The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017/08/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA AUGUST 28, 2017 (Councilmembers Sanger, Hallfin, & Lindberg Absent) 6:30 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning 2. 6:35 p.m. Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations 3. 8:05 p.m. Walker-Lake Area Update 4. 8:35 p.m. Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) 9:05 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal) 9:10 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 5. Update on Special Law Related to the Elmwood TIF District 6. July 2017 Monthly Financial Report 7. Resolution of Support for the MCWD Watershed Management Plan Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Written Report: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 5 & September 11, 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session on September 5 and the regular Study Session on September 11. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed? SUMMARY: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for the Special Study Session on September 5 and the regular Study Session on September 11, 2017. Also attached to this report is the Study Session Prioritizaton & Tentative Discussion Timeline. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – September 5 & 11, 2017 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 5 & September 11, 2017 SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 6:20 p.m. – Special Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1. 2018 Budget – Administrative Services (60 minutes) Staff will provide an update on the 2018 budget and tax levy. End of Meeting: 7:20 p.m. SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 6:30 p.m. – Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2.Solid Waste Program Update – Operations & Recreation (45 minutes) Staff desires to discuss with Council the 2018-23 Solid Waste RFP, residential solid waste program survey, organics recycling collection method, Every-Other-Week Garbage pilot project, Multi-Family Drop-Site pilot project, and Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance exemptions. 3.Race Equity – Administrative Services (90 minutes) Staff will provide a brief update on advancing race equity, work being done by staff, action plans and tools. The majority of time will be for Council to discuss their strategic directions set in March 2017 and also talk about outreach and next steps. 4. TH 169 Mobility Study – Engineering (30 minutes) Regional transportation plans identified Hwy 169 between Hwy 41 and Hwy 55 as an ideal corridor for transit and mobility improvements. Moreover, statewide plans and community leaders have noted the importance of the Hwy 169 Corridor between Mankato and the Twin Cities as a critical link for educational institutions, businesses, and interregional freight and passenger transportation. The City has been involved in the Policy Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee meetings. The purpose of this study session item is to discuss the preliminary recommendations from these meetings. The goal for this study is to determine best options for reducing congestion, providing reliable trip times and improving travel times for buses. 5.Platia Place Preliminary Plat & Preliminary PUD – Community Development (30 minutes) Discuss proposed redevelopment plan and preliminary tax increment financing request for a proposed redevelopment at 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd (former Santorini site). The proposal includes a 112-room hotel and 149-unit apartment building. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written Reports 6.SSD 1-6 Budget and Service Charge Update 7. Comprehensive Plan Update End of Meeting: 9:55 p.m. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 5 & September 11, 2017 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Priority Discussion Topic Comments Date Scheduled 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 2 of 4 September 25, 2017 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 3 of 4 October 9, 2017 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 4 of 4 November 13, 2017 4 Preserving the Walker Building Combined w/Walker Lake Branding Discussion August 28, 2017 4 Race Equity Communication to HRC on Outreach & Next Steps September 11, 2017 4 Race Equity/Inclusion Courageous Conversations September 11, 2017 4 Affordable Housing Preservation September 25, 2017 4 Flavored Tobacco Ordinance October ____ 4 Climate Action Plan Draft being updated by consultant. Time needed for review by E&S Commission & staff before ready for council 4th Qtr 2017 3 Revitalization of Walker/Lake Area Part of Preserving Walker Building report August 28, 2017 3 Utilization of DBE Vendors Part of Race Equity items September 11, 2017 3 Ranked Choice Voting Spec. Study Session including city attorney September 18, 2017 3 Historical Society Space Part of Preserving Walker Building report September ____ 3 Policy for Funding Non-Profits Part of 2018 Budget item October 9, 2017 3 The Nest Date will be set when the group is ready October ____ 3 Living Streets Policy After Vision 3.0 work is completed 4th Qtr 2017 3 Develop a Youth Advisory Commission 1st Qtr 2018 2 Bird Friendly Glass 2 Dark Skies Ordinance (Light Pollution) 2 Community Center Project +TH 169 Mobility Study +Request from Councilmember Brausen September 11, 2017 Priority Discussion Topic Comments COMPLETED 5 SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning Session 1 of 4 August 14, 2017 3 Field Improvements/Girls Fastpitch Softball Ongoing 3 Property Tax Relief for Seniors Part of 2018 Budget item (Councilmember Brausen: "No further study needed.") October 9, 2017 2 Sidewalk Snow Removal Part of 2018 Budget item (Majority of councilmembers determined no need to discuss further at this time.) October 9, 2017 2 Active Space Matching Grants w/ Multi- Family Communities Part of 2018 Budget item (Will be included in 2018 Budget Proposal.) October 9, 2017 Priority Key 5 = High priority/discuss ASAP 4 = Discuss sooner than later 3 = Discuss when time allows 2 = Low priority/no rush 1 = No need to discuss Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and discuss attached Vision 3.0 report from Consultant and provide discussion on recommendations. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the Vision aspirations as outlined in the report consistent with the Vision 3.0 community input and trends? SUMMARY: After many months of an extensive community engagement process, our Vision Consultant, Rebecca Ryan of Next Generation Consulting (Consultant) will present the summary of findings and her recommendations from the Vision 3.0 process. The Vision 3.0 recommendations include five aspirations for the future. These aspirations address the themes of: climate change, parks and recreation, schools, transportation and racial equity. The five aspirations are: *Confronting Climate Change *Fostering Our Health and Well-Being *Caring for Our Youth *Getting Around Town *Embracing Diversity At the meeting, the Consultant will summarize the process of public input, overall trends and the Vision 3.0 aspirations. NEXT STEPS: Following discussion by the Council, the Consultant will make the necessary changes to complete the documents. After which, the document will be presented in a final format to the City Council for formal approval of a resolution formally receiving the Vision 3.0 recommendations and adopting the aspirations contained within them. This information will subsequently be incorporated into the city’s Comprehensive Plan Update, reflecting specific goals, strategies and implementation of the Vision 3.0 aspirations. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Expenses for the activities being undertaken are accounted for in the Development Fund budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft Vision 3.0 Report Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 1 A PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE St. Louis Park Vision 3.0 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 2 2 CONTENTS A Vision for All Key Findings Part 1: What Do Residents Value? 1. Equity and inclusion 2. Social connections 3. Housing – affordability and character 4. Transit and mobility 5. Care for the natural environment Part 2: Top Four Trends Impacting St. Louis Park 1. Declining federal government effectiveness 2. Elder expense 3. Increasing storm water 4. Changing middle class Recommendations: Five Aspirations for St. Louis Park’s Future 1. Confronting Climate Change 2. Fostering our Health & Wellbeing 3. Caring for our Youth 4. Getting Around Town 5. Embracing Diversity Thank Yous A Brief History of Vision St. Louis Park Appendix Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 3 3 A VISION FOR ALL Every ten years or so, the city of St. Louis Park launches an ambitious grassroots effort to ask residents about their hopes and dreams for the future of St. Louis Park. The city’s intention is to create a place so special that people want to make it their lifelong home. You can read more about Visions 1.0 and 2.0 and their successes in “A Brief History of Vision St. Louis Park” on pages XX-XY. In 2017, the City Council launched its third effort, Vision 3.0, with a special challenge – to hear from those who may not normally engage with the city – specifically people of color. Vision 3.0 staff, volunteers and consultants gathered 4,999 responses through the methods shown in the figure below. Figure 1: Vision 3.0 Engagement Measured by Responses per Method NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS1,938 FB LIVE TOWN HALL MEETINGS232 FB WEEKLY QUESTIONS54 CHALKBOARDS/POST-ITS377 NEXTDOOR.COM304 TWITTER18 ONLINE SURVEY1,201 TOWN HALL MEETINGS AT CITY HALL299 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 4 4 PARTICIPANTS VARIED BY RACE & AGE Residents contributed ideas through a variety of channels, but Neighborhood Meetings – facilitated by community volunteers – generated the largest number of responses (1,938) and the highest levels of diversity among participants (32.26%) as Table 1 below shows. Table 1: Residents’ Reported Race at Neighborhood Meetings Compared to St. Louis Park’s Overall Population Race Vision 3.0 Participants St. Louis Park Census1 White or Caucasian 67.74% 83.3% Black or African American 15.05% 7.5% Hispanic or Latino 7.80% 4.3% Two or more races 3.76% 3.1% Asian 3.23% 3.8% Other Race 1.34% N/A American Indian or Alaska Native 0.81% 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.27% 0.1% Vision 3.0 reached across the age spectrum and achieved relatively balanced participation among all age cohorts as Figure 1 (next page) shows2. 1 July 2016 census data retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/stlouisparkcityminnesota,US/PST045216 2 Demographic cards were optional and were completed by nearly half of all Vision 3.0 participants Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 5 5 Figure 1: Participation in Neighborhood Meetings by Age Neighborhood Meetings generated the largest number of responses (1,931) from the most diverse groups (32.26%) and therefore drive most of the insights in this document, unless noted otherwise. The Online Survey generated the second highest number of ideas (1,201) primarily from Whites or Caucasians (93%). A summary of insight from all sources of engagement is in the Appendix. HOW TO READ THIS DOCUMENT This document has three major sections: ¥ Key Findings, Part 1 is a summary of the five core values residents expressed during Vision 3.0 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 6 6 ¥ Key Findings, Part 2 is a summary of four trends likely to impact St. Louis Park in the future, as determined by the Steering Committee, City Council and city department leaders ¥ The last section, “Recommendations” includes a series of aspirations that can guide St. Louis Park in the future, built from a combination of residents’ values and future trends. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 7 7 KEY FINDINGS PART 1: WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? Overall, residents enjoy living in St. Louis Park and want to remain in the city. This reflects well on the St. Louis Park’s first visioning process in 1995, which was launched to create a “community of choice for a lifetime.”3 Residents who participated in Vision 3.0 in 2017 understand that St. Louis Park is changing – and for the most part, they welcome those changes, e.g. light rail, ongoing development, and progressive investments in sustainability, parks, and trails. What’s more, they trust the City and feel proud of how it is managed. They want to see St. Louis Park continue to be a leader among its peers. ”WHEN I THINK ABOUT MY COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD, I FEEL…” When asked, “When I think about my community/neighborhood, I feel….” 85% of respondents offered positive or affirming words like “grateful” and “safe.” In the online survey, when asked the same question, the most popular words were: safe, happy, proud, and good as Figure 2 shows. 3 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams 2006, accessed on August 20, 2017: http://www.mobiusmodel.com/downloads/1SLPBookDreams.pdf Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 8 8 Figure 2 (right): Word cloud of responses generated by online survey FIVE VALUES Neighborhood Meetings generated the most responses from the most diverse participants. The top themes from Neighborhood Meetings (shown in Table 3 below) were also reflected across the continuum of other inputs, e.g. online survey, town hall meetings, etc. A summary input from each method of engagement is included in the Appendix. Table 3: Major Themes from Neighborhood Meetings4 MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? Percent of Meeting Mentions Equity and inclusion for all, e.g. race, age, etc. 68.42% Social connections to each other and to the community 39.47% Housing – affordability and character 34.22% Transit and mobility 28.95% Care for the natural environment 28.95% 4 “Major themes” were determined at the conclusion of each Neighborhood Meeting, after residents talked with each other about what they valued in their community and what they’d like the community to stop doing, start doing, or keep doing in the future. A total of 38 neighborhood meetings were conducted during Vision 3.0. Looking at Table 3, “Equity and Inclusion” was a theme at over 68% of neighborhood meetings; “Social Connections” was a theme at over 39% of meetings, and so forth. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 9 9 VALUE #1 - EQUITY AND INCLUSION Over two-thirds of all Neighborhood Meetings valued ongoing efforts towards equity and inclusion for all - this includes race, age, life stage, and more. Responses and ideas ranged from the general to the specific as the following quotes demonstrate: “[We want more] intentional conversations about racial equity and diversity” “Racial equity - a forum for learning in the community…city and school should do this together (and) bring in our faith groups to help their groups with racial equity “ “Add a teen center” “Senior Center” “More programs for kids (all kids including immigrant/people of color)- summer sports and afterschool/homework help” Many participants noted St. Louis Park’s historical strength in welcoming all people. One Neighborhood Meeting group noted: “The history or SLP, the inclusivity – our city welcomed Jewish residents when many other areas did not.” Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 10 10 RESIDENTS HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE OF ST. LOUIS PARK, DEPENDING ON THEIR RACE AND AGE People of color feel differently than whites do about their community. For example, when asked, “When I think about my neighborhood/community, I feel…” 42% of people of color attending Neighborhood Meetings were more likely to use words including disconnected; sad; lonely or isolated; cold; frustrated; secluded; nervous, depressed, neglected or unsupported as Figure 3 (right) shows. By comparison, 79% of white survey respondents used positive words when responding to the same question (see Figure 2 on page 6.) Many older residents are also concerned about their place in St. Louis Park’s future. At Town Hall meetings and in online surveys, they indicate that they would like to stay in St. Louis Park, but affordability is a concern: increasing property taxes on fixed incomes will be difficult. They also report a preference for intergenerational activities. Figure 3 (above): Word cloud of responses generated by people of color at Neighborhood Meetings when asked, “When I think about my neighborhood/community I feel…” Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 11 11 The growth in St. Louis Park – among people of color (Figure 4) and among older citizens – are two trends that the entire metro is facing: “The region’s population is projected to grow by 824,000 in coming decades. By 2040, people of color will comprise 40% of the region; senior citizens, 21 percent.”5 The city once again has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to being a welcoming and inclusive place, to all. 5 A Growing and Changing Twin Cities Region: Regional Forecast to 2040, Metropolitan Council, February 2014. Accessed August 20, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/METC/files/6a/6a8c417a-4a85-4216-99e1- 43016bef725c.pdf Figure 4: Net increase in residents of color from 2000 to 2013 by city. Source: Metropolitan Council staff calculations based on Council’s 2013 Annual Population Estimates and U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, and 2011-2013 American Community Survey. Accessed July 11, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/getattachment/bfc72287-2b88- 49e0-96ea-2fa2ee2eb0d2/.aspx Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 12 12 VALUE #2 –SOCIAL CONNECTIONS Looking back, the first visioning project in the mid 1990s was focused on creating gathering places. As a result of that first visioning process, places including the Rec Center/Aquatic Center, Wolfe Park, the Amphitheatre, and Excelsior & Grand were built. Now over 20 years later, residents in 2017 are asking for those places to be programmed with activities and events that will bring them together and help them connect to each other. At almost 40% of Neighborhood Meetings, residents said things like: “Farmers market. Do more. We love it!” “(Our major theme is) Connectedness – both socially and physically – to the city, to our neighbors and to amenities” “(We are) proud that (the city) is willing to spend money on community. Could there be volunteer opportunities to leverage talents of community members?” “Continue neighborhood groups” “More activities - movie nights, exercise classes, community gardens, programs that help to include different cultural groups in the area. Adopt an adult” “[I wish} that we had more ‘accidental’ gathering spaces” Specifically, residents want more places where they can connect, e.g. farmer’s markets and indoor walking areas, and they want more events where they can meet and engage with each other. WHAT ONE WISH DO YOU HAVE FOR ST. LOUIS PARK? Throughout the Vision 3.0 project, “One Wish” chalkboards and sandwich boards were distributed throughout the community so that residents could write their “one wish” for the future of St. Louis Park (see photo on the next page.) Of all 377 ideas contributed, one out of four related to “public amenities” – places and ways that residents could connect to the city and to each other, as Table 4 on the following page shows. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 13 13 Figure 5: A “One Wish” chalkboard at a Children First event. Photo courtesy of Vision 3.0 Steering Committee member Rachel Harris Table 4: Residents’ responses (n=375) to “What One Wish Do you Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?” as recorded on chalkboards and sandwich boards “What One Wish Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park? Percent of Responses Public amenities that can be enjoyed by all residents, e.g. parks, open spaces, events, markets, pools, public recreation facilities 25.94% Transit and mobility, e.g. pedestrian safety, traffic, light rail 15.51% Retail, e.g. restaurants, unique shops, farmers markets 12.57% Housing, e.g. affordability, apartments, development 12.57% City services and policies, e.g. energy, leadership, parks 11.49% Other ideas 5.88% Race, ethnicity and inclusion 5.35% Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 14 14 VALUE #3 – HOUSING – AFFORDABILITY AND CHARACTER The next two values expressed by residents in Vision 3.0 relate to the built environment. Almost two-thirds of all neighborhood meetings developed major themes about housing and transportation, as you’ll learn in the following sections. “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE Although the term “affordable housing” was mentioned often, its meaning is different depending on one’s perspective: ¥ Seniors – or those nearing retirement – worry that they won’t be able to pay the city’s property taxes on a fixed income and therefore may not be able to afford to stay in St. Louis Park. They could sell their homes, but perceive a lack of affordable housing suited for seniors in St. Louis Park. ¥ Longtime residents express concern that their children —who’ve grown up and moved away to other cities and now want to come back to St. Louis Park —can’t afford starter homes in St. Louis Park. ¥ Residents who moved into small bungalows in St. Louis Park are ready to “move up” into larger homes, but don’t feel they can afford a larger house in St. Louis Park. ¥ The working poor – many who have their children in St. Louis Park schools – are getting priced out of once-affordable housing. Although there is consensus that more affordable housing is needed, there is also vocal opposition by some residents to multi-story “high density” development. Many residents also expressed concern about teardowns and McMansions. Overall, residents want to preserve the Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 15 15 character of St. Louis Park’s traditional single-family homes and ensure that housing continues to be affordable for many people. The issue of affordable housing is not unique to St. Louis Park. City Councils in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other first and second ring suburbs are studying the issue and the working together to devise strategies. For its part, St. Louis Park is currently developing several affordable housing projects and working with other communities on a regional approach. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 16 16 VALUE #4 - TRANSIT & MOBILITY Residents value getting around town easily and safely. This was the fourth most popular value stated by residents during Vision 3.0. Residents focused on the following: 1. Bike safety, especially the ability to ride safely in traffic 2. Pedestrian safety and walkability on sidewalks, in crosswalks, and in parks at dusk or nighttime 3. Bus routes and frequency. This issue was more prevalent among people of color, who noted that public transportation feels inadequate to those who don’t work typical 9-5 jobs, or who prefer cheaper places to shop outside of St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 17 17 VALUE #5 - CARE & ENJOYMENT OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Beginning in 2007 with Vision 2.0, St. Louis Park set an ambitious target: “To be a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.”6 Today, the city has dedicated staff focused solely on this effort and all residents are beneficiaries, living within a half mile of one of St. Louis Park’s 52 parks. Nearly one-third (29.85%) of all neighborhood meetings generated a major theme about protecting and preserving the city’s natural habitat. Town Hall meetings, online surveys, and One Wish chalkboards reinforced this value, including parks, green spaces, and environmental stewardship in their Top 5. From taking care of the water in our lakes to support for community gardens, residents of St. Louis Park are committed to green space. 6 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 18 18 PART 2: TOP FOUR TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK Welcome to Part 2! Part 1 was all about resident input. This section, “Part 2: Top Four Trends Facing St. Louis Park” is based on a trends sorting exercise completed by two groups independently: the Vision 3.0 Steering Committee (in March 2017) and the City Council and city department leaders (in May 2017). How were the trends in Vision 3.0 identified? Both groups completed the following activity. 1. Groups were subdivided into four teams: (1) resource trends; (2) technology trends; (3) demographic trends; and (4) governance trends. 2. Each team was asked to review the trends associated with their team, as published in the Alliance for Innovation’s report, “The Next Big Things: the Future of Local Government.”7 3. Teams then played a tabletop game where they sorted each trend in their category based on two questions: ¥ How much impact (low, medium, high) will this trend have on St. Louis Park in the future? ¥ How certain are we (uncertain, moderately certain, completely certain) that this trend will impact St. Louis Park in the future? 4. Each team took their high certainty and high impact trends and ranked them on a scale from zero to ten, based on St. Louis Park’s readiness. For example, they rated the trend “zero” if they felt the city was not ready, or rated it a “ten” if they felt the city was completely ready. 7 Learn more and download a copy of the full report at: http://transformgov.org/en/Page/101074/The_Next_Big_Things Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 19 19 5. After both groups completed the trend sorting exercise, the consultant reviewed both teams’ responses. The four trends outlined below were identified by both groups to be high impact, high certainty, and low (zero to four) readiness. TREND #1: Declining Federal Government Effectiveness “The main political challenge of the next decade will be fixing government.” – John Micklewait and Adrian Wooldridge, The Fourth Revolution The “layer cake” of government that most city leaders and residents grew up in— where the federal government has money, states have power, and cities have problems—has been cut into pieces. Our federal government is facing critical long-term budget shortfalls, many states have become ideological battlegrounds, and cities…well, cities still have challenges. As one member of the Vision 3.0 Steering Committee summarized: “As the federal government ends funding for programs, it doesn’t eliminate the federal requirements, so the city has to absorb more costs to meet legal requirements.” St. Louis Park should not count on the federal government for policy leadership or funding for critical future local issues. TREND #2: Elder Expense Many countries and states are facing a “Baby Boomer bulge,” when the share of citizens over age 65 begins to increase. This creates three spinoff effects: Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 20 20 1. It puts immediate and direct pressure on local governments, which are expected to pay pension benefits to retiring public employees 2. It creates additional federal and local budget pressure. In the U.S. for example, if there are no significant changes to entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), those entitlements will consume the entire federal budget by 2030. 3. Generational conflict - When social security was invented in the U.S., there were 14 employees supporting every retiree. Back then, people lived for a few years post- retirement, so the total amount of benefits paid was manageable. Fast forward to today when there are only two workers in the U.S. supporting every retiree…and retirees live longer. It adds up. The expense of supporting a large, retired population could spell generational conflict, more dramatic changes to retirement ages, and/or restructuring of entitlements. Between 2005 and 2035, the population of Minnesotans over age 65 will more than double due to greater longevity. By contrast, the population under age 65 will grow by only 10%. As a result, the age composition of all parts of the state, including St. Louis Park, will be much older in 2035. Between 2005 and 2009, the median age in St. Louis Park was estimated at 35.5 years, compared to 36.5 years for the United States as a whole, with 13.6% of St. Louis Park residents over age 65 and 7.1% under age 5. 8 TREND #3: Climate Change Although “increased storm water” was not listed as one of the original 44 trends, climate change was. Independently, both groups (the Vision 3.0 Steering 8 Source: STRATIS HEALTH - WWW.CULTURECARECONNECTION.ORG 2 CITY REPORT: ST. LOUIS PARK Sources: Metropolitan Council Community Profiles, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/Default.aspx; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 21 21 Committee and the City Council and Department Heads) agreed that within the overall trend of climate change, increasing storm water is the issue that could be more difficult for St. Louis Park to address for three reasons: ¥ Storm water is predicted to increase in volume ¥ The quality of storm water is diminishing ¥ St. Louis Park’s original storm water infrastructure standards were low Although St. Louis Park is retrofitting its storm water system to meet the Minnehaha Creek standards, storm water remains a concern for St. Louis Park’s future. TREND #4: The changing middle class America’s middle class has been getting squeezed since the 1970s.9 The U.S. Commerce Department defines “middle class families” as: “…defined by their aspirations more than their income […] middle-class families aspire to home ownership, a car, college education for their children, health and retirement security and occasional family vacations.10 Because the costs of these middle class aspirations have outpaced wage growth11, many Americans are getting squeezed out of the middle class and falling into poverty. Although St. Louis Park does not have the same levels of poverty as its peers in the Twin Cities metro, many neighboring communities are experiencing higher concentrations of poverty. This trend – St. Lois Park’s middle class and its levels of poverty - should be carefully monitored for two reasons: 9 Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, 2010, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/100226-annual-report-middle- class.pdf and “Most Americans are no longer middle class”, Minnesota Public Radio, December 10, 2015, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/12/09/npr-middle-class 10 Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, p. 10 11 Ibid, p. 11 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 22 22 1. In their book, The Spirit Level, public health researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett documented a series of correlations between a strong middle class and public health. Greater income equality (in other words, a strong middle class) is correlated to better health and social outcomes, e.g. lower rates of drug abuse, higher rates of education, lower rates of imprisonment, and greater social mobility. On the other hand, when there is less equality, e.g. more poverty or greater wealth disparities, social and health outcomes are negatively impacted’ 2. The Met Council reports “Research on concentrated poverty suggests it may have an overarching impact on residents—even those who are not themselves low-income— such as reducing potential economic mobility.”12 Maintaining St. Louis Park’s strong middle class will correlate to better economic and public health outcomes for the city. 12 POVERTY ENDURES: POVERTY RATE FELL SLIGHTLY, BUT AREAS OF CONCENTRATED POVERTY EXPANDS , March 1, 2017, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Communities/News- Articles/Poverty-endures-poverty-rate-fell-slightly,-but-a.aspx Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 23 23 RECOMMENDATIONS: FIVE ASPIRATIONS FOR ST. LOUIS PARK’S FUTURE In parts one and two on the preceding pages, we summarized resident input during Vision 3.0 and identified four trends that community leaders feel will be important to the city’s future. In this section, we blend residents’ input and the trends to form a series of recommendations. The following five Aspirations meet these criteria: ¥ The aspirations respond to residents’ wishes for the future of St. Louis Park ¥ The aspirations are proactive about addressing critical trends facing the city ¥ The aspirations build on St. Louis Park’s strengths and current initiatives The Vision 3.0 aspirations are prioritized according to Minnesota-based futurist Cecily Sommers “Four Forces” model13 which suggests the following rank-order of issues facing a community: 1. Resources The availability of resources is most closely tied to survival, so it is the most important category. Resources include the food, water, air, habitat, and other material nature offers. Especially important are the resources that enable energy production. Trends and resource drivers related 13 Cecily Sommers, Think Like a Futurist, Jossey-Bass, 2012 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 24 24 to this force include: climate, ocean, space, energy, minerals, water, land, food, animals and forest. 2. Technology Technology includes the tools and knowledge we use to extract and transform resources into new products and capacities that make our lives more comfortable and convenient, or to develop capabilities beyond our physical bodies that allow us to go places and discover new realities. Trends and drivers related to this force include: genetics, robotics, information, nanotechnology, health care, education, collaboration, virtual reality, games, telephony, manufacturing, infrastructure, and capital formation. 3. Demographics Demographics are the “who” behind society’s changes. People are producers. We produce through our physical and intellectual labor, so “who” is producing matters, e.g. does St. Louis Park have enough working people to support its very young and very old; does St. Louis Park have the right ratio of women to men; is there enough social cohesion among groups to ensure the good of the community? Trends and resource drivers related to this force include: population growth, the developing world, industrialization, immigration, multiculturalism, multilingualism, nationalism, and conflict. 