attend in person. Previous allowances for members to appear remotely up to three (3) times at a non-public location were temporary and expired 60 days after the governor’s executive order ended. 2.M.S. 13D.021 contains provisions that specifically apply to meetings during a health pandemic or declared emergency and recognize that attendance by members of the body or the public at the regular meeting location may not be feasible. To utilize this statute, an emergency regulation or resolution must be adopted. In this situation, all members of the body may appear remotely from locations that are not open to the public and the public must be able to monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location and be allowed to participate, to the extent practical. Legal notices must provide details of how the public can monitor and participate in the meeting. Present considerations: At the Jan. 10, 2022 study session, staff were asked a series of questions regarding remote appearances and the impact on boards and commissions’ meetings. After legal review, the following is recommended. 1.For transparency and operational purposes, staff strongly recommend that an emergency resolution move all meetings virtually instead of attempting to create a more patchwork situation whereby decisions are made either week to week or there are differences between the public bodies. The resolution drafted follows this approach. 2.If the council determines that it is not prudent to meet in-person, the recommendation is to set a sunset date of remote meetings at February 22, 2022. This date was selected based on current forecasts related to the expected peak of infection rates and is also in line with what other communities have done. The city will continue to monitor and evaluate the conditions of the pandemic and has the authority to either rescind the resolution prior to the expiration date or extend the terms of the resolution if necessary. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: Remote meeting guidelines and considerations Resolution No. 22-___ Resolution acknowledging the Omicron variant surge of the COVID-19 health pandemic impacting in-person meetings of the city council and advisory boards and commissions Whereas, on March 13, 2020, Governor Tim Walz declared a Peacetime State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 health pandemic; and, Whereas, the mayor of the City of St. Louis Park issued an Emergency Declaration, to address the local response to the pandemic; and Whereas, all emergency declarations were subsequently approved by the city council via Resolution No. 20-066; and Whereas, the State of Minnesota’s peacetime emergency order expired as of July 1, 2021; and Whereas, despite relaxation of state and local measures to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, the pandemic persists with dramatic increase in spread with the Omicron variant; and Now, therefore, the city council of the city of st. Louis park makes the following findings: 1. The World Health Organization continues to declare COVID-19 as a global health pandemic. 2. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) has stated that data suggests that persons, regardless of vaccination status, in some cases may become infected with COVID-19 and its variants and transmit the same to other persons. 3. The CDC recommends that persons, regardless of vaccination status, undertake transmission-mitigating measures (such as masking and social distancing) while at indoor public settings, particularly in areas with “high” or “substantial” transmission rates. 4. The City of St. Louis Park is comprised in important part by persons who are immunocompromised, high-risk, and/or unable to become vaccinated against COVID-19 (including children under the age of 5). 5. Some elected officials, employed staff, advisory board or commission members, residents, and guests of the City of St. Louis Park may continue to possess sincerely held concerns and apprehensions about attending indoor public meetings of city business. 6. The existence of COVID-19 and the Omicron variant surge within the community poses a direct threat to the health, safety, and well-being of the community. Consistent with the determination of the mayor, city manager, and city attorney, due to the measures necessary to contain and mitigate the impacts of COVID-19, it has been determined that attendance at the regular meeting location by members of the public is not feasible and that the physical presence at the regular meeting location by at least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is also not feasible. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: Remote meeting guidelines and considerations Now, therefore, be it resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, based upon the above recitals and findings, as follows: 1. All meetings of the city council and meetings of city advisory boards and commissions shall be conducted by interactive technology/videoconferencing under the authority and requirements of Minn. Stat. § 13D.021, so as to permit any persons, including but not limited to members of the city council or advisory boards or commissions, to participate from a remote location not open to the public. 2. This resolution and its directives shall expire without further action at 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 22, 2022, unless rescinded or extended by resolution of the city council. