Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/05/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session May 8, 2006 6:30 PM Council Chambers Discussion Items Approximate Times 1. 6:30 PM Zoning Code Amendments 2. 7:30 PM Off-Sale Liquor Licenses 3. 8:00 PM Meadowbrook STEP and Children First 4. 8:45 PM Vision Saint Louis Park 5. 9:15 PM Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) Funding Support 6. 9:20 PM Future Agenda Planning 9:30 PM Adjourn 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. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 1 - Zoning Code Amendments Page 1 1. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Community Development PURPOSE OF DICUSSION: To continue policy discussions by the City Council on potential amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND: As a part of our on-going efforts to improve the Zoning Ordinance, we present the next set of items for Council discussion. Earlier this year the City Council adopted several ordinance amendments. The current set includes those that were postponed and those that have arisen in the past several months. Staff is working on several other areas that will be brought forth in the future, including parking, landscaping administration and PUDs. Topics for Discussion: 1. Establishment of a “parks” zoning district. 2. Lot divisions for existing platted parcels. 3. Zoning for “large lot” areas. 4. Use of fiber cement board (Hardie) as a building material. 5. Establishing a maximum height in MX district. 6. Signs – increase size for blade signs, reduce setbacks for some free standing signs, and increase sign area for multi-family signs. 7. Awnings and canopies – allow awnings and canopies to extend over walkways. Following is a summary and explanation of the changes. 1. Establishment of a “parks” zoning district. The City Council has asked Staff to look into establishing a “park” zoning district. This district would be a separate district covering publicly owned park lands. If directed, staff will create a district and map and set a public hearing to begin the process for establishing the district. As proposed, this district would only cover city parks. The City has numerous schools, churches, synagogues, golf courses, a library, public utility structures, public buildings and other institutions that could be classified in an “institutional” district, if so desired. This would constitute a more complicated zone and take additional time to prepare; Staff would need to more closely review existing buildings and sites to determine standards for such a zone. At the meeting we will provide additional information on such a district regarding allowable uses, standards and a map showing the public park areas that would be rezoned. Recommendation: Direct Staff to prepare a park zoning ordinance and map amendment for city- owned parks and set a hearing at the earliest possible date. If so desired by the Council, staff will include the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission in this process. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 1 - Zoning Code Amendments Page 2 2. Lot divisions for existing platted parcels. In the case where two platted lots exist as one parcel or have been combined for tax purposes, it is proposed to allow lots to be split with the following requirements: − Each remaining lot was a previously platted lot that was in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance at the time of platting; − Each lot has the same lot size and width as the existing, surrounding neighborhood; − Each lot meets the 2/3rds provision of lot size requirements; − City Council approval required; − Compatible with the neighborhood and provide “move up” housing: o Each dwelling must include at least three bedrooms and two baths. o Architectural styles, including rooflines shall be compatible with existing homes in the neighborhood, as determined by roof type and pitch. Two story homes on a block of one story homes are allowed if they exhibit compatible style and finishes. o Garages. Each dwelling must have a two-car detached or attached garage. If there is an alley, it must be used for garage access. If there is not an alley, garages shall be placed at least 5 feet behind the main front building wall of the home. No carports allowed. Recommendation: Discuss proposed amendments, in particular design standards. Direct Staff to prepare ordinance changes accordingly. 