4. Governance Distribution and management of society’s assets—resources, technology and people—are administered through the rule of law and the rule of markets. Of all the forces, governance is the most reactive, i.e. changes in resources, technology and people often run ahead of government’s capability to deal with them. Trends and drivers related to this force include: Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 25 25 tribalism, market drivers, values, interests, beliefs, online communities, personalization, polarization, and identity politics. Aspiration #1 - St. Louis Park is Committed to Being an Innovator for its Approach to Climate Change This aspiration responds to: ¥ City Council’s, department heads’ and steering committee’s concern about the increasing amount (and diminished quality of) storm water (Trend #3). Because water is a resource, it is prioritized in our aspirations ¥ The City of St. Louis Park’s current, ambitious, climate change agenda ¥ Residents’ wishes that St. Louis Park continues to care for its natural environment (Value #4) This is not a new aspiration; rather it is a strong endorsement for continuation of St. Louis Park’s climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies outlined in its updated Climate Action Plan (to be released in late 2017). This aspiration is intended to give City Council and staff confidence that the Vision 3.0 steering committee recognizes the challenges that climate change will have on the community and supports a proactive approach to stormwater management and other climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 26 26 Aspiration #2: St. Louis Park is Committed to all Neighborhoods and Residents Enjoying Best In Class Parks and Recreation This aspiration responds to: ¥ One of St. Louis Park’s core strengths - residents’ deep affection for their parks ¥ Residents’ wish to continue to enjoy their natural environment (Value #4) ¥ Residents’ desire to connect more with each other, as parks are vibrant gathering places (Value #2) ¥ Increasing density in St. Louis Park To fulfill this aspiration, the Vision 3.0 Steering Committee recommends that St. Louis Park Plan be updated to account for the increased density currently under development. The current Park Plan was developed in a prior era, before the Twin Cities began to experience growth. Additional ideas for consideration: ¥ An “Explore Your Park” event - or rotating events at parks across the city - to expose all residents to their proximity to public parks. As one steering committee member noted, “Most people have no idea how close they are to a park!” ¥ Work with apartment owners and management companies to ensure that new and prospective residents know about their closest parks, trails and green spaces. What is Connect St. Louis Park? Connect St. Louis Park is the city's 10-year, $25 million plan to add more sidewalks, trails, bike lanes and bikeways throughout the community. The plan was developed with community input through a process that took several years. City Council approved the plan in 2013, and work began in 2015. It stemmed from Vision 2.0 in 1997, which encouraged the city to embrace active living, sidewalks and trails. Learn more at: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-divisions/engineering/connect-the-park Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 27 27 Aspiration #3: St. Louis Park is Committed to Supporting Children and Schools in our Community This aspiration responds to: ¥ Improving equity and inclusion for all (Value #1) ¥ Changing middle class (Trend #4) ¥ The changing structure of the economy (see below) ¥ The community’s strong support for programs like Children First The economy is undergoing a profound economic shift: future generations will require more than a high school education to reach the middle class. By 2020 two thirds of all jobs will require some sort of postsecondary education – that is not a four-year liberal arts education, but some amount of postsecondary education. Seventy percent of all jobs in Minnesota will require postsecondary education. That’s 7 percentage points higher than the national average. St. Louis Park prides itself on the percentage of students who complete high school, but in the future, high school completion will not be enough. To be competitive in the future, all students must also attain a post-secondary degree or credential. Although it is beyond the city's scope to change public education policy, there are a series of tools it can leverage: ¥ Support St. Louis Park’s public schools in committing to and preparing all students to obtain a post-secondary degree or credential, and communicate the importance of this goal to city residents and businesses. ¥ Address bus service to and from Normandale and other two-year colleges. ¥ Work with Twin West, Rotary, St. Louis Park High School internship advisory committee, and/or other partners to provide internships and work experience to high school students throughout the year, to expose them to careers and local government Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 28 28 ¥ Support the civic mission of schools to prepare informed and involved citizens. Why is “supporting the schools” included in Vision 3.0? Many residents of St. Louis Park recognize that strong schools are part of the city’s brand. And although the City of St. Louis Park does not play a formal or financial role in supporting the schools, it’s critical to support the aspects of a community that make it livable and attractive to residents. For this reason, the Steering Committee felt strongly that this aspiration should be a part of St. Louis Park’s future vision. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 29 29 Aspiration #4: St. Louis Park is Committed to Providing a Variety of Options for People to Make Their Way Around the City Comfortably, Safely, and Reliably – on foot, bike or transit This aspiration responds to: ¥ Improving equity and inclusion for all (Value #1) ¥ Improving transit and mobility (Value #4) ¥ St. Louis Park’s increasing older population (Trend #2) ¥ The Light Rail Transit station’s opening in 2021 St. Louis Park’s older population is living longer, its younger population is becoming more diverse, and technology like car sharing service and soon, autonomous cars, are on the rise. The traditional transportation system – and mindset – that relies primarily on single owner-occupied vehicles will change in the coming years. The city is already in the process of planning for light rail stations and connections from those stations to other parts of town. The following resident- driven ideas can help the city expand that planning and address its changing demographics: 1. Increasing safety in crosswalks, especially in areas with a lot of traffic 2. Increased park lighting to make parks feel safer after dark 3. More north-south and east-west mass transit options, e.g. circulator buses that run between the west part of town (where kids live) and the rec center 4. Bike and motorist rules that comply with adjacent communities ¥ Review the list of specific transit ideas that residents developed during Vision 3.0. Which are in process? Which are in queue? ¥ Consider bike sharing, e.g. extending Nice Bike to St. Louis Park Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 30 30 Aspiration #5: St. Louis Park is a Committed to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion This aspiration responds to: ¥ Improving equity and inclusion for all (Value #1) ¥ Increase residents’ social connections (Value #2) ¥ Improve or preserve housing – affordability and character (Value #3) ¥ Changing middle class (Trend #4) ¥ The city’s current efforts to improve its accessibility and responsiveness to all citizens “The best thing going on right now, in my view, is the renewed, increased focus on racial justice: Increased opportunities for both dialogue and action through the Human Rights Commission and the new Allies group, and - especially - articulated support for this priority from Mayor Spano and other community leaders.” – Vision 3.0 participant The intention of this aspiration is to create an ecosystem in St. Louis Park where diversity is expected and inclusion and equity are a way of life. St. Louis Park has proven that it can take on large, systemic issues. In 2007, when “sustainability” was still a buzzword among a small niche of eco-warriors, St. Louis Park accepted residents’ challenge and became a leader in sustainability practices and outcomes. In 2017, residents make a similar challenge: to graduate the city’s discussion about racial equity and inclusion to measureable, systemic outcomes. The City Council and city staff are already working to address the city’s equity and inclusion, e.g. the City Council and staff are completing a one-year curriculum designed to help city officials understand race, equity and privilege. Additionally the City is in the process of higher a Racial Equity Coordinator to further the City’s commitment to equity and inclusion. The following recommendations extend that momentum outward to the community, inward to staffing and committee structures, and throughout the city’s day-to-day business: Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 31 31 ¥ Offer equity and inclusion training to city committees and boards; neighborhood leaders, i.e. block captains or others; nonprofit organizations, i.e. Friends of the Arts; business leaders; and other key stakeholders. The goal is for a broad cross-section of community leaders and influencers to experience similar training and awareness, so they can support and encourage each other and work together to make St. Louis Park more inclusive. ¥ Support the work of the Multicultural Committee Advisory Commission and the city’s Human Resources team’s efforts at citywide equity and inclusion. ¥ Work with community partners, including the Multicultural Committee, to make diversity and inclusion a priority in all components of city business. Vision 3.0 was an excellent example of the City Council intentionally appointing diverse representatives from a broad cross-section of the community, which greatly increased participation and input. ¥ Create community festivals that celebrate the community’s diversity from food to dance to music. This will help make the city’s implicit diversity visible and it also responds to residents’ desires for more opportunities to connect with each other. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 32 32 THE HISTORY OF VISIONING IN ST. LOUIS PARK Since 1995, residents’ input has been the inspiration for many projects implemented by the city, school district and chamber of commerce. Vision 1.0 – 1994/1995 In the mid 1990s, St. Louis Park undertook its first visioning process.14 The original vision – “A Community of Choice for a Lifetime” — was based on the premise that the city of St. Louis Park had two choices: wait for things to happen, or make things happen At the time, citizens were concerned about a lack of a “downtown” and wanted more sidewalks and bike paths, among other things. Over the next ten years, the city went to work building the Rec Center/Aquatic Center, Wolfe Park, the Amphitheatre, Excelsior & Grand, St. Louis Parks and trails plan, housing opportunities, stronger neighborhoods and made a decisive move toward determining its own destiny. Vision 2.0 - 2006/2007 A decade later St. Louis Park launched its second community visioning initiative and used the Appreciative Inquiry process to interview over 1,000 residents. Vision 2.0’s goal was to position St. Louis Park for the opportunities of the 21st century. After the community interviews were completed, eight themes emerged and action teams were formed to address them: the environment; transportation; sidewalks and trails; gathering places; community events; housing; arts and culture; and diversity. 14 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams 2006 and Report to the Community on Vision St. Louis Park accessed on July 10, 2017: https://www.stlouispark.org/home/showdocument?id=1102 and http://www.mobiusmodel.com/downloads/1SLPBookDreams.pdf Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 33 33 The Vision 2.0 action teams included participants from throughout the community who worked for six months to put together goals, action steps, timelines and suggestions for additional partnerships. The city council adopted these four strategic directions at the action teams’ suggestion: 1 St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. 2 St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. 3 St. Louis Park is committed to providing well- maintained and diverse housing options. 4 St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 34 34 Vision 3.0 - 2017 Building on the legacy of the city’s first two visioning projects, Vision 3.0 was launched in early 2017 to focus on St. Louis Park’s next 20 years. The City Council was clear: Vision 3.0 must engage as many citizens as possible, especially those who may feel marginalized or might not normally attend city meetings. As a result, hundreds of St. Louis Park residents – from school- aged children to seniors, from renters to business owners to immigrants – shared their ideas for St. Louis Park’s future. A sustained publicity effort - through social media, cable TV and even yard signs! – encouraged involvement. Figure #: Vision 3.0 yard signs: “We Believe: Cities are for People, Conversations Matter, The Future is Ours to Create.” Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 35 35 THANK YOUS So much energy and so many hours went into this project. We are most grateful to residents of St. Louis Park who participated in Vision 3.0. In addition, the following folks made this project possible. Our thanks to: The Vision 3.0 Steering Committee was selected by the City Council to make sure the project was responsive to community needs and resulted in future-focused and actionable recommendations. In addition to providing guidance, steering committee members hosted and facilitated community meetings, attended town hall meetings, and/or hosted One Wish Chalkboards in the community. Figure #: Vision 3.0 Steering Committee (L to R): Larry North, Rachel Harris, Julie Sweitzer, Lisa Genis, Matt Flores, George Hagemann, Justin Grays. Not pictured: Lynette Dumalag, Amaya Fokuo Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 36 36 The St. Louis Park City Council invested resources and pushed the consultants and staff to reach farther and deeper into the community to ensure all residents – especially those who may not normally participate in a process like this – were engaged. Their support and consistent encouragement helped make this process the most inclusive and widespread visioning process to date. Thanks to: ¥ Jake Spano, Mayor ¥ Steve Hallfin, At Large A ¥ Thom Miller, At Large B ¥ Susan Sanger, Ward 1 ¥ Anne Mavity, Ward 2 ¥ Gregg Lindberg, Ward 3 ¥ Tim Brausen, Ward 4 Our Vision 3.0 Facilitators attended training, convened meetings, reported their results and were ambassadors for this ambitious effort. Many, many thanks to: John Wheeler; Bruce Browning; Carol Bungert; Gabriel Rios; Sara Maaske; Nene Matey Keke; Jonathan Shaver; Dale Tatarek; Fatuma Irshat; Dan Olson; Sue Grey; Meta Webb; Terry Ruttger; Jennifer Chenoweth; Anna Mae; John Wheeler; Katie Walechka; Claudia Johnston-Madison; Jamie Marshall; Christina Woodlee; Curtis Wilson; Julie Rappaport; Noelle Racette; Susan Niz; Bridget Rathsack; Marcy Joseph; Terry Gips; Rhoda Quick; Jim Beneke; Julie Sweitzer; Lisa Greene; Lisa Genis; Tiffany Hoffmann; Catherine Johnson; Lisa Peilen; Amy Beilke; Juli Rasmussen; Lisa Pannell; Meg McCormick; David Pacheco; Hannah Sekaran; Jeanne Wolfe; Alex Draeger; Marty Lee; Carrie Jennissen; Steven Hansen; Bob Chatfield; Jennie Edstrom; Shannon Farrell; Tom Green; Azzahya Williams; John Shevlin; Seka Kovacevic; Catherine Doyle-Burris; Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 37 37 Angelica Lee; Olaf Jorgenson; Judith Moore; Liz Feeney; Amy McTavish; Suzanne Stang; Dustin DeBoer; Matt Flory; John McHugh; Brian Shekleton; Elizabeth Stroder Figure #: Vision 3.0 Facilitator Training, February 2017 Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner for the City of St. Louis Park, was the city’s project manager for Vision 3.0 effort. Meg coordinated dozens of meetings, answered hundreds of citizen and committee emails, organized all steering committee meetings, and was the main contact for the consultants, City Council and City staff. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 38 38 What is YOUR vision for St. Louis Park? Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 39 39 APPENDIX The appendix will include a method-by-method summary of resident responses. Table #: Resident Contributions by Format and Number of Responses How Did Residents Contribute? Responses Neighborhood Meetings 1,938 Online Survey 1,201 “One Wish” Chalkboards and Sandwich Boards 375 NextDoor.com 304 Town Hall Meetings at City Hall 299 Facebook Live Town Hall Meetings 232 Facebook and Twitter Questions 72 Business Community Meetings 68 Total 4,999 HOW DID RESIDENTS PARTICIPATE – MORE DETAIL Residents had many options to offer their perspective to Vision 3.0: 1 Neighborhood meetings - 39715 residents attended 38 neighborhood meetings hosted by 65 trained volunteers. These meeting generated 1,938 comments and ideas 2 Facebook Live meetings were attended by 63 people, generated 353 comments, had 2,800 views, and reached 8,193 people 15 More people may have attended these meetings, but 397 people completed optional demographic cards. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 40 40 3 The city distributed a “Question of the Week” on Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor.com. “Questions of the week” generated 304 responses on NextDoor, 54 Facebook responses and 18 Twitter comments 4 Town hall meetings at city hall included 75 participants and generated 299 ideas and comments 5 “One Wish Chalkboards” – chalkboards or sandwich boards that asked, “What one with do you for the future of St. Louis Park?” - visited 20 community locations and events from the Mayor’s State of the City meeting to Parktacular and generated 377 comments 6 Several special meetings with the business community, the Meadowbrook Collaborative, and others were hosted, to ensure the broadest possible reach 7 A community survey – both electronic and hard copy – was completed by 180 residents and generated 1,201 comments Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 41 41 [This page left blank for back cover] Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 2) Title: Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Page 42 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Walker-Lake Area Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Council is asked to affirm the Walker-Lake focus group’s preferred choice for the name and branding of the area and provide comments on the proposed Walker Building plans and uses. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed logo selected by the Focus Group acceptable for branding and marketing of the Walker-Lake area? Do the additional Walker-Lake activities identified in this report meet with Council’s expectations? SUMMARY: Walker-Lake Area The Walker-Lake area focus group concluded their meetings, and voted to proceed with the name “Historic Walker Lake” and attached logo. With the Council’s consent, the neighborhood would like to begin implementing the new brand this fall. Implementation includes marketing and planning for area improvements such as way-finding and other streetscape elements designed to establish the brand and area identity. It is important to the neighborhood to have the brand in place soon and to start promoting the area and implementing placemaking elements to generate more activity in Historic Walker Lake area. Walker Building The Walker Building is currently under contract to be purchased. The prospective buyer is a doctor who currently owns and operates a physical therapy business in St. Paul and would open a similar business in the Walker Building. The prospective owner, Dr. Maggie Henjum, will be present at the August 28th study session to share her building renovation plans with the Council. Other Walker-Lake Initiatives The following report further details all the Walker-Lake initiatives including Revitalization of the Walker-Lake area, Walker Street reconstruction, The Nest and Historical Society space searches, and The Holiday Train. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Total consultant fee for the brand identity work was $11,500. This amount was funded by the Moving the Market Grant the city received. No funds are being requested from the city in connection with the brand development. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Historic Walker Lake Logo Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Walker-Lake Area Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Branding The Walker-Lake focus group brand identity work has been completed. As part of the Moving the Market grant from Hennepin County, staff has been working with consultant Nemer Fieger (Consultant) and a focus group since February to develop a brand identity (name and logo) for the Walker-Lake area. The Consultant and city staff hosted three focus group sessions and a survey with nine stakeholders including business owners, property owners, organizations and neighborhood members. After the first session and survey, the focus group selected Historic Walker Lake as the preferred name for the area. The Consultant then developed a number of brand/logo concepts, which were presented to the focus group at its second session. The focus group provided feedback on the concepts and after revisions were made conducted a final vote on their preference at the last group meeting in July. The preferred logo concept is attached. A representative of the Consultant will be available at the study session to answer questions. Council is asked to provide feedback on this design and affirm the focus group’s choice. With the Council’s consent, implementation steps will begin including marketing and planning for area improvements, such as way-finding and other streetscape elements designed to establish the brand and area identity. Focus group participates included: •Curt Rahman, area property owner •Allison Bittner, STEP representative •Jeanne Andersen, SLP Historical Society •Karen Laukkonen, neighborhood resident •Lara Dietrich, area business owner (Maestoso Music Studio) •Nene Matey-Keke, area business owner (RNR realty International) •Phil Weber, area business owner (Park Tavern) •Sara Thompson, SLP School District Communication Director •Sheila Asato, area business owner (Monkey Bridge Arts) Revitalization of the Walker-Lake Area A logo/brand platform has been selected for the Walker-Lake Area, as noted above. The Musicant Group is finalizing the Activation Plan which provides strategic recommendations on potential area enhancements, along with a prioritized list of actionable improvements and activities that would re-energize the area. The final Activation Plan is expected to be completed in early September. Once received, staff will share the plan with Council. This plan will provide easy–to- implement steps designed to generate more activity in the Walker-Lake business area. The remaining $13,000 under the Moving the Market Grant will be used for implementation of placemaking/way-finding elements. Staff will continue to search for additional funding opportunities to enhance the Historic Walker Lake area. Walker Building Update As noted in the June 26th Study Session report: Walker-Lake Initiatives Update, the Walker Building is under contract to be purchased by Dr. Maggie Henjum, who is currently in the process of conducting an environmental site assessment of the property and working with her architect on renovation plans that would preserve and restore some of the historical character of the building. The architect has been in contact with the St. Louis Park Historical Society regarding the building’s former appearance and has solicited input on potential internal and external restorative actions the prospective owner may wish to pursue. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Walker-Lake Area Update The due diligence period runs to the end of August and, if Dr. Henjum elects to purchase the property, she will be obligated to close by the end of September. Initial plans include converting the first floor to four health and wellness-related businesses - one of which would be the doctor’s second physical therapy facility (the first, called Motion, is located in St. Paul). Current tenants leasing space upstairs would be allowed to remain for another year or until their leases expire. Dr. Henjum believes that the building’s name, Walker, along with its proximity to Methodist Hospital perfectly complement the wellness-theme she hopes to both structure and cultivate throughout the building. Dr. Henjum will be attending the August 28th Study Session to share her plans for the building and answer questions. Walker Street & Library Lane Street Reconstruction Engineering will be starting work this fall on the design and feasibility study for street and alley rehabilitation projects in the Historic Walker Lake area. Prior to starting, design staff will reach out to the property owners and businesses to discuss and refine the scope of this project. The goal of the feasibility study is to analyze and determine the future design of the streets and alleys in this district. It is anticipated that streetscape elements such as streetlights, benches, pavers, and gathering spaces may be incorporated into the design. The locations of the work proposed in the next 5 years: •Library Lane (Lake Street to Walker Ave)- includes on-street parking •Walker Ave (Lake Street to Brunswick) - includes the reconfiguration of the intersection of Walker Ave/ Lake Street, and on-street parking •Brunswick (Walker to Frontage Road) •Frontage road (Brunswick to alley) •Alley between Walker and Frontage Road •Alley between Library Lane and Railroad tracks. •Bikeway (Lake Street) •Bikeway (Wooddale) It is anticipated that these projects will include the following work: •Replace pavement •Remove and replace curb and gutter as needed •Remove and replace sidewalk as needed, and incorporate ADA improvements •Reconstruct gravel alleys in concrete – standard alley width is 10 feet •Intersection enhancements/ improvements •Planting of street trees •Boulevard restoration The Nest Staff prepared an Inventory of Prospective Properties for the Nest in the Walker-Lake area. The Nest Team is evaluating these space options and is expected to return to the Council in October once it has a recommended location and business plan. Historical Society Location Search Staff is prepared to conduct a location search and provide an Inventory of Prospective space options for the Historical Society once the organization prepares preferred location criteria and a business plan reflecting how the space will be financially supported. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Walker-Lake Area Update Holiday Train Because The Holiday Train was such a successful event last year, STEP and the city have applied to have the train come back this year. It is anticipated that Canadian Pacific will send official word of the CP Holiday Train coming back to St. Louis Park by the end of September. Planning for the Train will begin as soon as notification is received. This event would serve to help establish the new Historic Walker Lake brand and encourage people to visit the area. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The City Council is asked to provide feedback on the proposed Historic Walker Lake branding and affirm the logo chosen by the Focus Group to be used for branding and marketing of the area. NEXT STEPS: •Implementation of Walker-Lake Action Plan: o Unveil branding o Way-finding design and installation o Streetscape planning o Continued placemaking implementation o Continue to source additional funding to further plan implementation •Staff will continue to work with and provide any necessary assistance to Dr. Henjum as her team continues to prepare renovation plans for the Walker Building. •Staff will continue to assist The Nest and the Historical Society with site search information with the understanding that these organizations will need to lead their respective site search processes. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Walker-Lake Area Update Historic Walker Lake Focus Group Logo Preference: Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this discussion is to provide the City Council with an overview of proposed changes and additions to Chapter 22 and Chapter 8 of the city code. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the Chapter 22 and Chapter 8 ordinances? SUMMARY: The changes in Chapter 22 (Solid Waste Management) include a total re-write of the chapter to update definitions, bring our curbside program requirements in line with current practices, clarify and improve recycling requirements for multi-family buildings, add recycling requirements for new and expanding commercial buildings, revise standards for backyard compost bins and update bulk material container (dumpster) requirements. The changes in Chapter 8 (Business and Licenses) include updating and harmonizing relevant definitions with Chapter 22, and adding requirements for licensed solid waste collectors to label collection containers for recycling and organics recycling used at multi-family and commercial locations. A detailed description of these changes is provided in the “Discussion” section of this report. A summary of the changes can be found in Attachment A. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Att. A - Ch. 22 and 8 Summary of Updates Prepared by: Emily Barker, Solid Waste Program Specialist Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) DISCUSSION This report provides information related to the proposed ordinance changes in Chapter 22 (Solid Waste Management) and the solid waste related changes to Chapter 8 (Business and Licenses). Listed below is a summary of the proposed changes. Chapter 22: Solid Waste Management Many changes were needed throughout Chapter 22, so a total review and re-write has been done. In addition to revising and rearranging existing text, changes were made to do the following: 1.Update definitions, replace outdated language and eliminate redundant or conflicting language. 2. Bring our curbside collection program requirements in line with current practices. 3. Clarify and improve recycling requirements for multi-family buildings. 4. Add recycling requirements for new commercial buildings. 5. Modify backyard compost bin material requirements. 6.Update bulk material containers to include soft-sided dumpster bags and provide separate timeframe allowances for containers dependent on their use. Residential Curbside Collection Program The following changes are being made to Article II (Residential Curbside Collection Program): 1.Organics recycling – add requirements for organics recycling, as the current ordinance does not include language regarding organics. 2.Cart storage – change to allow storage of carts along a garage in the alley right-of-way (between the garage and the alley). The existing ordinance does not allow storage of carts in the alley right-of-way, a practice which has existed for many years and is violation of the existing ordinance but, from a practical perspective, is not being enforced. 3.Frequency of collection for garbage – in order to allow for potential every-other-week collection in the future, the ordinance must be amended to change the current frequency requirement from “every week” to “no less frequently than every-other-week.” While this will not require every-other-week for all residents, it creates flexibility to allow for every- other-week collection service in the future. 4.Time of collection for all solid waste services – current ordinance requires that collection occur between 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays when necessary (such as a holiday week). This does not match our current practice and agreements with haulers. Hours for collection are being changed to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday. Multi-family Recycling Current ordinance, as well as state law, require recycling in all multi-family buildings. The intent of the proposed changes is to improve the programs available to the 40 percent of St. Louis Park residents who live in multi-family buildings. Hennepin County’s recent sort of multi-family recycling found a 24 percent contamination rate, so we know there is room to improve. Improving Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) recycling in multi-family settings can be a challenge, but we also know that basic best practices can positively impact recycling outcomes in multi-family buildings. While many of the changes in Article III (Multi-Family Recycling) are housekeeping in nature, the following significant changes are being made to achieve greater recycling success in multi- family buildings: 1. Weekly service capacity – State Building Code requires that available space for the collection of recyclable materials is sufficient to contain all the recyclable materials generated from the building. Through waste sorts done by the state and county, we know that at least 50 percent of household materials generated could be recycled, but space is often insufficient in multi-family buildings to accommodate these materials. In order to address this issue, St. Louis Park’s multi-family buildings will need to have the weekly service capacity of their recycling (combined with organics recycling, if organics recycling is provided) be equal to or greater than the garbage capacity. Weekly Recycling + Organics Capacity ≥ Weekly Garbage Capacity This can be achieved by adjusting the size of dumpsters or carts or by increasing the frequency of service. 2. Education – The property owner or property manager for a multi-family property shall provide educational materials to all tenants at least once per year. Educational information is available through Hennepin County at no cost. Commercial Recycling The City of St. Louis Park currently has no recycling requirements for commercial buildings. While the state of Minnesota enacted a law for certain commercial buildings which went into effect on January 1, 2016, it is unknown the number of buildings impacted or in compliance within the city. Article IV (Commercial Recycling) establishes recycling requirements based on the type of commercial building: existing or new or expanded existing. While several requirements are the same, a few significant differences are established. 1. Existing buildings – Any commercial building constructed or permitted prior to November 1, 2017, will need to ensure compliance with Division I (Existing Commercial Buildings), which is largely a reiteration of state laws and codes. This includes Minnesota 115A.151 which went into effect on January 1, 2016, and requires recycling of at least three material types for buildings that contract for four cubic yards or more per week of solid waste. Division I also requires that the collection point for recyclable materials must be “in close proximity” to the collection point for garbage. Note: If a building was permitted prior to November 1, 2017, and additional requirements were put in place by the city through conditional use or other permitting agreements, those requirements must be followed in addition to these new requirements. 2. New or expanded existing buildings – Any commercial building permitted and constructed after November 1, 2017, will need to ensure compliance with Division II (New Commercial Buildings). These commercial buildings will need to provide recycling collection for all traditional recyclables (paper and cardboard, glass, metal, plastics), as well as organics recycling if they intend, at any point, to contain a licensed food Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 4 Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) establishment. Division II requires that the collection point for recyclables must be “immediately adjacent” to the collection point for garbage. Additionally, like multi-family buildings, the weekly service capacity of recycling (combined with organics recycling, if organics recycling is provided or required) shall be equal to or greater than the weekly garbage capacity Weekly Recycling + Organics Capacity ≥ Weekly Garbage Capacity 3.All commercial buildings – In Division III (All Commercial Buildings), the property owner or property manager at all commercial buildings will be required to provide educational materials to tenants explaining the materials accepted. In addition to the requirements for the responsible party (property owner or property manager) to provide recycling, there is a requirement that tenants separate materials for recycling and organics recycling, as applicable. This allows city staff to also work directly with individual businesses to ensure quality commercial recycling programs in the city. Backyard Composting The primary change in Article V (Backyard Composting) is to add additional materials out of which a compost bin may be constructed. Existing ordinance limits materials to wood, plastic or fiberglass. The change would allow wood, wire mesh, plastic, or concrete block, or a commercially available bin designed for composting. This is in line with guidance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Hennepin County, and University of Minnesota. Bulk Material Containers In Article VI (Bulk Material Containers) the term “construction debris containers” is being changed to “bulk material containers” to reflect that these containers are also used to collect solid waste from household cleanouts, which is not construction and demolition (C&D) debris. Bulk material containers include dumpsters, tubs, pods, soft-sided dumpster bags. Additional changes to Article VI include: 1.Soft-sided dumpster bags - adding term to address the increasing use of products like Bagster ®. 