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council on January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Dated: December 3, 2021 Remote Meeting Guidelines for Public Bodies Notes: •Guidance above is based on legal review of applicable state statutes and opinions from DPO. •Statutory provisions we previously operated under expired 60 days after the Governor’s emergency declaration ended. •If Governor declares new emergency, options will depend on how the declaration is written. •Guidelines also apply to meetings of the city’s boards and commissions. Conditions Options for council members Requirements •Pandemic is still ongoing and of concern •No emergency order in place •No official finding by city that meeting in person is not practical or prudent b/c of health pandemic •Quorum (at minimum) of council members appear in chambers •Council member(s) voting remotely must appear in a place that is open and accessible to the public (ex. a hotel lobby, library). Note: a council member’s residence is NOT considered open and accessible to the public. •Councilmember(s) not able to attend remotely from a public place are not allowed to vote on any items. Note: there is legal debate about council members attending remotely and not voting – likely more to come on this. •Public allowed to attend in person •Any elected official voting remotely must be in a public place •Legal notice of meeting must provide details (location and address) of where remote council member(s) will be appearing. Note: This must be done by Thursday before meeting. •Pandemic is still ongoing and of concern •City (council/mayor/city manager) declares an emergency or makes a finding that meeting in person is not practical/prudent because of health pandemic Option 1. All council members appear remotely •Public participation 100% remote •Legal notice of meeting must provide details of how public can participate and monitor meeting Option 2. Less than a quorum of members appear in person in chambers •Other members can appear remotely and vote •Members appearing remotely do not have to be in a public place •Public not required to be allowed to attend in person •Legal notice of meeting must provide details of how public can participate and monitor meeting Page 4 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8b) Title: Remote meeting guidelines and considerations Meeting: City council Meeting date: January 18, 2022 Action agenda item: 8c Executive summary Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options Recommended action: Discuss policy options regarding face coverings/masks for indoor places of assembly in St. Louis Park. Policy consideration: Following discussion, the council is asked to consider which of the following policy approaches it would like to adopt: •Continue city’s practice of supporting masking without passing a resolution or emergency ordinance •Adopt a resolution strongly encouraging community masking •Adopt an emergency regulation mandating community masking (updated draft included in council packet) Summary: Following discussion on Jan. 10, 2022, the city council decided to take up the issue of community masking in indoor locations of assembly at the Jan. 18, 2022 council meeting. At this meeting, staff will provide several items: •updated public health data •an updated draft emergency regulation mandating masking • a summary of actions taken by other local jurisdictions •an enforcement plan should council adopt the emergency regulation •an implementation plan should council adopt either the emergency regulation or the resolution During the Jan. 10, 2022 discussion, staff expressed concerns about the difficulty in enforcing a mandate. Council members acknowledged those concerns and understanding that neither city staff or other front-line workers would be able to enforce this mandate should a patron refuse to put on a mask. Financial or budget considerations: Staff implementation time will be required. No overtime is anticipated. Minimal costs would be associated with printing and distribution of posters for businesses. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Ordinance Comments from residents, businesses, the health care system Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager/operations and recreation director Steve Koering, fire chief Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director Jacque Smith, communications and marketing manager Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options Discussion Background: The Omicron variant of COVID-19 has continued to increase its rate of infection to record levels. While there is less severity with this variant, hospital capacities continue to be challenged due to the larger numbers of patients impacted by the virus. What remains consistent is most hospitalizations are unvaccinated adults and pediatric patients. While there are marginally fewer beds in use today than just 30 days ago, bed capacity coupled with staffing shortages are creating an unprecedented crisis within healthcare. Death rates statewide continue to decline. Hospitalizations and deaths have always lagged a couple of weeks behind infections, so a portion of those infected today will impact hospitals two weeks from now. The forecasted dramatic reduction in the rate of infection due to the evolution of the virus, which appears to be near, will provide significant relief for hospitals within weeks. There is optimism amongst many experts that Omicron is evolving into the type of virus that can be more easily controlled through standard mitigation efforts. At the study session on Jan. 10, 2022, council discussed three policy options and their impacts: •Continue city’s practice of supporting masking without passing a resolution or emergency ordinance •Adopt a resolution strongly encouraging community masking •Adopt an emergency regulation mandating community masking (draft was based on what was passed in 2020) Staff relayed information on the previously experienced challenges of enforcing a mask mandate for the public, both in city facilities and in community, along with the need for lead time before implementation of a possible mandate. Council members expressed their expectation that city staff members proactively educate members of the public who enter city buildings without a mask but do not take additional action unless the situation has escalated. Ultimately, the city council decided to table the discussion until the Jan. 18, 2022 council meeting. Present considerations: Just as last week, there are three policy options before the council to consider: •Continue city’s practice of supporting masking without passing a resolution or emergency ordinance •Adopt a resolution strongly encouraging community masking •Adopt an emergency regulation mandating community masking (updated draft included in council packet) The draft Emergency Regulation has been updated from the version council reviewed last week in three ways: 1.Language updated to more closely reflect areas of local control 2.Implementation date changed to Friday, Jan. 21 (providing two business days for communications and to allow businesses and multifamily residential buildings to post signs) 3.Expiration date changed to Feb. 22, 2022 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options Should the emergency regulation pass, staff would plan to follow the enforcement guidance provided by council on Jan. 10. Additionally, inspections staff will visit businesses the week of Jan. 24 to conduct educational visits and follow up on signage complaints. 