3. Zoning for “Large Lot” areas. The recent subdivision proposal in the Lake Forest neighborhood has brought attention to the fact that there are some areas of the City with lots generally larger than the minimum required in our zoning ordinance. In these areas of the City there are often large lots that could be subdivided into smaller lots that meet the minimum requirements of our zoning ordinance but could be considered out of character with the neighborhood. Staff has explored ways to maintain the existing character of neighborhoods with larger lots through zoning changes and attempted to identify areas of the City dominated by larger lots. There are two areas of the City that have particularly large lot sizes; in those areas, the size of the lots is considered by some a defining characteristic of the neighborhood. The attached map of the City details three potential areas for which additional information will be available at the meeting. After studying the requests for subdivision over the past several years, Staff has identified several characteristics of the Zoning Code that could potentially be strengthened to prevent future subdivisions in large lot areas:  Increase the minimum lot size  Increase the minimum lot width  Further regulate steep slopes  Reduce the maximum lot coverage City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 1 - Zoning Code Amendments Page 3 At the present time, the R-1 Zoning District is the City’s most restrictive residential zone, with a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet and minimum lot width of 75 feet. These standards typically prevent most homeowners from subdividing a lot. There are areas of the City where these uniform regulations do not prevent such subdivision. Adding a new Zoning District to the Zoning Code with larger minimum lots sizes and lot widths could reduce the number of existing larger lots that could be split in the future. However, it would also take away the ability of some property owners to subdivide their property and potentially result in at least some properties becoming “legally non-conforming” lots; this status would allow rebuilding in the event of damage and may allow expansion, but some restrictions would apply. One example of a neighborhood with larger lots is Lake Forest. Based on Staff’s preliminary analysis, there are approximately 210 lots existing in the neighborhood. It appears 79 lots are large enough to be subdivided based on lot size; however, of those lots, it appears only 16 lots could meet minimum lot width requirements. All the other lots in the neighborhood are too small to split, even though many of them they exceed the minimum lot size. Recommendation: Discuss City Council desire to create a new zoning district with larger lot size and lot width requirements. Staff will then proceed with direction given by the City Council. 4. Use of fiber cement board (Hardie) as a building material. Hardiboard (or more generically, fiber cement board siding) has been proposed as a building material for nearly all new multi-unit residential buildings since 2005. Developers claim that hardiboard is a higher quality product than typical cement stucco, which is a permitted Class I building material. Hardiboard is durable and sturdy, and does not shrink or swell. It cannot be damaged by hail and is fire and pest resistant. It is maintenance free, needing to be repainted only every 20-25 years. After researching the issue by looking at the architectural standards of other similar cities and speaking to architects and the Planning Commission about the issue, Staff recommends an ordinance change that will allow for limited use of hardiboard on certain types of buildings. The proposed change would limit hardiboard’s use to a maximum of 20% of Class I materials. Hardiboard would be limited to use on residential buildings only, as hardiboard may not be an appropriate material for use on commercial or industrial buildings. Additionally, hardiboard could only be used where a minimum of two other Class I materials are already in use. Staff concluded that this was the optimal approach as it encourages a diversity of building materials and creativity in design. Recommendation: Direct Staff to prepare ordinance changes to allow fiber cement board siding for up to 20% of the required Class I materials. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 1 - Zoning Code Amendments Page 4 5. Establishing a maximum height in MX district. The Mixed Use (MX) zoning district does not currently have a specific height limit. Attached is a table showing the current height limits by zoning district. It is proposed that a maximum height be established . This limit could be the same height maximum as in the RC, C2, IP, and IG zoning districts: 6 stories or 75 feet in height, whichever is less. With a PUD the height limit could be exceeded if the development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Direct Staff to prepare ordinance changes to establish a height maximum in the MX zoning district. 6. Signs – increase size for blade signs, establish a uniform setback for freestanding signs, and increase sign area for multi-family signs. Blade Signs – Specific increases for sign face and area. The current regulations limit the sign face for blade signs to nine square feet. This has resulted in several blade signs at Excelsior & Grand that look unusually small and out of scale with the development. The McCoy’s and the parking ramp signs are the exception to the nine square foot limit as they were installed before this limit was adopted. Staff is proposing to increase the sign face for blade signs to a maximum of 40 square feet. This will result in a sign face that is consistent with McCoys in size. 45 square feet 40 square feet 9 square feet Sign Ordinance - Establishing uniform setbacks for signs. This amendment will provide a uniform setback for all free-standing signs. Current regulations require the same setback for the sign as is required for the building. This is problematic in that the general practice is to locate signs in the front yard between the building and the public right- of-way. A typical setback for signage is ten feet from the property line. Staff is proposing to establish a uniform setback of ten feet for signs in all zoning districts with the exception of the commercial and M-X districts where the setback would be five feet. The five foot setback is recommended for these districts because the buildings can be as close as five feet to the property lines, and a building with a five foot setback can block views to a neighbor’s sign that is set further back. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 1 - Zoning Code Amendments Page 5 Increase sign area for R-4 Multi-Family Residential District Multi-family uses in the R-4 Multi-Family Residential District are allowed to have up to 25 square feet of sign area regardless of project size. This compares to 40 square feet for small multi-family uses in the RC district where the property size is less than 20,000 square feet, and 80 square feet of signage for properties greater than 20,000 square feet in area. Staff is proposing to increase the allowable signage in the R4 district to 40 square feet to match the signage allowable for small multi-family uses. Recommendation: Direct Staff to prepare ordinance changes to increase size for blade signs, reduce setbacks for some free standing signs, and increase sign area for multi-family signs. 7. Awnings and canopies – allow awnings and canopies to extend over walkways. Staff believes awnings and canopies play an important role in creating the pedestrian oriented, walkable streets character the city is working to achieve. They meet a need by providing shelter for pedestrians as they walk along the public sidewalks, and they add to the charm typically found in a pedestrian oriented neighborhood. Today’s ordinance allows awnings and canopies as long as they stay at least two feet away from any property line. With today’s five foot setback for buildings in the commercial and mixed use district, this allows for an awning or canopy that extends only three feet from the building leaving pedestrians on the public sidewalk exposed to the elements and serving no other purpose than to be an applied decoration or a sign. The proposed amendments will allow awnings and canopies to extend to the property line with only a building permit, and into the right-of-way with a building permit and a Public Works private use of public land agreement. (The private use of public land agreement is an existing format and process used by public works that involves review by staff, and approval by the City Council.) The amendment also establishes a maximum encroachment into the public right-of- way of two feet from the street curb, a standard used by some cities in the metro area including Minneapolis. An eight foot clearance from ground to bottom of awning or canopy is also established. The eight foot clearance is commonly used throughout the metro area, and was used in the Excelsior & Grand development. Other provisions in the amendment include requiring permits, standards for maintenance, and a requirement to remove the awning/canopy upon order by the city. Recommendation: Direct Staff to prepare ordinance changes to allow awnings and canopies to extend over walkways as proposed. Attachments: Map of Large Lot Areas Table of Allowed Heights by Zoning District Prepared By: Planning Staff Reviewed By: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 1 - Zoning Code Amendments Page 6 City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 1 - Zoning Code Amendments Page 7 Table of Heights by Zoning District Zone Height Exceptions PUD R1 3 stories or 30 feet in height, whichever is less Not allowed R2 3 stories or 30 feet in height, whichever is less Not allowed R3 3 stories or 35 feet in height, whichever is less Not allowed R4 3 stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is less PUD RC 6 stories or 75 feet in height, whichever is less PUD C1 3 stories or 35 feet in height, whichever is less Not allowed C2 6 stories or 75 feet in height, whichever is less 9 stories or 112.5 ft PUD O 20 stories or 240 feet in height, whichever is less PUD MX Limits when adjacent to R-1, R-2 and R-3 zones; otherwise no limit PUD required IP 6 stories or 75 feet in height, whichever is less Based on lot area, lot width and yard depths Not allowed IG 6 stories or 75 feet in height, whichever is less Based on lot area, lot width and yard depths Not allowed City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 – 2 – Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 1 2. Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: Council has requested information regarding off-sale liquor licenses and whether there is a need to limit the number and/or locations of off-sale licenses. Staff has spent a considerable amount of time researching surrounding community’s policies and restrictions for issuance of off-sale liquor licenses. This report is intended to provide some background information for council discussion. BACKGROUND: MN Statutes states the number of off-sale liquor licenses is determined by the City. All off-sale liquor licenses must be approved by the State Commissioner of Public Safety. Currently 13 establishments hold off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and 2 establishments hold off-sale 3.2 malt liquor licenses (Cub Foods, Sam’s Club). One new application for an off-sale intoxicating license was received April 7, 2006 from Napa Jacks, a specialty wine store. The attached map indicates the 15 current establishments including the pending Napa Jacks. Retail Liquor Stores are scattered quite evenly in St. Louis Park, with a greater concentration in the retail district located on east Excelsior Blvd and south of Highway 7. In that area, 5 off-sale licenses have been issued with two offering only wine or beer. The other three, Byerly’s Wines and Spirits, Jennings Liquors, and the Liquor Barrel market themselves as more traditional liquor retailers offering all forms of spirits. OFF-SALE Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Establishment Name Address Retail Area Market 1 Byerly's Wine & Spirits 3785 Park Ctr Blvd East Excelsior Liquor, Wine & Beer 2 Jennings' Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd East Excelsior Liquor, Wine & Beer 3 Liquor Barrel 5111 Excelsior Blvd East Excelsior Liquor, Wine & Beer 4 WineStyles 3840 Grand Way East Excelsior Wine 5 Trader Joe’s 4500 Excelsior Blvd East Excelsior Wine & Beer 6 Knollwood Liquor 7924 State Hwy 7 Knollwood Liquor, Wine, Beer 7 Valley Wine & Spiritz 8942 State Hwy 7 Knollwood Liquor, Wine & Beer 8 Sam's Club #6318 3745 Louisiana Ave S LAS & Hwy 7 Liquor, Wine, Beer 9 Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St Park Center Liquor, Wine, Beer 10 Texas-Tonka Liquors 8242 Minnetonka Blvd Texa-Tonka Liquor, Wine & Beer 11 Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S LAS & CLR Liquor, Wine & Beer 12 St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Minnetonka Blvd Dakota and Mtka Liquor, Wine & Beer 13 Vino 100 5601 Wayzata Blvd 394 & Park Pl Blvd Wine Only 14 Napa Jacks * 4200 Minnetonka Blvd Inglewood & Mtka Wine & Beer *Application Received – Not Yet Approved City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 – 2 – Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 2 Off-Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor Licenses Establishment Name Address Retail Area Market 1 Cub Foods Knollwood 3620 Texas Ave S Knollwood 3.2 Beer 2 Sam’s Club #6318 3745 Louisiana Ave S LAS & Hwy 7 3.2 Beer St. Louis Park Police Reports When asking the Police Department whether there is an increased problem with crime and off- sale liquor establishments, the following statement was received from Captain Mark Ortner: “Off-sale liquor establishments are no different than any other business as it relates to increased crime or disorder. If the owners, managers and other employees follow the established laws and good business practices, the negative impact on the police department and community are minimal. The police department has a good working relationship with the business community and would expect that increased businesses in St. Louis Park would follow this pattern.” Since 2000, the Police Department has conducted routine compliance checks on selling liquor. Below is a list of compliance violations (selling to a minor) which occurred at the city’s off-sale liquor establishments: Establishment Violations Year(s) Byerly's Wine & Spirits 1 2003 Knollwood Liquor 2 2000, 2003 Liquor Barrel 1 2005 St. Louis Park Liquors 2 2003, 2005 Texas-Tonka Liquors 2 2001, 2003 Westwood Liquors 2 2000, 2001 Questions to consider regarding off-sale liquor licenses: • Is there a problem with our current system? • Do the number of liquor stores affect the community’s image? • Is there a current problem with crime and off-sale establishments? • Would more liquor stores increase police enforcement efforts? • Would limiting off-sale licenses benefit existing stores from competition? What are the reasons other cities do not limit off-sale liquor licenses? • Promotes free market activity • Meets demands for new types of liquor businesses such as specialty wine stores and stores combined with other services • Promotes competitive pricing • Promotes need to maintain the business property City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 – 2 – Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 3 Survey Results: The attached survey was conducted in suburbs with population over 25,000 (Stanton Group V) and indicates license amounts, limitations and restrictions. Of the 22 suburbs surveyed, 7 are Municipal Liquor stores. Blaine, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, and Roseville are the 4 suburbs that have limitations on the number of off-sale licenses. Off-Sale Liquor License Fees: The license fee for off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses is set by the City but State Statute dictates the fee cannot exceed $200.00 (§ 340A.408.subd.3). All cities in the survey impose the fee at $200.00 Liquor Licensing Regulations: City Ordinance Sec. 3-73 states the city council may, by resolution, restrict the number of any type of liquor license issued within designated areas or zoning districts within the city. MN Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations. Many