2.Timeframes for different containers dependent on use – Containers used for C&D containers versus those used for solid waste (broken furniture, toys, etc.). a.C&D - Current ordinance allows containers to be on a property for six months in a 12-month period, and this will remain unchanged for containers, including soft- sided dumpster bags, that are used for C&D debris, so long as an active construction permit is in place with the City. b.Solid waste - The change would create a separate category for solid waste containers used to collect items such as bulk waste (household goods, furniture, broken toys, etc.). Containers in this category would have a time limit of 14 days. This is in line with zoning ordinance in Chapter 36. Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 5 Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) Chapter 8: Businesses and Licenses Changes to Chapter 8 include updating several definitions in order to harmonize them with Chapter 22 and adding requirements in Section 8-140 for licensed solid waste collectors to label collection containers for recycling and organics recycling used at multi-family and commercial locations. This ordinance change would require licensed solid waste collectors to label any recycling or organics recycling containers with both text and images to assist users in proper sorting. Dumpsters and carts used for recycling in commercial and multi-family buildings are often not labeled in a way that users can clearly understand which items go in which container. A recent sort of multi- family recycling by Hennepin County showed a 24 percent contamination rate across the county. By comparison, sorts of St. Louis Park curbside recycling show a 5 to 7 percent contamination rate. While there are many issues at play in multi-family settings, lack of adequate signage is a significant factor. City staff anticipate that it will take some time for all containers to be labeled, so an effective date of June 1, 2018, has been set. During that time, staff will work with solid waste collectors to ensure all containers are properly labeled, and connect them with resources such as the free dumpster signage available from Hennepin County. The City will also be hosting a Minnesota GreenCorps member from September 2017 to August 2018 who will be largely focused on multi-family recycling and who can assist in verifying the presence of labels on containers. Next Steps and Timeframe The next steps and timeline listed below may need to be adjusted based on the City Council input provided during the study session discussion. Item Date Staff finalize Ordinance revisions In progress Review draft Ordinances with City Attorney In progress Solicit comments from impacted parties Sept. 2017 First Reading of Ordinances Oct. 2, 2017 Second Reading of Ordinances Oct. 16, 2017 Date of Publication Oct. 26, 2017 Date Ordinances take effect Nov. 10, 2017 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 6 Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) Attachment A CH. 22 AND 8 SUMMARY OF UPDATES Definitions Several definition changes and additions. •Solid waste, garbage, recyclable materials, organic materials •Eliminate “refuse” Chapter 22 Residential Curbside Collection Program •Organics recycling – add, not addressed in current ordinance •Cart storage – to allow storage along garages in alleys •Frequency of collection for garbage – to allow for potential every-other-week •Time of collection – extending to match actual practice Multi-Family Recycling •Weekly service capacity – Recycling already required in all MF buildings. Expanding to require  Weekly Recycling + Organics Capacity ≥ Weekly Garbage Capacity •Education – provided to all residents at least 1x per year Commercial Recycling •Existing buildings – reiterate state law o Went into effect January 1, 2016 o Buildings with 4 cubic yards or more of garbage/week must have recycling for at least 3 material types o Exempts industrial, agriculture, mining •New construction or expanded square footage for existing buildings o Recycling required for all buildings, immediately adjacent to garbage o Organics required if food establishments present, immediately adjacent to garbage o Weekly Recycling + Organics Capacity ≥ Weekly Garbage Capacity •All commercial buildings o Education – provided to all tenants at least 1x per year Backyard Composting •Compost bins – allow wood, wire mesh, concrete block, or commercially available bins Bulk Material Containers •Language to address soft-sided dumpster bags (e.g. Bagsters®) •Containers for C&D only allowed 6 months in 12-month period, with permit •Containers for solid waste (not C&D) only allowed 14 days in 6-month period Chapter 8 Dumpster and Cart Labeling •All recycling and organics dumpsters and carts labeled by June 1, 2018 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Written Report: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update on Special Law Related to the Elmwood TIF District RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform the City Council of the need for formal approval of recently passed Special Law related to the Elmwood TIF District. POLICY CONSIDERATION: This action is consistent with the 2017 legislative priorities set by the City Council. SUMMARY: In 2009 the city successfully obtained a Special Law in consideration of the economic downturn, which extended the term of the Elmwood TIF District to aid in funding redevelopment efforts and infrastructure improvements within the District (i.e. construction of the Highway 7 & Wooddale interchange and Wooddale Ave street improvements). However, the special law was unclear as to whether the EDA had the legal authority to allocate the District’s tax increment to fund infrastructure expenses through the entire extended term of the District. One of the Council’s highest 2017 Legislative Priorities was to seek a technical correction to address this issue. During the last legislative session, the city worked with its legislators to successfully obtain 2017 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 21 (“Special Law”) which increased the legal pooling allowance within the District from 20% to 30% through the term of the District. This modification will enable the Elmwood TIF District to help fund adaptations to the Wooddale Ave. Bridge, reconstruction of Wooddale Ave and 36th Street and improvements to the Wooddale Ave/36th Street intersection. In order for the recently passed Special Law to become effective, the City Council must adopt a resolution finding it to be in the best interest of the city. Such a resolution is scheduled for formal approval on September 5th. The county and school district must also individually approve the Special Law, and appropriate paperwork must be filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State for the law to take effect FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Approving this Special Law will allow tax increment from the Elmwood TIF District to fund an estimated $6.3 million worth of public infrastructure improvements in and adjacent to the District as identified within the city’s Capital Improvement Program. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: July 2017 Monthly Financial Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of July, General Fund expenditures total approximately 55% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 3% under budget. The attached analysis explains variances. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Summary of Revenues & Expenditures – General Fund Budget to Actual – Enterprise Funds Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: July 2017 Monthly Financial Report DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: General Fund Actual expenditures should generally run at about 58% of the annual budget at the end of July. General Fund expenditures are under budget at approximately 55% of the adopted budget. Revenues are also at 55% through July, although revenues are harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments. A few comments on variances are noted below. Revenues: License and permit revenues continue to exceed budget at 76% through July. This is due in part because the majority of the 2017 business and liquor license revenue has been received. Permit revenue is at 70% of budget through July. Expenditures: Communications & Marketing is running higher than budget at 63.5% through July. The variance is due to some large expenditures during the first half of the year for prepaid postage, the Park Perspective and the Park & Recreation brochure. Staff will continue to monitor expenditures throughout the remainder of the year. Necessary adjustments have been made for 2018. The Community Outreach budget has a temporary budget variance due to payment of the community mediation services contract in July. Organized Recreation has a temporary variance because the annual community education contribution in the amount of $187,400 was paid to the school district in January, and also due to the typical higher seasonal expenditures over the summer months. The Recreation Center budget is at 61% through July. This is a normal variance during the pool season due to seasonal expenditures for temporary staffing and supplies and is consistent with prior years. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actual $2,742 $5,447 $8,263 $10,741 $13,326 $16,872 $19,748 Budget $2,984 $5,969 $8,953 $11,937 $14,921 $17,906 $20,890 $23,874 $26,858 $29,843 $32,827 $35,811 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: July 2017 Monthly Financial Report Utility Funds Revenues: The user charges utility revenue in each fund is lower than budget due to the timing of the billing cycles. Utility revenues lag one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. Other revenue is exceeding budget in the Water Fund due to additional antenna lease revenue. Expenses: Total operating expenses in the Sewer Fund typically appear high throughout the year because the Met Council waste water service charge of $355,300 is paid one month in advance. Capital outlay will vary during the year based on timing of projects and when expenditures are incurred. Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of July 31, 201720172017201520152016201620172017 Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget Jul YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes22,364,509$ 22,653,095$ 23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ 12,989,503$ 11,758,933$ 52.49% Licenses and Permits3,248,158 4,312,700 3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 2,844,746 900,990 75.95% Fines & Forfeits320,200 263,951 341,200 299,808 254,200 162,270 91,930 63.84% Intergovernmental1,292,277 1,669,395 1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 824,018 807,651 50.50% Charges for Services1,907,292 2,116,313 1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 1,246,534 781,103 61.48% Miscellaneous Revenue1,196,018 1,357,373 977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 705,790 568,625 55.38% Transfers In1,851,759 1,867,398 1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,102,457 797,470 58.03% Investment Earnings 140,000 68,908 140,000 114,957 140,000 140,000 0.00% Other Income17,900 61,025 27,450 20,440 30,450 12,094 18,356 39.72% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 58,541 - 58,541 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues32,624,438$ 34,370,158$ 34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 19,887,412$ 15,923,599$ 55.53%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration979,183$ 1,012,841$ 1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 573,225$ 475,898$ 54.64% Finance912,685 902,901 933,624 869,759 957,275 531,249 426,026 55.50% Assessing602,299 601,687 641,038 607,443 707,139 350,264 356,875 49.53% Human Resources805,929 857,950 748,718 801,958 754,699 393,481 361,218 52.14% Community Development1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 748,457 617,598 54.79% Facilities Maintenance1,094,836 1,072,749 1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 621,266 511,508 54.84% Information Resources1,468,552 1,374,074 1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 824,412 746,300 52.49% Communications & Marketing635,150 571,815 608,228 657,758 646,841 410,468 236,373 63.46% Community Outreach24,677 22,380 25,587 22,718 26,553 16,475 10,078 62.05% Engineering492,838 381,148 549,251 436,228 376,601 145,351 231,250 38.60%Total General Government8,261,762$ 8,051,233$ 8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 4,614,648$ 3,973,124$ 53.74% Public Safety: Police8,511,557$ 8,248,745$ 8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 5,432,553$ 3,785,435$ 58.93% Fire Protection3,722,396 3,759,386 4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 2,457,828 1,949,828 55.76% Inspectional Services2,139,325 2,002,445 2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 1,295,619 1,123,454 53.56%Total Public Safety14,373,278$ 14,010,577$ 14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 9,186,001$ 6,858,716$ 57.25% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 141,048$ 125,201$ 52.98% Public Works Operations2,763,735 2,388,560 2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 1,596,799 1,422,218 52.89% Organized Recreation1,304,470 1,360,454 1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 948,013 524,983 64.36% Recreation Center1,591,115 1,575,042 1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,069,202 675,449 61.28% Park Maintenance1,550,033 1,513,700 1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,022,697 699,035 59.40% Westwood Nature Center564,055 560,744 576,173 555,887 602,400 328,694 273,706 54.56% Natural Resources472,049 377,617 479,408 362,094 550,235 199,098 351,137 36.18% Vehicle Maintenance1,333,520 1,118,048 1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 602,822 781,216 43.56%Total Operations & Recreation9,811,414$ 9,107,547$ 10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 5,908,373$ 4,852,945$ 54.90% Non-Departmental: General -$ 123,720$ 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 18,585$ 13,324$ 58.24% Transfers Out- 2,194,245 - 1,873,000 - - - 0.00% Contingency177,984 14,438 266,719 104,224 385,295 20,708 364,587 5.37%Total Non-Departmental177,984$ 2,332,403$ 297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 39,293$ 377,911$ 9.42%Total General Fund Expenditures32,624,438$ 33,501,760$ 34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 19,748,314$ 16,062,697$ 55.15%Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 6) Title: July 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of July 31, 2017Current BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetJul Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,420,438$ 2,421,645$ 3,998,793$ 37.72% 6,915,804$ 3,369,714$ 3,546,090$ 48.72% 3,319,001$ 1,446,912$ 1,872,089$ 43.59% 2,853,520$ 1,400,160$ 1,453,360$ 49.07% Other 375,000 437,076 (62,076) 116.55% 30,000 3,477 26,524 11.59% 148,000 6,741 141,259 4.55% - - - Total operating revenues6,795,438 2,858,721 3,936,717 42.07% 6,945,804 3,373,190 3,572,614 48.56% 3,467,001 1,453,654 2,013,348 41.93% 2,853,520 1,400,160 1,453,360 49.07%Operating expenses: Personal services1,322,998 763,328 559,670 57.70% 613,321 478,511 134,810 78.02% 590,172 300,861 289,311 50.98% 705,221 302,660 402,561 42.92% Supplies & non-capital544,800 131,603 413,197 24.16% 65,050 21,717 43,333 33.38% 153,350 147,838 5,512 96.41% 30,800 1,056 29,744 3.43% Services & other charges1,688,398 968,233 720,165 57.35%4,764,546 3,160,497 1,604,049 66.33% 2,692,499 1,244,942 1,447,557 46.24% 597,828 96,981 500,847 16.22% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,556,196 1,863,164 1,693,032 52.39% 5,442,917 3,660,724 1,782,193 67.26% 3,436,021 1,693,642 1,742,379 49.29% 1,333,849 400,697 933,152 30.04%Operating income (loss)3,239,242 995,557 2,243,685 30.73% 1,502,887 (287,534) 1,790,421 -19.13% 30,980 (239,988) 270,968 -774.65% 1,519,671 999,463 520,208 65.77%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 3,408 - 3,408 1,953 - 1,953 0.00% 30,849 - 30,849 0.00% 2,875 - 2,875 0.00% Other misc income- - - - - -2,500 - 2,500 0.00%- - - Interest expense/bank charges(182,037) (98,410) (83,627) 54.06% (16,016) (11,063) (4,953) 69.07% (11,000) (9,604) (1,396) 87.31% (30,604) (18,894) (11,710) 61.74% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(178,629) (98,410) (80,219) 55.09% (14,063) (11,063) (3,000) 78.67% 22,349 (9,604) 31,953 -42.97% (27,729) (18,894) (8,835) 68.14%Income (loss) before transfers3,060,613 897,147 2,163,466 29.31% 1,488,824 (298,597) 1,787,421 -20.06% 53,329 (249,592) 302,921 -468.02% 1,491,942 980,569 511,373 65.72%Transfers inTransfers out(584,451) (340,930) (243,521) 58.33% (799,648) (466,461) (333,187) 58.33% (227,229) (132,550) (94,679) 58.33% (313,067) (182,622) (130,445) 58.33%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,476,162 556,217 1,919,945 22.46% 689,176 (765,058) 1,454,234 -111.01% (173,900) (382,142) 208,242 219.75% 1,178,875 797,946 380,929 67.69%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,163,298) (1,281) (3,162,017) 0.04% (785,983) (1,281) (784,702) 0.16%- - - (2,191,667) (1,384) (2,190,283) 0.06%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(687,136) 554,936 (1,242,072) (96,807) (766,339) 669,532 (173,900) (382,142) 208,242 (1,012,792) 796,562 (1,809,354) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 6) Title: July 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 5 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 28, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. City Council will be asked to adopt a resolution of support for the revised Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Watershed Management Plan (WMP) on September 5, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Watershed Management Plan? SUMMARY: The MCWD is close to completing its 10-year update of their Watershed Management Plan (WMP). As part of the completion and approval of the plan, city staff recommends adopting a resolution of support of the revised plan. The Draft Local Watershed Management Plan- (597 pages) is available online at: http://www.minnehahacreek.org/sites/minnehahacreek.org/files/MCWD%20Draft%20Watershed %20Management%20Plan%207-7-17.pdf Sections of the plan to note: •Information regarding the Minnehaha Creek Subwatershed is on pages 446-483 •Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) List is on pages 469-483 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Capital Improvement Plan included in the WMP does include the city as a potential funding partner, however, no set amounts are included in the WMP. As capital projects are refined the MCWD may formally request financial support. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft Resolution of Support Watershed Management Plan Executive Summary Prepared by: Erick Francis, Water Resource Manager Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Written Report: 7 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has revised its Watershed Management Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103B.231 and Minnesota Rules 8410. The Watershed Management Plan describes how the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will fulfill its responsibilities under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, the ten-year planning period of 2017-2026. As a political subdivision created under state law, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District exists to pursue water resource management purposes set forth in Minnesota Statute. The listed purposes are many, but may be summarized as securing the benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water. The MCWD believes that clean water and a healthy natural environment are essential to create and sustain vibrant communities. The lakes, streams, wetlands, and green space that make up our landscape create a sense of place that provides a local identity, adds economic value, and increases well-being. The Draft Watershed Management Plan has been developed in coordination with a Policy Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committee which met regularly throughout 2015-2016 to provide input on the proposed Watershed Management Plan framework. City staff participated in the development of the Draft Watershed Management Plan through its Technical Advisory Committee and subwatershed meetings. The city is a founding partner in development of an integrated planning and implementation framework, the Balanced Urban Ecology approach, and has worked with the District to implement numerous impactful partnership projects along the Minnehaha Creek Greenway, including projects at the Minnehaha Preserve, Methodist Hospital, and Japs-Olson. The city would like to express support for the District’s Draft Watershed Management Plan and its approach of partnership and integrated planning, focused implementation, and responsiveness to opportunities and the St. Louis Park will continue coordination of its policies, plans, and investments with the District to maximize public benefit. The capital improvements that most directly relate to the city are the planned improvements to the Minnehaha Creek Greenway and general goals, to reduce pollutant loads and stormwater volume and to restore the channel and streambanks: •Flood Damage Repairs; Cost: $920,000; Schedule: 2017-2018 •Minnehaha Creek Greenway Expansion; Cost: $950,000; Schedule: 2020-2021 •325 Blake Road Regional Stormwater and Greenway; Cost: $2,750,000; Schedule: 2018-2019 •Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration; Cost: $2,200,000; Schedule: 2018-2019 •Greenway to Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail and Streambank Restoration; Cost: $510,000; Schedule: 2019-2020 •Boone-Aquila Floodplain restoration and stormwater management project; Cost: $500,000; Schedule: 2019-2020 •Stormwater Volume and Pollutant Load Reduction; Cost: $2,450,000 ; Schedule: 2018-2027 •Channel and Streambank Restoration; Cost: $3,120,000; Schedule: 2018-2027 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (District) has drafted an update to its Watershed Management Plan (WMP) which was distributed for public review and comment on July 7, 2017; WHEREAS, the draft WMP centers around the District’s Balanced Urban Ecology policy which prioritizes partnership with the land use community to integrate policy, planning, and implementation in order to leverage the environmental, social, and economic value created when built and natural systems are in harmony; WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is a founding partner in development of an integrated planning and implementation framework, the Balanced Urban Ecology approach, and has worked with the District to implement numerous impactful community projects along the Minnehaha Creek Greenway, including projects at the Minnehaha Preserve, Methodist Hospital and Japs- Olson; WHEREAS, the draft WMP creates a framework in support of this policy which emphasizes: •Partnership and early coordination with cities and other public and private partners acting on the landscape to align goals, plans, and investments; •Focused implementation in areas of high resource need and opportunity so as to make significant, measurable improvement to water resources; •Flexibility to respond to needs and opportunities District-wide through capital improvements, grants, technical support, and other programming; WHEREAS, the draft WMP has been developed in coordination with a Policy Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committee which met regularly throughout 2015-2016 to provide input on the proposed WMP framework; WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park participated in the development of the draft WMP through its Technical Advisory Committee and subwatershed meetings; WHEREAS, the draft WMP includes several projects aimed at improving water quality, water quantity, ecological integrity, public access and community connectivity in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed, including capital improvement projects within the City of St. Louis Park; WHEREAS, at this time the City of St. Louis Park is not able to commit to providing the funding for the projects identified in the WMP; Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Page 4 Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: •St. Louis Park expresses support for the District’s draft WMP and its approach of partnership and integrated planning, focused implementation, and responsiveness to opportunities; •St. Louis Park will continue coordination of its policies, plans, and investments with the District to maximize public benefit; •The city will review each proposed capital improvement project within the City of St. Louis Park individually before committing funding. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 5, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk 2017 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN July 7, 2017 DRAFT MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 5 2 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The development of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s 2017 Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan relied on the valuable input of many policymakers, city and agency staff, and community members. Listed below are the formal groups the District regularly conferred with, all of which were crucial to the production of the District’s 2017 Comprehensive Plan. For a summary of the full public input process, please see Appendix B. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS Name Seat Brian Shekleton Vice President James Calkins Former Manager Jeff Casale Former Manager Jessica Loftus Manager Kurt Rogness Secretary Pamela Blixt Former Manager Richard Miller Treasurer Sherry Davis White President William Becker Manager William Olson Manager POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Name Organization Councilor Bob Stewart City of Edina Mayor Marvin Johnson City of Independence Administrator Scott Johnson City of Medina Councilor Linea Palmisano City of Minneapolis Councilor Patty Acomb City of Minnetonka Mayor Lisa Whalen City of Minnetrista Mayor Lili McMillan City of Orono Mayor Scott Zerby City of Shorewood Mayor Tom O’Conner City of Victoria Councilor Sliv Carlson City of Woodland Central Region Manager Terri Yearwood Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Stephanie Musich Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Commissioner Gene Kay Three Rivers Park DistrictDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 6 3COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Name Organization Terry Jeffery City of Chanhassen Ross Bintner, Jessica Wilson City of Edina Nate Stanley City of Hopkins Lois Eberhart City of Minneapolis Liz Stout City of Minnetonka Bob Bean Cities of Deephaven, Greenwood, Orono, Mound, St. Bonifacius, and Woodland Derek Asche City of Plymouth Erick Francis City of St. Louis Park Cara Geheren City of Victoria Mike Kelly City of Wayzata Kristin Larson Carver County Randy Anhorn Hennepin County Environmental Services Steve Christopher Board of Water and Soil Resources Kate Drewry Department of Natural Resources Karen Jensen Metropolitan Council Rachael Crabb, Deb Pilger Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Rich Brasch, John Barten Three Rivers Park District DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 7 4 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Name City of Residence Terms Served Bradley Coulthart Minneapolis 2017 Brian Girard Orono; Deephaven 2015, 2016, 2017 Cassandra Ordway Long Lake 2017 Chris Dovolis Minnetonka Beach 2015, 2016 Colin Cox St. Louis Park 2015, 2016, 2017 Craig Wilson Hopkins 2017 Cristina Palmisano Minneapolis 2015 David Oltmans Minneapolis 2015, 2016, 2017 Elizabeth Crow Minneapolis 2017 Gerald Ciardelli St. Louis Park 2015, 2016, 2017 Jacqueline Di Giacomo Tonka Bay 2015, 2016, 2017 John Grams Minnetonka 2017 Joseph Lofgren Minneapolis 2015, 2016 Joseph Lutz Minnetonka 2016 Linda Jahnke St. Louis Park 2017 Marc Rosenberg Minnetonka 2015, 2016, 2017 Neil Weber Long Lake 2015, 2016, 2017 Peter Rechelbacher Wayzata 2015, 2016, 2017 Richard Manser Edina 2015, 2016, 2017 Richard Nyquist Edina; Minneapolis 2016, 2017 Sliv Carlson Woodland 2015, 2016, 2017 Steve Mohn Eden Prairie 2015, 2016, 2017 Valerie McGruder Minnetonka 2016 William Bushnell Minnetrista 2015, 2016, 2017 ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 8 5COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS SIX MILE-HALSTED BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Name Organization Thomas Funk City of Victoria Cara Geheren City of Victoria Sean Ruotsinoja City of St. Bonifacius Robert Bean City of St. Bonifacius Lisa Whalen City of Minnetrista David Abel City of Minnetrista Lane Braaten City of Waconia Mike Klingelhutz Laketown Township Angela Smith Three Rivers Park District Richard Brasch Three Rivers Park District Kristin Larson Carver County Mike Wanous Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District Randy Anhorn Hennepin County DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 9 6 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1.1 INTRODUCTION 14 1.2 MCWD OVERVIEW 16 1.3 MCWD APPROACH 22 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY 25 3.1 INTRODUCTION 292 3.2 DISTRICT PHILOSOPHY 292 3.3 DISTRICT GOALS 296 3.4 IMPLEMENTATION MODEL 296 3.5 MCWD PROGRAMS 306 3.6 REVIEW OF LOCAL WATER PLANS AND MUNICIPAL COORDINATION 330 3.7 EVALUATION AND REPORTING 340 3.8 PLAN AMENDMENTS 344 3.9 SUBWATERSHED PLANS 345 3.10 IMPLEMENTATION TABLES 562 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.2 WATERSHED OVERVIEW 2.3 SUBWATERSHED INVENTORY 2.4 INVENTORY OF STUDIES 45 57 66 259DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 10 7COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A - LOCAL WATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX B - STAKEHOLDER INPUT PROCESS DRAFT569 579 Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 11 8 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT TABLE OF CONTENTS AIS AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE BWSR BOARD OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES CFS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CFU COLONY-FORMING UNIT CHL-A CHLOROPHYLL-A CIP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DNR OR MNDNR MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DO DISSOLVED OXYGEN EPA OR USEPA US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY F-IBI INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR FISH FAW FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WETLANDS FWS US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FIS FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY FQI FLORISTIC QUALITY INDEX HHPLS HYDRAULIC, HYDROLOGIC, AND POLLUTANT LOADING STUDY HSG HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP LA LOAD ALLOCATION LGU LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT LMCD LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LWMP LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN MBS MINNESOTA BIOLOGICAL SURVEY MCWD MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT MG/L MILLIGRAMS PER LITER MET COUNCIL METROPOLITAN COUNCIL M-IBI INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES MLCCS MINNESOTA LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MNRAM MINNESOTA ROUTINE ASSESSMENT METHOD MOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 12 9COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS MPCA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY MPRB MINNEAPOLIS PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MS4 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM MU MANAGEMENT UNIT MUSA 2020 METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES AREAS NOAA NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NPDES NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM NWI NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY RFQA RAPID FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT SD SECCHI DEPTH OR SECCHI DISC SWPPP STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM TAC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TMDL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD TP TOTAL PHOSPHORUS TRPD THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT TSS TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ΜG/L MICROGRAM PER LITER WD WATERSHED DISTRICT WLA WASTELOAD ALLOCATION WMO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 13 10 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 14 11COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 15 12 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 INTRODUCTION 14 1.2 MCWD OVERVIEW 16 1.2.1 MCWD PURPOSE 16 1.2.2 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 18 1.2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY 18 1.3 MCWD APPROACH 22 1.3.1 DISTRICT PHILOSOPHY 22 1.3.2 DISTRICT GOALS 23 1.3.3 IMPLEMENTATION MODEL 24 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY 25 1.4.1 PRIMARY ISSUES 25 1.4.2 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES 26 1.4.3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 31DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 16 13COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1.1 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT EXTENTS 18 DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 17 14 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This watershed management plan (“Plan”) has been prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103B.231 and Minnesota Rules 8410. It describes how the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (District or MCWD) will fulfill its responsibilities under the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Minnesota Statutes §§103B.201 to 103B.255) over the ten-year planning period of 2017-26. The Plan consists of three volumes: The first volume is this Executive Summary. This volume briefly reviews the purpose, structure, and history of the MCWD; its philosophy and approach to fulfilling its water resource management responsibilities; the primary issues within its eleven subwatersheds; the programs and projects by which it will address these issues; and what it will ask of its cities and townships in order to achieve the water resource goals for the watershed. The second volume is the Land and Natural Resources Inventory. MN Rules 8410 requires the Plan to inventory watershed data on topography, soils, geology, precipitation, surface water resources, water quality and quantity trends, groundwater resources, hydraulic systems to convey stormwater, regulated pollutant sources, habitat, rare and endangered species, recreation areas, existing land uses and trends, and wetland preservation and restoration priority areas. The MCWD has substantial data from many years of careful monitoring and data acquisition. In this volume, the District provides a description of its data, reference to data locations, and a discussion of the data supporting the MCWD’s identified water resource issues, goals, and strategies. In addition, this volume describes the MCWD’s Ecosystem Evaluation Program, or “E-Grade,” a rubric that uses multiple parameters to characterize the health and function of the watershed. The purpose of E-Grade is to capture the condition of resources within the watershed in a way that is useful to the public and provides a uniform metric to set priorities and make resource investment decisions. The third volume is the Implementation Plan. This volume is the roadmap that guides District action from planning to implementation. More specifically, it describes the planning path from issue identification to identifying the causes of issues, setting objectives and goals and, finally, defining management strategies to achieve identified goals. Objectives and management strategies rest on the MCWD’s Balanced Urban Ecology approach to water resource planning and implementation. This approach Minnehaha Creek below the falls, Ernesto RuizDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 18 15COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The MCWD is responsible for 177 square miles that drain into the Minnehaha Creek and ultimately the Mississippi River. DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 19 16 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY recognizes the environmental, social and economic value created when built and natural systems work in harmony. It is described in this volume. The volume also describes each of the District’s programs and the procedures that it will use to identify, fund, and implement them. Finally, the Implementation Plan features a subsection for each of the MCWD’s eleven subwatersheds. Each subwatershed plan follows the same sequence outlined above - from issues to identification of causes, objectives and goals, and management strategies. The implementation program for each subwatershed will identify specific, known projects and initiatives but also provide flexibility for future unknown projects and initiatives to arise through planning, collaborative processes, and opportunities. Subwatershed plans are intended to be largely self-standing so they are useful resources for Local Government Units (LGUs) and other stakeholders within a given subwatershed. 