911 dispatch will utilize prior scripting should calls be made about people not wearing masks. Unless a situation has escalated and needs to be defused, police resources are not planned to be expended on enforcement activities. Previous discussion highlighted the added responsibility and challenges a mask mandate brings to frontline staff, be they city employees or employed within affected sectors. Following up on this question, staff researched demographic composition of a few fields. For consideration while the council deliberates: • Currently, 13.43% of all City of St. Louis Park benefit earning staff identify as people of color. The percentage jumps to 18.42% of City front line workers in the position of having to enforce a mandate. (Conversely, only 6/1% of current non-benefit earning staff (e.g. warming house and front desk attendants) identify as people of color). •Throughout the pandemic there has been an equity/access concern regarding masks, color of masks and type of masks amongst our traditionally underserved communities. •Per American Community Survey data from 2014-2019, approximately 3,212 St. Louis Park residents work in the service industry; the data does not allow us to determine the demographic identities of those workers. That said, in the Twin Cities 7-county metro area, communities of color are more likely to work in frontline jobs overall—25% of frontline workers are of color compared with 23% of workers across all industries, based on an article in the Minnesota Compass dated Sept. 15, 2020 (MN Compass article). As additional surrounding context for council, below is a table of current masking mandates/resolutions. Additional jurisdictions are taking up this issue before the council meets again on Jan. 18, so the list may not be current by that date. The State of Minnesota has indicated that a statewide mask mandate is not being considered. City Community mask mandate (requiring) Community mask resolution (encouraging) Discussion pending Bloomington X Brooklyn Park X (in city facilities only) X (discussion on resolution) Edina X Hopkins X Golden Valley X Minneapolis X Minnetonka X St. Paul X Since the discussion on Jan. 10, the city proactively communicated with the public about the agenda item and has received a number of comments from residents, businesses and the health care system. As of Thursday afternoon, Jan. 13, we had approximately 17 comments provided from residents, businesses and the health care system. Of the feedback that was received, opinions were relatively even, with slightly more comments supporting implementing a mask mandate. The full comments received are included in this report. City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Page 4 Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options Next steps: If an emergency regulation or resolution is passed, external communication will include: website updates, news media release, social media updates, a banner on our cable channel and coverage in February’s edition of the Park Perspective. These communications methods may be modified depending on current conditions. Additional internal communications will occur with staff. Additionally, staff will prepare for business and multiunit residential needs including: updated signs on our website, print signs available for pickup at city hall, updated signs in city facilities, and an email blast to business partners and multifamily building contacts that outlines sign resources. Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution encouraging the use of face coverings in places of public accommodation Whereas, the city council, has found that the following emergency exists: Our local region is experiencing a surge of COVID-19 infections due to the highly contagious Delta and Omicron variants, which are variants of concern according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Whereas, the CDC and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) along with other public health experts have determined that the virus, and in particular these variants, can be transmitted before an infected individual shows symptoms and that a significant portion of individuals with COVID-19 do not have symptoms and can still transmit the virus; Whereas, the CDC and MDH are urging the general public to wear face coverings when in public to help curb the spread of COVID-19, by preventing the transmission of respiratory droplets that contain the virus; Whereas, the city council finds that this situation threatens the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community, and threatens the continuation and efficient delivery of city services and the delivery of health services at hospitals, clinics, and medical institutions in the city and region. Whereas, the St. Louis Park City Charter §1.02 allows the city to “define, prohibit, abate and suppress all things detrimental to the health, morals, comfort, safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the city and all nuisances and causes thereof.” Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park desires to encourage individuals to use face coverings when in places of public accommodation, consistent with federal and state health agency guidance. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1.Individuals are strongly encouraged to wear a face covering when in an indoor space that is accessible to the public. 2.The following shall also apply: a.Spaces of public accommodation. Owners and managers of spaces of public accommodation are strongly encouraged to require all employees wear a face covering when the individual is within any area open to the public or within six (6)feet of another person. Customers are strongly encouraged to wear a face covering before entering the spaces of public accommodation and until exiting. b.Restaurants and bars. Owners are strongly encouraged to require all customers wear a face covering when not seated at their table. Page 5 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options c.Public transportation. Users are strongly encouraged to wear a face covering before boarding a bus and wear the face covering until the user exits the bus. d. Entertainment venues. Users are strongly encouraged to wear a face covering when the user is within six (6) feet of another person. When the user is seated and not within six (6) feet of a person they can remove the face covering but are strongly encouraged to wear the face covering when walking to or from their seat and while standing in or walking through public areas such as lobbies and restrooms. e.Common spaces in multi-family residential and multi-tenant office buildings. Residents of multi-family housing buildings, and their guests; and tenants, employees and their guests in multi-tenant office buildings are strongly encouraged to wear a face covering when in common spaces such as hallways, corridors, lobbies, restrooms, mail rooms, elevators, trash and recycling rooms, fitness rooms, recreation rooms, laundry rooms, and other space owned and used in common by the residents, employees, and tenants of the building. 3.Definitions: a. “Space of public accommodation” means a business, refreshment, entertainment, or recreation facility, or an institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, City of St. Louis Park government buildings, and service establishments as well as recreational facilities, and service centers. This definition includes establishments and facilities that offer food and beverage not for on-premises consumption, including grocery stores, markets, convenience stores, pharmacies, drug stores, and food pantries. b.“Face covering” means a cloth or other covering that fully covers an individual’s nose and mouth, secured to the head with ties or straps or simply wrapped around the lower face. The terms “mask” and “face covering” are synonymous. c.“Physical distancing” means maintaining six (6) feet of separation between individuals of different households. 4.This resolution does not apply to: a.Individuals actively eating or drinking. b.Children under the age of 5. c.Individuals unable to wear a face covering due to medical reasons, disabilities, or developmental reasons. d.Individuals speaking to an audience, whether in person or through broadcast, provided the speaker remains six (6) feet or more away from other individuals. e.Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or an individual who is speaking to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing and requires the mouth to be visible to communicate. f.Individuals who are unable to remove the face covering without assistance. g.Individuals temporarily removing the face covering for identification purposes. h.Participants in youth sports, as defined by the city of St. Louis Park. i.Facilities operated by the county, state, or federal government. Page 6 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options j.Medical facilities that already have face covering requirements. k.Indoor athletic facilities. Indoor athletic facilities are encouraged to follow CDC and MDH guidelines. Patrons are not required to wear face coverings or masks while actively participating in permitted athletic activities but are encouraged to wear face coverings when not actively training. l.Places of worship. m.Public and private school facilities. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council on January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Page 7 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options Ordinance No. ____-22 City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County, Minnesota Emergency ordinance establishing face covering requirement The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, the St. Louis Park City Council, has found that the following emergency exists: Our local region is experiencing a surge of COVID-19 infections due to the highly contagious Delta and Omicron variants, which are variants of concern according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Whereas, the CDC and Minnesota Department of Health (M DH) along with other public health experts have determined that the virus, and in particular these variants, can be transmitted before an infected individual shows symptoms and that a significant portion of individuals with COVID-19 do not have symptoms and can still transmit the virus; Whereas, the CDC and MDH are urging the general public to wear face coverings when in public to help curb the spread of COVID-19, by preventing the transmission of respiratory droplets that contain the virus; Whereas, the City Council finds that this emergency threatens the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community, and threatens the continuation and efficient delivery of city services and the delivery of health services at hospitals, clinics, and medical institutions in the city and region. Whereas, the St. Louis Park City Charter §1.02 allows the City to “define, prohibit, abate and suppress all things detrimental to the health, morals, comfort, safety, convenience and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and all nuisances and causes thereof.” Whereas, the St. Louis Park City Charter §3.06 allows the City to enact an emergency ordinance when it is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, morals, safety or welfare in which the emergency is defined and declared.” Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park desires to require face coverings when individuals are in places of public accommodation, consistent with federal and state health agency guidance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park , Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. 1.Individuals are required to wear a face covering while in a space of public accommodation. Page 8 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options 2.All owners and managers of enclosed buildings or rooms which house a space of public accommodation must: a.Post face covering signs at each public entrance. This sign must be at least 8 inches by 10 inches and say: The City of St. Louis Park requires individuals to wear a face covering or a mask while inside this building. b.Require all employees wear a face covering when the individual is within six feet of another person. c.Inform customers, visitors, and guests to wear a face covering before entering spaces of public accommodation and that they are required to wear the face cove ring until exiting. 3.The following shall also apply to the face covering requirement in sections 1 and 2: a.Restaurants and bars. Must require all customers wear a face covering when not seated at their table. b.Entertainment venues. Individuals are require d to wear a face covering when the individual is within six (6) feet of another person. When the individual is seated and is maintaining social distancing and not within six (6) feet of a person they may remove the face covering but are required to wear the face cove ring when walking to or from their seat and while standing in or walking through public areas such as lobbies and restrooms. c.Common spaces in multi-family residential and multi-tenant office buildings. Residents of multi-family housing buildings, and their guests; and tenants, employees and their guests in multi-tenant office buildings are required to wear a face covering when in common spaces such as hallways, corridors, lobbies, restrooms, mail rooms, elevators, trash and recycling rooms, fitness rooms, recreation rooms, laundry rooms, and other space owned and used in common by the residents, employees, and tenants of the building. 4.Definitions: a.“Space of public accommodation” means a business, refreshment, entertainment, or recreation facility, or an institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishme nts, City of St. Louis Park government buildings, and service establishments as well as recreational facilities, and service centers. This definition includes establishments and facilities that offer food and beverage not for on-premises consumption, including grocery stores, markets, convenience stores, pharmacies, drug stores, and food pantries. b.“Face covering” means a cloth or other covering that fully covers an individual’s nose and mouth, secured to the head with ties or straps or simply wrapped around the lowe r face. The terms “mask” and “face covering” are synonymous. Page 9 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options c.“Physical distancing” means maintaining six (6) feet of separation between individuals of different households. 5.This e mergency ordinance does not apply to the following persons and place s of public accommodation: a.Individuals actively eating or drinking. b.Children under the age of five (5). c.Individuals unable to wear a face covering due to medical reasons, disabilities, or developmental reasons. d.Individuals speaking or performing to an audience, whether in person or through broadcast, provided the speaker remains six (6) feet or more away from other individuals. e.Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or an individual who is speaking to someone who is deaf or hard of hearing and requires the mouth to be visible to communicate . f.Individuals who are unable to remove the face covering without assistance . g.Individuals temporarily removing the face covering for identification purposes. h.Participants in youth and adult sports are exempt from this e mergency ordinance. i.Facilities operated by the county, state, or federal government. j.Medical facilities that already have face covering requirements. k.Athletic facilities are encouraged to follow CDC and MDH guidelines. Patrons are not required to wear face coverings or masks while actively participating in athletic activities but are encouraged to wear face coverings when not actively training. l.Voting sites and polling places . m.Office areas where physical distancing is maintained between individuals and workstations. n.Places of worship . o.Federal, state, or other non-city government buildings; and p.Public and private school facilities. 6.This e mergency ordinance is not a substitute for other critical health practices such as hand washing, staying home when sick, and physical distancing. Even when outside, every individual is encouraged to wear a face covering when physical distancing cannot be maintained. 7.Any person who violates this e mergency ordinance shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished for a fine not to exceed $300.00. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect on Jan. 21, 2022. The ordinance shall expire without further action at 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 22, 2022 unless repealed or extended by action of the city council. Page 10 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the St. Louis Park City Council January 18, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney Page 11 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options Email comments received regarding mask mandate From: Alex Brose <brozee9@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:15 PM To: Melissa Kennedy <mkennedy@stlouispark.org> Subject: No mask mandate Owner of 2 small businesses in the SLP area.. we will not support or follow a mask mandate. Thank you From: Joyce Hoelting <jhoeltin@umn.