cities prohibit liquor establishments from being located within a certain distance of schools or churches or in non-commercially zoned areas of the city. If imposed, distance restrictions should be clearly defined as to how they would be measured (ex. property line to property line) Attachments: Survey Map of Off-Sale Liquor Establishments (supplement) Prepared By: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session – 050806 - 2 – Page 4 CITY Population Total of all types of Liquor Licenses Current # OFF-SALE Licenses FEE Limits of Off-Sale Licenses Comments from City regarding Limits Zoning Restrictions or other Limitations? St. Louis Park 43,787 45 14 total 12 - intox 1 - intox + 3.2 1 - 3.2 beer $200 No Same zoning requirements as other retail stores, licensee or manager must be resident of state, public hearing held Apple Valley Municipal Liquor Stores 48,418 40 2 $0 N/A Mission - to provide a quality liquor establishment for the community by offering the finest professional service and selection in a profitable manner and to continue controlling the sale of products to responsible adults. Profits generates revenue for public projects Blaine 49,962 56 7 $200 YES 1 license per 7,000 Residents In place for 20 yrs since city sold 2 municipal liquor stores back in 1980's. In 1999, limitations by population were put into place when the 5 owners lobbied council to limit off- sale licenses based on population for social and economic reasons. Commercial/business zoned area; 500 feet from church or school; One mile separation Bloomington 85,301 108 34 total 21 - intox 13 - 3.2 beer $200 No Specified zoning districts; 300 feet from property line of a school and 300 feet from the building of a church; No off-sale license shall be granted to any facility selling gasoline unless that facility has been issued a Class A or Class C food license. Council may, in its discretion, grant or deny license. Brooklyn Center Municipal Liquor Stores 29,174 18 2 $0 N/A Municipal liquor stores since 1940. Generates revenue for public projects Brooklyn Park 68,715 30 12 (+ 5 open) $200 YES 1 license per 4,000 Residents Limited by City Ordinance but did not know how long or why Commercial/business zoned area; 300 feet from school or church; 1,000 min. sq. ft; public hearing; Council has discretion to grant or deny license Study Session – 050806 - 2 – Page 5 CITY Population Total of all types of Liquor Licenses Current # OFF-SALE Licenses FEE Limits of Off-Sale Licenses Comments from City regarding Limits Zoning Restrictions or other Limitations? Burnsville 61,355 75 22 total 8 - Intox 14 - 3.2 beer $200 No, but restrictions Council discussing changing radius to allow more stores in heart of city. Must be a free standing building; 3/5's vote of Council required for approval; Council may attach special conditions to protect the welfare of the community; 1 mile radius separation of each other. Coon Rapids 62,295 30 6 - Class A 2 - Class B $200 YES 6 - Class A 2 - Class B In place for 12 yrs since city sold 2 municipal liquor stores. No waiting list. Council not interested in raising limits. Specified zoning districts; Class A 2500 min. sq. ft.; Class B - in conjunction with and secondary to an approved primary used with 50,000 min. sq. ft. (Costco) 1 mile radius Cottage Grove 31,437 14 4 $200 No Only licenses to exclusive liquor stores 4/6/05. 1,000 feet from another establishment. Eagan 64,975 73 14 $200 No No license for building within 300 ft of a nursery, elementary or secondary school; daycare center or church unless the proposed license premises and listed uses are located within the same zoning district and planed commercial development; Council has discretion to deny application. Eden Prairie Municipal Liquor Stores 59,325 52 3 $0 N/A Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Edina Municipal Liquor Stores 48,156 34 3 $0 N/A Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Fridley Municipal Liquor Stores 27,480 20 2 $0 N/A Municipal liquor generates revenue to alleviate some of the tax burden of the City's residents. Location is suitable places in City as Council may determine Inver Grove Heights 31,053 30 2 $200 No 500 feet from a school or church. Exclusive liquor stores whose fixtures & structures, exclusive of land, have a fair market value of at least 50,000. LIMIT of 12 ON-sale intoxicating licenses (restaurants & hotels) Lakeville Municipal Liquor Stores 47,523 26 3 $0 N/A Municipal liquor generates revenue for public projects Study Session – 050806 - 2 – Page 6 CITY Population Total of all types of Liquor Licenses Current # OFF-SALE Licenses FEE Limits of Off-Sale Licenses Comments from City regarding Limits Zoning Restrictions or other Limitations? Maple Grove 55,278 49 9 $200 No Licenses shall be issued in such a manner as to protect homes and land values, comply with sound zoning principles, prevent and control juvenile delinquency, be based upon sound economic factors and be issued without regard to individual hardship or friendship. Limit of 40 ON-Sale Intoxicating licenses (restaurants & hotels) Maplewood 35,763 45 18 total 9 - Intox 9 - 3.2 beer $200 No No premises can be located within 100 feet of a church or school bldg. Main entrance of