1.2 MCWD OVERVIEW 1.2.1 MCWD PURPOSE The MCWD believes that clean water and a healthy natural environment are essential to create and sustain vibrant communities. The lakes, streams, wetlands, and green space that make up our landscape create a sense of place that provides a local identity, adds economic value, and increases well-being. As a political subdivision created under state law, the MCWD exists to pursue water resource management purposes set forth at Minnesota Statutes §§103B.201 and 103D.201. The listed purposes are many, but may be summarized as “secur[ing] the … benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water.” Minn. Stat. §103B.201(8). The MCWD assumes a further mandate for water resource protection as a permittee under the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Traditionally, the MCWD has pursued its purposes through several standard roles: gathering and assessing data; planning, constructing, and maintaining capital projects; regulating land use disturbances to limit water resource impacts; supporting others’ actions through grant or cost-share programs and technical assistance; conducting non-capital programs such as rough fish management and lake treatment for invasive aquatic species; and engaging in public communication and education. The MCWD’s approach to water resource planning recognizes the environmental, social, and economic value created when built and natural systems work in harmony.” Looking westward over Lake WassermannDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 20 17COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In general, these remain the means by which the MCWD acts. This planning cycle, however, reflects an evolution from an independent program of action toward one that derives from a more careful and active consideration of the MCWD’s role and the roles of other public and private interests in the realm of water resource protection. As such, the MCWD sees its purposes not only as securing water resource benefits for the public, but also facilitating similar efforts by others. The MCWD’s particular role includes, then: »Acquiring, assessing, and maintaining watershed-wide water resource data. »Performing special studies, and developing assessments and metrics, to provide for consistent resource evaluation and priority-setting across the watershed. »Linking local units of government to statewide water programs, mandates, and funding. »Leading or facilitating multi-partner water resource actions that cross local government boundaries within the watershed. »Serving as a conduit of best practices and other specialized knowledge and resources to its general purpose units of government. »Coordinating with local units of government to integrate water resource protection at site and regional scales into land subdivision and development. »Working with public and private partners to integrate water resource goals with other public and private goals in land and infrastructure development. Clean water and a healthy natural environment are essential to create and sustain vibrant communities. The lakes, streams, wetlands and green space that make up our landscape create a sense of place that provides a local identity, adds economic value and increases well-being.DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 21 18 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.2.2 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES The MCWD encompasses about 177 square miles within the western Twin Cities metropolitan area. Of this area, about 148 square miles lie within Hennepin County and about 29 square miles lie within Carver County. The watershed comprises two distinct hydrologic basins. The “Upper Watershed” drains through 104 square miles of rural and suburban land to Lake Minnetonka, a 22 square-mile lake that is the tenth largest, and one of the most heavily recreated, waterbodies in Minnesota. Lake Minnetonka outlets through a dam controlled by the MCWD into Minnehaha Creek, which flows for roughly 23 miles and discharges into the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. About 52 square miles, constituting the “Lower Watershed,” drain into Minnehaha Creek through the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes or directly by means of stormsewer or overland flow. Twenty-seven cities and two townships lie in whole or part within the watershed as shown in Figure 1.1. Table 1.1 lists the MCWD’s cities and townships. Two regional park authorities exist within the MCWD: the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, and the Three Rivers Park District. 1.2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY On April 12, 1966, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners petitioned the Minnesota Water Resources Board under authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 112 (now 103D) to establish the MCWD. The cited purposes for the MCWD were to conserve the watershed’s waters and natural resources; improve lakes, marshes, and channels for water storage, drainage, recreation, and other public purposes; reduce flooding; keep silt from streams; control land erosion; reclaim wetlands; control stormwater; and preserve water quality in lakes and streams. The MCWD was established on March 9, 1967. Since that time, the MCWD has implemented numerous policies, programs, and projects to advance its goals. It first adopted rules to regulate development in 1967. Since that time, it has exercised oversight of development to limit water resource impacts from erosion, stormwater flows, floodplain alteration, wetland disturbance, shoreline and streambank alterations, dredging, and other causes. In 1972, the MCWD accepted authority over eight county and judicial drainage systems located within the watershed. The MCWD developed watershed management plans in 1969, 1997, and 2007. This Plan represents the MCWD’s fourth cycle of water resource planning and implementation. The MCWD’s 1997 plan featured a traditional emphasis on identified capital projects to address legacy water quality or flooding issues and, separately, regulation of new development to minimize new impacts. The 2007 plan began to move toward a more flexible framework with water quality Figure 1.1 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District extentsDRAFT Lake Minnetonka CARVER COUNTY WRIGHT COUNTY Victoria Chanhassen Laketown Maple Plain Mound Carver Park Reserve U of MN Landscape ArboretumLake Waconia Regional Park Waconia State Wildlife Management Area Baker Regional Park Minnetrista St. Bonifacius Lake Waconia Lake Minnewashta Halsted Bay Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 22 19COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFTLake Minnetonka MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT HENNEPIN COUNTY SCOTT COUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY ANOKA COUNTY Downtown Minneapolis Chanhassen St. Louis Park Minneapolis Richfield Edina HopkinsMinnetonka Wayzata Long Lake Medina Plymouth Orono Lake Minnewashta Regional Park U of MN Landscape Arboretum Lake Minnetonka Big Island Chain of Lakes Nokomis- Hiawatha Minnehaha Falls Baker Regional Park Excelsior Deephaven Shorewood Minneapolis/ St.Paul International Airport DAKOTA COUNTY Mi s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Minnehaha Creek Minnesota Ri v e r Lake Minnewashta LEGEND City Boundary MCWD Boundary County Boundary Lakes Rivers and Streams Regional Parks Study Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 23 20 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY standards set for the MCWD’s lakes and streams and targets set for the reduction of phosphorus loads to identified receiving waters in each of the MCWD’s subwatersheds. The MCWD assumed responsibility for a part of these reductions and assigned a portion to its LGUs, requiring that local water plans identify how the LGUs would achieve their assigned reductions through activities such as managing their properties, performing street sweeping, and implementing capital projects. The plan, though, was static in several respects. It identified a specific list of MCWD projects, it directed LGUs to independently act, and it separated capital project work from regulation of development. As the MCWD implemented the plan, however, the approach evolved to a more flexible framework in which its LGUs, developers and other public and private parties have become partners in opportunity-based work that serves multiple goals. In 2014, the MCWD Board of Managers articulated and Cottageville Park Expansion Streambank restoration at Cottageville Park Cottageville Park HENNEPIN COUNTY Deephaven Minnetrista Edina Mound* Excelsior*Orono* Golden Valley Plymouth Greenwood*Richfield Hopkins St. Bonifacius* Independence St. Louis Park Long Lake*Shorewood Maple Plain Spring Park* Medina Tonka Bay* Minneapolis Wayzata* Minnetonka Woodland* Minnetonka Beach* CARVER COUNTY Chanhassen Victoria* Laketown Township Watertown Township *Entirely in District Table 1.1 Municipalities within the MCWD DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 24 A boardwalk at the Minnehaha Creek Preserve 21COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY adopted this approach as its Balanced Urban Ecology policy. The policy prioritizes partnership with the land use community to integrate policy, planning, and implementation in order to leverage the value created when built and natural systems are in harmony. The Balanced Urban Ecology policy emerged in 2014 as the MCWD reflected on its collaborative work along the urbanized Minnehaha Creek corridor within the Cities of St. Louis Park and Hopkins, now referred to as the Minnehaha Creek Greenway. There, over the course of several years, the MCWD worked with public and private partners - including a hospital, a large industrial employer, property owners, and the Cities of Hopkins and St. Louis Park - in a succession of projects to achieve mutual goals. This concerted effort resulted in one of the largest stream restorations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The hospital created a healing environment through connection with a restored natural setting and enhanced flood protection for a sensitive part of its facilities. The industrial employer gained real estate, stormwater management, and local land use approval for a large expansion. An apartment complex property owner achieved trail access for its residents, while a commercial property owner was connected to city storm sewer improvements to address site flooding. The City of Hopkins turned a hidden, troubled pocket park into an open community space; gained regional stormwater treatment for redevelopment; and positioned a 17- acre industrial site for a shift in use consistent with the area redevelopment plan. The City of St. Louis Park gained natural and recreational amenities, connected residents to transit, and expanded its tax and employment base. For the MCWD, outcomes of this partnered work included restoration of a substantial length of creek sinuosity, riparian wetland, and floodplain; treatment of runoff from several hundred fully-developed acres of urban land that previously discharged untreated to the creek; and the creation of both passive and active recreational sites connected to the water environment and integrated with public education about the natural environment. Furthermore, the public cost of the stormwater infrastructure work was reduced by working with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services to align public investments and incorporate the water resource improvement into concurrent sanitary sewer construction. The MCWD realized that if it builds sound relationships with local partners; remains aware of partners’ land use activities and goals; is mindful of subwatershed priorities; and is watchful and flexible, opportunities will present themselves to advance water resource goals cost-effectively and DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 25 22 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY consistent with other local public and private goals. This Plan takes the next step in the evolution of the MCWD’s philosophy and approach by adopting the Balanced Urban Ecology policy as its underlying organizational strategy. 1.3 MCWD APPROACH 1.3.1 DISTRICT PHILOSOPHY The natural environment is an integral component of vibrant communities. It creates a sense of place, provides vital connections, and enhances social and economic value. The MCWD vision is a landscape of vibrant communities where the natural and built environments in balance create value and enjoyment. This vision stems from the MCWD’s 2014 adoption of the Balanced Urban Ecology policy, which now serves as the MCWD’s underlying organizational strategy. It prioritizes partnership with the land use community to integrate policy, planning and implementation. The Balanced Urban Ecology policy developed from a series of policy analyses that identified the governance gap between land use and water resource planning. It responded to state, county, and non-profit assessments calling for increased integration of water resource planning and land use planning to improve the watershed management model in Minnesota and for treating land development and water resource protection as complementary rather than competing interests. The Balanced Urban Ecology policy states: Rather than viewing the natural and built environments as a clash of opposing forces, we recognize the inter-related and inter-dependent character of modern life; communities cannot thrive without healthy natural areas, and healthy natural areas become irrelevant without the interplay of human activity. This is the integrated setting in which we live... Indeed, our quality of life and our economic wellbeing are inextricably linked. Successful, sustainable, livable communities are built on a foundation of integrated planning – planning that recognizes communities as living organisms and takes into consideration all components of the urban ecology. Our work will be strengthened through these collaborative efforts. Not only will they offer greater community impact, they will produce creative public- private funding opportunities that will leverage scarce resources and maximize benefits. Going it alone is no longer the best path forward. Community Vitality Sustainability Economic Progress Environmental Quality DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 26 23COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Balanced Urban Ecology policy rests on the following three principles: »Intensifying and maintaining focus on high-priority projects. »Partnering with others to pursue watershed management goals. »Being flexible and creative in adapting to the needs of partners. Too often, watershed district ten-year implementation plans have been pursued independent of community planning and, as a result, have not been aligned with land use changes, new public infrastructure, and private development. This has led to isolated public expenditures to address existing systemic problems and an over-reliance on regulation to limit impacts from new development. The opportunity to partner with other public and private actors to achieve better water resource outcomes and increased public value has been missed. By working to understand the goals of others; applying sound science to creative solutions; and aligning investments, technical expertise, streamlined permitting, collaborative planning, and educational resources, the MCWD will seek to bring added value to partner initiatives across the watershed and cost-effectively achieve complementary public and private goals. 