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:15 PM To: Info@stlouispark.org Subject: Mask mandate As a St. Louis Park resident, I would greatly appreciate having a mask mandate until the medical community is better able to manage. Beyond controlling COVID, I am concerned as the wife of a cancer patient. Our fear beyond Covid is that my husband may need medical care that the health care system finds it difficult to provide. Thank you for this conversation. -- Joyce Hoelting Office/Cel: 612-247-4633 jhoeltin@umn.edu From: Joyce Hoelting <jhoeltin@umn.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:17 PM To: Info@stlouispark.org Subject: Re: Thank you for your e-mail I apologize for not leaving my address in the email that I just sent: Joyce Hoelting, 3148 Webster Ave S, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:15 PM Info@stlouispark.org <info@stlouispark.org> wrote: Thank you for your e-mail. Your message has been received and forwarded to the proper department. We will get back to you as soon as possible. City of St Louis Park info@stlouispark.org -- Joyce Hoelting Office/Cel: 612-247-4633 jhoeltin@umn.edu Page 12 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options From: Carol Bungert <carolmbungert@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:20 PM To: Info@stlouispark.org; Margaret Rog <mrog@stlouispark.org>; Brian Shekleton <brian_shekleton@yahoo.com>; jakespano@stlouispark.org Subject: Mask mandate - PLEASE! It is time to reinstate a mask mandate! Let’s be leaders in doing the right thing Thank you! Carol Bungert 4118 W 28th Street From: Barak Steenlage <barak@anchorbuildersmn.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:42 PM To: Julie Grove <jgrove@stlouispark.org> Subject: Re: St. Louis Park City Council to consider mask mandate Jan 18 Thank you, we support safety! From: Fran Schmit <schmfran@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:10 PM To: Julie Grove <jgrove@stlouispark.org> Subject: RE: St. Louis Park City Council to consider mask mandate Jan 18 I am not a member of the Business Community except in the status of a Customer! Please mention to the Council that I would vote to Mandate the Masks, If I could. Fran Schmit 3370 Library Lane From: Luke Derheim <luke@craftncrew.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:58 PM To: Julie Grove; Melissa Kennedy Subject: Re: St. Louis Park City Council to consider mask mandate Jan 18 Hey Julie and Melissa, Thanks for sending this over. We support this mask mandate to keep our crew and customers safe. Thanks for keeping us in the loop! Luke Derheim Craft & Crew Hospitality 612-205-3286 Luke@craftncrew.com Page 13 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options From: Adam Meyer <ameyer@f45training.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:24 PM To: Melissa Kennedy Subject: Proposed Mask Mandate Hello, I am the owner of F45 Training in St. Louis Park. I just wanted to voice my strong opposition to a mask mandate. I do not believe the expected benefit of imposing a mandate at this point of the pandemic will outweigh the deep costs. I also own an F45 Training studio in Minneapolis and I can tell you that a mask mandate vs no mandate makes a huge impact on our ability to fend off bankruptcy as a business and there is virtually zero difference in the amount of reported cases of covid we experience from our members. We also have never had a Covid positive person in our studio cause an outbreak with other members. Having a mask mandate just does not move the needle far enough to justify the costs. Thanks, Adam From: Liz Siegrist <Liz.Siegrist@aimhosp.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:51 AM To: Melissa Kennedy Cc: Lori Molina Subject: Consideration of St. Louis Park Mask Mandate Good morning, On behalf of the management and leadership team at the SpringHill Suites and TownePlace Suites Minneapolis West, I would like offer our opinion regarding the possible mask mandate for the city of St. Louis Park. We are in FULL support of this action and encourage voting members to move forward with the mandate. As you may be aware, our doors have been open throughout the entire pandemic. Most of our staff members are in positions that do not allow for a 'work from home' option and the nature of our business is such that we are constantly interacting with people who have traveled from other parts of the country, perhaps from areas where various 'precautions' may not be widely demonstrated or followed. With numerous staffing issues facing our industry, having team members out with illness, or to quarantine has a devastating impact on scheduling and our ability to maintain proper staffing levels. As with all industries/organizations, it is imperative that we keep our associates healthy, and the comfort and safety of our guests is always our top priority. For the well-being of our team, and our guests, we believe a mask mandate will dramatically slow the spread of Omicron and allow us to Page 14 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options continue our recovery from the COVID pandemic. It is our sincere hope that the St. Louis Park City Council votes YES to this emergency mask mandate. We appreciate the opportunity to share our opinion and be heard on this subject. Please don't hesitate to contact me for additional thoughts or input. We look forward to learning the outcome of the vote, and wish the City Council continued good health. Sincerely, Liz Siegrist Liz Siegrist | Area Director of Sales SpringHill Suites and TownePlace Suites-Minneapolis West Direct: 952.367-2710 | Fax: 952.738.7301 liz.siegrist@aimhosp.com From: Robbie Soskin <robbie@yumkitchen.