licensed premises to nearest property line of church/school Minnetonka 51,658 41 7 $200 No Council has discretion to grant or deny license; requires 5 affirmative votes to approve (7 member Council) Plymouth 70,238 60 13 $200 No 500 ft. from a school; City Council may attach special conditions to the approval based upon the nature of business, location of business, and verified complaints to protect the health, safety, welfare, and quietude of community and ensure harmony with location where the business is located Richfield Municipal Liquor Stores 34,502 32 4 12 - 3.2 beer $0 No Must be located on arterial or collector street (main road) Roseville 34,080 65 20 total 10 - Intox 10 - 3.2 beer $200 YES 10 - Intox Thinking of adding more due to new development project (Costco coming) Council shall consider all relevant factors relating to the health safety & welfare of citizens and effect on market value of neighboring properties, proximity to churches and schools & effect on traffic & parking. Size of premises at least 1,600 sq. ft. Limit of 10 OFF-Sale Intoxicating Woodbury 49,329 57 19 total 10 - Intox 9 - 3.2 beer $200 No The city council, in its discretion, shall have the right to refuse to issue or renew a license for the sale of alcoholic beverages on any premises on which taxes, assessments or other financial claims of the city are delinquent and unpaid. City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 1 3. Children First, the Meadowbrook Collaborative and St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To continue the conversation from the April 24 Study Session related to the work being accomplished and the recent financial challenges facing three community agencies, Children First, the Meadowbrook Collaborative and the St. Louis Park’s Emergency Program (STEP). The three agencies have partnered together to promote greater collaboration between their organizations and create a model that would address the needs of children in the community, offering a more inclusive approach by encouraging and supporting unique partnerships that address quality of life issues within St. Louis Park. This comprehensive, long-term, team approach to service delivery could provide a more effective way to increase stability in families and sustain the health and well-being of St. Louis Park. Attachments: Staff Report from the 4/24/06 Study Prepared By: Michele Schnitker Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 2 STAFF REPORT OF APRIL 24, 2006 STUDY SESSION 1. Update on Children First, the Meadowbrook Collaborative and St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) Community Development PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The purpose of this discussion is to update the City Council on the work being accomplished by several community agencies - Children First, the Meadowbrook Collaborative and the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) - that have partnered together to explore the potential for collaborative opportunities. It is also proposed that a discussion occur on recent financial challenges facing all three agencies and a possible role by the City in addressing this issue. Representatives from all groups will be in attendance at the meeting. Background Children First, the Meadowbrook Collaborative and the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) were all cited in St. Louis Park’s 2005 designation as one of the “100 Best Communities for Young People” by America’s Promise – the Alliance for Youth. Each has its own individual mission statement, along with a shared unique partnership that supports St. Louis Park’s families and children. In August 2005, Lt. Governor Carol Molnau named St. Louis Park one of the Best Communities in Minnesota for Young People, awarded by the Minnesota Alliance with Youth, the local arm of America’s Promise. • Children First Based on Search Institute’s 40 Developmental Assets, Children First is a citywide partnership aimed at strengthening families and building a caring community for children and youth. It is a call for everyone to support young people and to build a healthier future one child at a time. • Meadowbrook Collaborative Meadowbrook is a diversely populated multi-family housing neighborhood of 1200 people. Established in 1993 to address various quality of life issues, such as crime, truancy, serious housing code violations; the Meadowbrook Collaborative works cooperatively with other organizations to leverage resources and meet families’ needs. Its mission is to enhance the self-direction of the Meadowbrook residents toward the betterment of their lives in the areas of health, education, and safety. • St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) Serving the St. Louis Park community for over 30 years, STEP evolved from a faith-based initiative to a community-wide resource serving the basic needs of over 2900 families and individuals each year. Its mission is to identify, address, and respond to the critical and emergency needs of St. Louis Park. City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 3 For many years, these organizations have been financially supported through donations and grants. Currently, all three organizations are facing