1.3.2 DISTRICT GOALS The District has established four strategic goals to focus and guide its work: »Water Quantity - To manage the volume and flow of stormwater runoff to minimize the impacts of land use change on surface and groundwater. »Water Quality - To preserve and improve the quality of surface and groundwater. »Ecological Integrity - To restore, maintain, and improve the health of ecological systems. »Thriving Communities - To promote and enhance the value of water resources in creating successful, sustainable communities. For purposes of Plan organization, all MCWD water resource issues nest within the three strategic goal areas of Water Quality, Water Quantity and Ecological Integrity. Example issues include excess nutrients (water quality), flooding (water quantity), and degraded habitat (ecological integrity). No issues are outlined under the Thriving Communities goal. This goal is an overarching organizing element to guide the MCWD in implementing its mission: the MCWD will implement its clean water objectives in ways that meaningfully contribute to the development of thriving communities. Water Quality Water Quantity Ecological Integrity Thriving Communities DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 27 24 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.3.3 IMPLEMENTATION MODEL The Balanced Urban Ecology policy requires awareness, adaptation, and the capacity to pursue opportunities as they arise. The implementation model to support this approach is ongoing and iterative, but can be simplified into four basic steps: Understanding Resource Needs The first element is to understand water resource needs on a subwatershed basis. Each subwatershed plan within this Plan follows an issues, drivers, and strategies sequence. Issues are the specific needs to be addressed - where conditions fall short of strategic goals for the subwatershed. Drivers are the causes or contributing factors of these issues. Strategies are the means by which the issues may be addressed. Strategies are not defined programs or projects, but rather the different modes of action, approaches, and techniques that the MCWD may use within a described area to achieve a desired water quantity, water quality, or ecological integrity outcome. Understanding Land Use Plans and Opportunities The second element is to understand the land use setting. The MCWD maintains current knowledge of land use and capital planning by its LGUs and of potential land use development and redevelopment activity. Under this Plan, the MCWD will establish with each LGU a coordination protocol so that the MCWD and the LGU are aware of each other’s planning activities, of pending development activity, and of applications received for regulatory review. Integration and Prioritization The third element is prioritization. By means of diagnostic data-gathering, the MCWD forms and adjusts implementation priorities to achieve MCWD goals on a subwatershed and watershed-wide basis. At the same time, the MCWD integrates its water resource priorities with the current land use context to look for the intersection of MCWD and partner interests, develop feasible and cost-effective project concepts, and initiate project planning and coordination with public and private partners. Implementation The last element is implementation. This involves formalizing public and private partner agreements that identify project roles and responsibilities, arranging necessary land rights, following required procedures to establish project funding and financing, and moving forward to implement. A project may involve capital construction or may involve one or more other modes of MCWD action including data collection/diagnosis, technical or planning assistance, permitting assistance, facilitation, and grants. After project Community Development Parks & Open Space Roads and Infrastructure Natural Resources ALIGNING PLANS& INVESTMENTS DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 28 25COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY completion, the MCWD assesses project performance with respect to desired outcomes of the MCWD and partners. 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY 1.4.1 PRIMARY ISSUES Water Quality Within the watershed, pollutant discharge is primarily from non-point sources, carried to lakes, streams and wetlands by snowmelt or rainfall that runs across the landscape. Sediment, nutrient (particularly phosphorus), and other pollutant load in runoff exceeds what lakes, streams and wetlands would receive in an undeveloped watershed. Within freshwater systems, excess nutrient content promoting eutrophication is the most common problem. Phosphorus affects algal and plant productivity, water clarity, fish habitat and aesthetics. Other pollutants stress freshwater systems, but phosphorus is used as standard indicator of system health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) define acceptable water quality as that which supports the designated use of the waterbody (e.g. fishable, swimmable, drinkable). The Plan defines good water quality as when the physical, chemical, biological and aesthetic characteristics of a waterbody support its designated use. Because water quality is largely regulated by total phosphorus concentration, the water quality emphasis of this Plan is on reducing phosphorus loads to lakes to achieve standards set by the state. Water Quantity As land use alters a watershed, the flow of water across the landscape changes. In an undeveloped watershed, rainfall largely infiltrates into the ground. As the watershed begins to include built components, channels are straightened, wetlands are filled, drainageways are piped, natural vegetation is removed, and hard surface is installed. These alterations reduce water infiltration and storage. As a result, larger volumes of water drain through the system faster. Flooding occurs when a watershed is overwhelmed with rainfall that cannot infiltrate into the ground or be appropriately stored on the landscape. Flooding can occur across a watershed on major lakes and streams or more locally in ponds and street systems that cannot adequately store or convey the water being received during and after storm events. Water quantity can also be an issue when there is not enough water. Heavy rains flooded Lake Hiawatha in 2014 Staff and volunteers monitor water quality across the watershedDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 29 26 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Water is essential for aquatic life and the health of aquatic systems. In an undeveloped watershed condition, water is stored in wetlands or infiltrated into the ground. It is slowly released to the stream channel, promoting long periods of stable water flow. In urban watersheds with extensive hard surface, water moves through the system quickly after rainfall events. This results in intermittent channel flow and periods where the channel is dry. This “flashy” stream behavior directly affects the ecological health of the stream, stressing fish, macroinvertebrates, plants, and other aquatic life. The Plan focuses on water quantity issues that stress the regional system. The MCWD will work with its partners to plan and implement solutions that return surface flow behavior as much as possible to natural behavior and that create a more resilient system to handle high and low flow behavior. Ecological Integrity The three primary elements of an ecological system are its structure, composition, and function. Structure is all of the living and non-living physical components that make up an ecosystem. Composition is the variety of living things within the ecosystem. Function is the assemblage of natural processes that occur within the ecosystem. Ecological integrity exists when ecosystem composition and function are unimpaired by stress from human activity. It exists when natural ecological processes are intact, naturally evolving, and self-sustaining. Within this Plan, ecological integrity seeks balance between the built and natural environments, with ecosystems providing the highest possible measure of structure, composition and function relative to the level of human impact within the system. The implementation plan seeks to improve structure, composition, and function at an individual resource level and connectivity between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems at a regional landscape scale. 1.4.2 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES One of the guiding principles of the District’s Balanced Urban Ecology policy is “intensifying and maintaining focus on high-priority projects”. Through its work in the Minnehaha Creek Greenway, the District has found that it can more effectively achieve its mandate to manage and improve water resources, not when it seeks to apply its resources evenly across the watershed at all times, but rather when it coordinates its programs and capital investments so as to focus on specific areas of high need and opportunity. Through sustained focus, the District is able to develop a thorough Great Blue HeronDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 30 27COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY understanding of a system’s issues and drivers, build relationships, identify opportunities, and coordinate plans and investments with its partners for maximum natural resource and community benefit. This focused approach is best suited in areas where there are significant resource needs and a level of complexity that require sustained effort and coordination across multiple public and private partners. The other factors that drive the District to focus in a particular geography are the opportunities that exist, such as land use changes, partner efforts, or funding sources. The District has identified three priority subwatersheds in which to focus its implementation efforts for the 2017-26 plan cycle – Minnehaha Creek, Six Mile-Halsted Bay, and Painter Creek. These three subwatersheds have been prioritized based on a combination of resource needs and opportunities, as summarized in the following sections. The District’s efforts in these priority areas will benefit some of the Twin Cities’ most valued resources. The work in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed will improve both the Creek and Lake Hiawatha of the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. The focus on the Six Mile and Painter Creek subwatersheds is part of the District’s strategy for protecting and improving Lake Minnetonka by addressing its most degraded bays – Halsted and Jennings – through upstream and in-lake efforts. Minnehaha Creek As described in Section 1.2.3, the District’s focused approach originated in the Minnehaha Creek Greenway and has produced significant natural resource and community benefits. The Board identified this section of the Creek through Hopkins and St. Louis Park as a priority focus area because of its resource needs – Minnehaha Creek and downstream Lake Hiawatha are impaired and this stretch of creek was identified as contributing the highest pollutant loads; and its opportunities – the area is undergoing significant land use planning and redevelopment due to the planned light rail transit system. The District will continue its efforts in the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed under this Plan, completing projects that are underway in the Greenway and extending its stream restoration and stormwater management work downstream through partnerships with the cities of Edina and Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Six Mile-Halsted Bay The Six Mile-Halsted Bay focal geography is a complex system that spans four Kayakers on Minnehaha Creek Through sustained focus, the District is able to develop a thorough understanding of a system’s issues and drivers, build relationships, identify opportunities, and coordinate plans and investments with its partners for maximum natural resource and community benefit.DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 31 28 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY communities, two counties, and a significant portion of Three Rivers Park District land. It is resource-rich with 17 lakes Halsted Bay of Lake Minnetonka, and over 6,000 acres of wetlands. Six of these lakes are classified as impaired under Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards with Halsted Bay requiring the largest load reduction of any waterbody in the District. The subwatershed is experiencing significant growth and development activity that creates opportunities, and an urgency, for integrated land use and water resource planning. In 2016, the District formed the Six Mile-Halsted Bay Subwatershed Partnership to coordinate implementation activities with the communities and other subwatershed partners. From 2016-2017, the Subwatershed Partnership has established shared priorities for the geography and a framework for ongoing coordination to realize its goals around clean water and abundant natural resources integrated with the built environment. The principal implementation strategies within the Six Mile-Halsted Bay subwatershed include carp management to restore lake ecology, restoration of degraded wetlands, and the use of aluminum sulfate, or alum, to address internal phosphorus release. Given the geography’s scale and complexity, priority implementation activities will be established in coordination with the Subwatershed Partnership on an ongoing basis based on an individual project’s natural resource benefit, opportunity to leverage external investment, community support, and urgency. Painter Creek The Painter Creek Subwatershed contains a number of large wetlands, many of which have been ditched or otherwise altered, that are connected by Painter Creek. The system delivers high phosphorus loads to Jennings Bay on Lake Minnetonka, which is listed as impaired and requires the second largest load reduction in the District. Painter Creek is also impaired by excess E. coli bacteria. The subwatershed includes areas of high quality wetland and upland, including several regionally significant ecological areas. The MCWD has previously established a partnership with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which identified the potential restoration of four of the major wetland marsh systems under the Federal Section 206 Program. Management strategies within the Painter Creek subwatershed will focus on restoring wetland and stream systems in ways that reduce nutrient loading downstream to Jennings Bay, while improving ecological integrity and corridor connectivity within the subwatershed. Before this work is advanced, MCWD will develop a specific systems plan for this subwatershed in partnership with local municipalities and landowners. Six Mile CreekDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 32 29COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 33 30 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A boardwalk connects Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital to a restored section of Minnehaha Creek.DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 34 31COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Watershed-wide In addition to these focused implementation efforts, the District’s approach watershed-wide is to remain responsive to opportunities created by land use change or partner initiatives. The Plan creates a coordination framework through which the District will seek to maintain current knowledge of land use and capital planning by its LGUs, and of potential land use development and redevelopment activity. As opportunities arise, the District will evaluate them against the resource needs and priorities defined in the subwatershed plans in Section 3.9 and determine the appropriate response. The District has a wide range of services it can mobilize to address resource needs and support partner efforts, including data collection and diagnostics, technical and planning assistance, permitting assistance, education and capacity building, grants, and capital projects. The District anticipates that the most likely capital project opportunities to arise through this approach will be in the area of stormwater management. For this reason, the capital improvement program (CIP) includes stormwater management projects in each subwatershed. Over the course of the 2017- 26 plan cycle, new opportunities and priorities may be identified that are beyond the scope of this CIP in which case the District will pursue a plan amendment. 1.4.3 RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS After the Plan is approved or amended, each LGU within the MCWD with land use planning and regulatory responsibility must prepare a local water management plan, capital improvement program, and official controls as prescribed in the Plan. An MCWD-approved local water plan is a required element of the LGU comprehensive land use management plan mandated by Minnesota Statutes §473.864. This planning framework shows the link that the legislature has recognized between land use and water resource planning. As the regional water resource authority, the MCWD is responsible for understanding hydrologic systems on a watershed basis. In its review of local water plans, the MCWD seeks to engage its LGUs as partners in incorporating this basis of knowledge and understanding into the exercise of land use planning, regulatory, capital, infrastructure maintenance, and related local authorities. Although the watershed planning law gives watershed districts the authority to mandate LGU actions toward district-identified water resource goals, the MCWD’s approach under this Plan relies to a limited extent on DRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 35 32 MINNEHAHA CREEKWATERSHED DISTRICT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY mandates and much more on support for a partnership approach. Between the water resource program capacity that LGUs have developed since the MCWD’s 2007 plan, the capacity the MCWD has developed since that time to discern and facilitate projects and initiatives that serve the complementary goals of public and private interests, and the broader concept of hydrologic function and beneficial public use reflected by the MCWD’s development of the E-Grade program for measuring ecosystem health, the MCWD is judging that a collaborative approach will better achieve its water resource goals. The benefit of a local water plan that is more full with local data, that expresses an LGU’s more careful assessment of its issues and potential strategies, and that makes a stronger commitment to coordination, will be a greater MCWD interest in collaboration and higher priority access to MCWD technical and financial resources. Targeted areas of collaboration include: »Land use policy development and its implementation through planning activities including long-range land use and infrastructure plans, area-wide plans, and recreation and open-space plans. »Capital improvement feasibility planning for public infrastructure including roads, sewer, drinking water, and localized power generation. »Land use and development regulation, from initial development feasibility through ongoing inspection and facility maintenance functions. »LGU operations and facility maintenance. A chief element of the local plan is a proposed plan for LGU/MCWD coordination. The goal of the coordination plan is to maintain mutual awareness of needs and opportunities to foster programs and projects that: (i) develop out of coordinated, subwatershed-based planning; (ii) reflect the cooperation of other public and private partners; (iii) align investments; and (iv) secure a combined set of District, LGU and partner goals. The coordination plan provides for ongoing and periodic communications as to land use planning, infrastructure programming, and development regulation. Park Nicollet overlooks a restored wetland & boardwalk Cottageville Park District staff and partners co-develop plansDRAFTStudy Session Meeting of August 28, 2017 (Item No. 7) Title: Resolution of Support for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan Page 36