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 12:46 PM To: Melissa Kennedy <mkennedy@stlouispark.org> Cc: Patti Soskin <patti@yumkitchen.com> Subject: Mask Mandate CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Melissa, My wife, Patti, and I operate yum! Kitchen and Bakery. Thank you for your work to help engage the community in this important discussion. We are fans of a mask mandate for indoor spaces, including our restaurant. In the end, a temporary mask mandate is helpful to set expectations for our guests and employees. We are in the hospitality business and part of feeling welcome is to feel safe. Our employees have been wearing masks since the beginning of the pandemic. We have avoided outbreaks and remained open throughout. Our guests have been kind and beyond supportive, at all times. We are strong advocates of vaccination and have held multiple vaccine clinics at our St. Louis Park location. We understand that the current mandates are intended to help relieve pressure on our hospitals and health care workers. No doubt, we all, can and should do our part. While it is difficult to predict the end of a mask mandate, it would be helpful if any mandate be accompanied by at least, a reference to a metric we are watching…ie hospital capacity. Thanks again for asking for input. As always, please let us know how we can help. Our best, patti & robbie soskin Page 15 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options From: Myster, Jennifer L <Jennifer.L.Myster@HealthPartners.Com> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:18 PM To: Melissa Kennedy Cc: Duane Spiegle; Karen Barton Subject: Park Nicollet and Methodist Hospital statement of support for St Louis Park mask mandate Please find the following statement in support of the SLP mask mandate On behalf of the 26,000 employees at HealthPartners, over 3,500 of whom work or live in the city of Saint Louis Park, we want to express our support for the proposed city ordinance to require wearing a face mask in public buildings when social distancing is not possible. It is HealthPartners’ mission to improve health and well-being in partnership with our members, patients and the community. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has clearly recommended masking as a way to “help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person … coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice”. Our own state department of Health has also recommended this measure, and several other Minnesota cities have already taken this action to protect their residents, based on research from across the world that has shown them to be effective in reducing the spread of COVID-19. It is also a requirement within our own facilities. This ordinance would also mean that our local businesses will not have to be the ones who choose to enforce this on their customers, which puts them in a difficult situation. Many business groups across the country have also called for this step for this very reason, and we join them in urging you to do so. Jennifer Myster President, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital Vice President, HealthPartners Community Based Services 6500 Excelsior Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 952-883-5029 From: Cherie Mitchell <cmitchell@heliometrics.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:27 PM To: Melissa Kennedy Subject: SLP mask mandate opinion Hi there: I wanted to submit my opinion on the possibility of re-implementing a mask mandate in SLP… To be blunt – I think it is a waste of time and money on the city’s part. Since there is no enforcement mechanism on the city’s part, you are forcing the businesses in this community back into the awkward and sometimes dangerous position of policing a mandate that they do not have a say in. Don’t get me wrong – I am all for masking and doing everything I can to keep my employees safe but I am not going to risk myself or my employees getting in a brawl or worse shot over whether someone wants to wear a mask in my office or in this multi-tenant building we rent from. Tell me that the city has a enforcement plan that will not raise or taxes and not pull the police from their important business and I would be all over it, but that is not reality. We are fortunate to have survived thus far but we also don’t have a lot of visitors to our place of business and my employees can work from home. I can only imagine what places like restaurants and Page 16 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options retail shops are thinking at this point. Most places highly encourage masking already, so really if people are not masking now – do you really think they are going to care or comply if there is a mandate is in place??? You already know the answer to that… They didn’t do it last time. The definition of insanity is, is repeating the same actions expecting different results. The results will be no different than last time. Just my two cents. Cherie Mitchell President HelioMetrics Simplifying the Complexity of Monitoring Controlled Subsctance Diversions 5000 w. 36th Street, Suite 225, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Main: 612.444.3242 Email: cmitchell@heliometrics.net From: Shoshana Zeffren <shoshanazeffren@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:18 PM To: Melissa Kennedy Subject: Re: Mask mandate Also I would like to add that St. Louis Park said they will not make another mask mandate. Please respect and stick to your word on that. See attached. Sent from my iPhone Page 17City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options On Jan 12, 2022, at 3:26 PM, Shoshana Zeffren <shoshanazeffren@gmail.com> wrote: Hello I am writing as a concerned citizen of St. Louis Park regarding the potential new mask mandate. I, along with my family am vehemently opposed to any such mandate. A few reasons being as follows: •We are almost 2 years into this pandemic and the data simply doesn’t support that mandating masks has any impact on the virus spreading. As we can see throughout the country and state it is spreading regardless of mask guidance. •Vaccination and prophylactics are widely available. While I understand where the mandate originated from the first time in 2020 we are simply not in the same situation now. With vaccines and treatments widely known and available it is not fair or just to put the burden on the citizens to wear masks if they do not want and with masks not changing the amount of virus being spread. The city of St. Louis park needs to step up and recognize that there is a culture of rights and we all need to respect each others right to do or say things that are of a different