impending funding challenges. For STEP, funding shortages will translate in to a reduction in services. For Children First and the Meadowbrook Collaborative, funding shortages put the financial sustainability of their programs beyond July 1st at risk. For each organization, fundraising discussions raised concerns regarding competing against each other for scarce community resources. At the same time, each noted that in addition to having many commonalities including similar missions, serving the same geographic area and population and sharing the same organizational partners and common funding sources, the continued operation of all three organizations is vitally important to sustaining the health and well-being of St. Louis Park. It was also noted that the current circumstances might provide an opportunity for creating a new model that would promote greater collaboration between the three organizations and perhaps other organizations in the community. In early January, representatives from all three organizations, as well as representatives from the School District and the City, met to discuss the potential to collaborate and work together. All attendees unanimously supported the effort to further explore ways for greater collaboration. The group identified both immediate needs, such as the financial sustainability of each organization, and long-term initiatives, including the creation of a new model in which the organizations could work together more effectively and efficiently. The model would address the needs of children in the community, offering a more inclusive approach by encouraging and supporting unique partnerships that address quality of life issues within St. Louis Park. This comprehensive, long-term, team approach to service delivery could provide a more effective way to increase stability in families. Funding Status • STEP STEP has an annual budget of $519,000 and operates with 6.5 staff positions and many volunteers. Community members contributed 10,000 volunteer hours in 2005. Seventy-two percent of the total food shelf intake – 234,553 pounds of food – was generated by private donations. From 2001-2005, STEP experienced a 64.4% increase in household visits for food, and a 68.5% increase in the number of individuals served. Due to the loss of grant funds, STEP must raise $72,000 in funding annually to continue to provide services at the current level. Currently, the City provides $30,000 in funding towards the operations of STEP along with space for their operations at Hwy 7 and Wooddale. Annual Budget $519,000 Available funding for FY 2006 $447,000 Deficit for FY 2006 $72,000 City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 4 • Children First Children First is supported by private donations and in-kind contributions. It operates on an annual budget of $65,000 with one paid staff person and volunteers of all ages. In-kind contributions from the School District include office space, computer, phone, postage and printing. In the past the City has not provided direct financial support for the operations of Children First. The City Manager and Organizational Development Coordinator sit on the Children First Executive Board. Annual Budget $65,000 Available Funding as of July 1, 2006 $23,000* Deficit for FY 2006/2007 $42,000 *Includes two donations totally $10,000 that are anticipated prior to July 1st. • Meadowbrook The program is supported by private and public donations and in-kind contributions. Meadowbrook operates on an annual budget of $80,000 with one paid staff person and many volunteers from the greater St. Louis Park community. The annual budget is raised through cash gifts and pledges from individuals, foundations, and businesses. Volunteers provide approximately 940 hours of service annually. The City has not provided direct financial support for the operations of the Collaborative. The City’s Police Department is actively involved in the Collaborative and the Park and Recreation Department provides programming at the private playground in the Meadowbrook complex. Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor currently sits on the Collaborative board. Annual Budget $80,000 Available Funding as of July 1, 2006 $32,390* Deficit for FY 2006/2007 $47,610 *Includes donation of $15,000 from General Mills anticipated prior to July 1st. Next Steps Staff from the three agencies and city and school district representatives held a follow-up meeting in late January to further discuss the initiatives outlined above and to develop a work plan for moving forward that emphasizes how the work of each organization complements each other to make St. Louis Park a better place to live. Since that meeting, staff from each of the three agencies has continued to meet to explore the development of a new model that enhances greater collaboration between the three agencies which could be expanded to include other organizations in the community. City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 5 Each agency has continued to move forward with efforts to address immediate funding shortages. In addition to creating fundraising plans, other donor opportunities, including contributions from individuals, businesses, service organizations and