opinion than their own. •If hospitals are overwhelmed that needs to be addressed but not by placing the burden of masking on citizens who have already done their part by vaccinating for the most part to stop the spread of virus. Which bring me to my next point. •Children. We cannot continue to require children to be wearing masks. Children are at low risk of being harmed by covid and having them forced to wear masks in school does nothing but cause more bacteria to be spread through their dirty masks. As a parent to a few different school aged children I will be happy to attach pictures of their filthy masks for you to see yourself but I will spare you because it’s truly disgusting. I know that when my children’s school ended the mandate my kids started excelling in school and were able to understand what they were being taught better without the distraction of wearing a face diaper all day. Interestingly enough they also stopped getting ill so often once the masks were removed. I can proudly say my kids have been in school all year so far without masks and have been as healthy as can be without missing a single day even due to the sniffles! It is simply unfair to place the burden on our precious children out of fear of something that really won’t harm them! The science doesn’t support it. •The last point I will make (even though I can say more on this topic) is this. I do not support a mandate and I can say with certainty probably more than half of the population feels the same. It opens up society to police each other and get in fights if someone takes down their mask to talk or breathe it opens them up to being yelled at or criticized. It makes the community a depressing place to live. Taking care of ones health should be an individual’s responsibility and while we all care and have to make decisions with the greater community in mind I don’t think mandating masks is a part of that! I certainly respect people’s decision to wear one when they go outside and I understand they are protecting themselves. But enforcing such an extreme measure should not be taken lightly and I hope this city will take my decision not to wear a mask as a decision I make for myself knowing my risks (mental and emotional health included) and deciding this is what’s best for me. Please consider the harm you will be doing by creating a mandate and don’t do it! Sincerely, A concerned citizen and parent Shoshana Zeffren Sent from my iPhone Page 18 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options From: Moshe Murray <moishe3rd@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:39 PM To: Melissa Kennedy Subject: Mask Mandate Hopefully, I will come to this meeting but, if not - I ask: What is the purpose of a mask mandate? If the answer is to prevent the spread of covid then: Is there ANY scientific evidence; statistics; or other hard data from the last two years of this pandemic that clearly demonstrates that wearing the common masks that people wear - cloth; the blue ones; or similar - has prevented the spread of covid? If precise studies and statistics cannot be found or cited then, the question reverts to - what is the purpose of masks? The CDC; WHO; Dr. Fauci; et al have ALL given widely varying opinions on the efficacy of masks; social distancing; cleaning one's hands; etc., on their ability to prevent the spread of covid. Masks make people who are scared of covid, less scared. If the purpose of masks is to lessen people's hysterical fears, then let that be said. If the purpose of masks is to stop the spread of covid, then cite the evidence that masks stop the spread of covid. Thank you. Sincerely, George Murray St Louis Park, MN 612 558 2078 From: Emily Orr <eorr@reachforresources.org> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 7:38 AM To: Melissa Kennedy Cc: Julie Grove Subject: RE: St. Louis Park City Council to consider mask mandate Jan 18 We are pro-mask mandate! Emily Page 19 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options From: Graham Parsons <grahamp@airborneathletics.com> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 8:18 AM To: Info@stlouispark.org Subject: No mask mandates please Please refrain from introducing new mask mandates. This is restrictive to my freedoms. I am vaccinated, boosted, and as protected as anyone else can be. Reintroducing mask mandates is asinine. Don’t bow to political pressure from Carter and Frey. Thank you. -GP From: Marshall Thompson <mthompson14@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 2:48 PM To: Info@stlouispark.org Subject: Mask mandate Good afternoon, I am offering feedback on the mask mandate under consideration. In short, I believe it's unnecessary and if omicron follows the same pattern of rapid rise and fall of infections, we are likely to be back to manageable levels by February. If you do enact one, please set a sunset date. Also, like many, I'm just generally annoyed by whole thing. I'm vaccinated and boosted as is my whole family to the greatest extent allowed. We did the work. I was very sick after dose 2 and the booster (103 fever, etc). If people want to die in the name of freedom, at this point I am at peace with that result. Thank you for the work you do. I know it's not easy. Marshall Thompson 7421 W Lake Street South Oak Hill 952-210-6795 Voice mail comment received regarding mask mandate 1/12/22 – 8:59 a.m., resident Mary H. Hi Debbie, I'm just a resident of St. Louis Park and I would like to strongly encourage the city to pass the mask mandate right at this time due to the Omicron variant. I think it's ridiculous that we have Hopkins and Minnetonka around us that are all going with mask mandates and why we can't pass one in St. Louis Park to protect the common good of all people of St. Louis Park. So I would just really like to see this happen and I don't know what the difficulty is in making this science-based decision. Alright, just wanted to express my support for implementing a mask mandate as soon as possible. Thank you. Page 20 City council meeting of January 18, 2022 (Item No. 8c) Title: COVID-19 face covering policy options