grant opportunities, are also being explored. The City has continued to be an active and committed partner with these three agencies and, unless directed otherwise by the City Council, staff will continue to participate and support the work of STEP, Children First and the Meadowbrook Collaborative as they explore possible future collaborative opportunities. Representatives from Children First, The Meadowbrook Collaborative and STEP will attend with an update on efforts to explore collaboration opportunities and funding status. Attachments: Background Information on STEP, Meadowbrook and Children First Prepared By: Michele Schnitker Reviewed By: Kevin Locke Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 6 Reinvesting in St. Louis Park’s Families and Children Children First, the Meadowbrook Collaborative and the St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) were all cited in St. Louis Park’s 2005 designation as one of the “100 Best Communities for Young People” by America’s Promise – the Alliance for Youth. Each has its own individual mission statement, along with a shared unique partnership that supports St. Louis Park’s families and children. Children First Based on Search Institute’s 40 Developmental Assets, Children First is a citywide partnership aimed at strengthening families and building a caring community for children and youth. It is a call for everyone to support young people and to build a healthier future one child at a time. Meadowbrook Collaborative Meadowbrook is a diversely populated multi-family housing neighborhood of 1200 people. Established in 1993 to address various quality of life issues, such as crime, truancy, serious housing code violations; the Meadowbrook Collaborative works cooperatively with other organizations to leverage resources and meet families’ needs. Its mission is to enhance the self-direction of the Meadowbrook residents toward the betterment of their lives in the areas of health, education, and safety. St. Louis Park Emergency Program (STEP) Serving the St. Louis Park community for over 30 years, STEP evolved from a faith-based initiative to a community-wide resource serving the basic needs of over 2900 families and individuals each year. Its mission is to identify, address, and respond to the critical and emergency needs of St. Louis Park. These three organizations have a synergy that serves families who access services of any one of the three. This model encourages and supports unique partnerships that address quality of life issues within St. Louis Park, and perhaps most importantly in its more vulnerable neighborhoods. The pilot for this model is the Meadowbrook Collaborative and its success in stabilizing families and changing the way respective community partners work together. This comprehensive, long-term, team approach to service delivery has provided a more effective way to increase stability in families. The coordination of that process is in the capable hands of STEP, providing food shelf services, financial support, transportation services, and emotional support to families living in poverty. For example, in 2005, STEP served 77 Meadowbrook households. Fourteen of these households received rent assistance, totaling $7,752. Gas voucher and bus pass assistance was provided to 17 households, including 7 households with children. In all, forty Meadowbrook children were assisted by STEP in 2005. The common theme binding these three organizations and echoing throughout the community is Children First. Its ongoing call to action continues to set the stage for renewed community involvement and support of the following developmental assets for youth: External Assets • Constructive use of time. • Support. • Boundaries and expectations. • Empowerment. Internal Assets • Positive Values. • Social competencies. • Positive Identity. • Commitments to learning. Community members are challenged to think deliberately about how they can build assets in the community youth and also encouraged to provide ongoing in-kind, financial, and volunteer support; as well as leadership to all three organizations. City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 7 March 12, 1992, was a turning point for St. Louis Park, Minnesota. What was intended to be just another presentation to the local Rotary Club turned into a rallying call for a whole community to support its young people. As Rotarians heard at that landmark meeting, kids in St. Louis Park are not immune to chemical use, homelessness, poverty, and a whole host of risk behaviors. Children First was created to combat risk behaviors and give all kids in St. Louis Park a chance to grow up healthy and happy. The approach to build social capital unites the whole community around kids. Based on Search Institute’s 40 developmental assets, or positive attributes kids need to succeed, Children First is a citywide partnership aimed at strengthening families and building a caring comm unity for children and youth. It is a call for everyone to support young people and to build a healthier future one child at a time. The spirit of helping young people has spread throughout St. Louis Park as people and organizations become aware of the power of building assets. Children First plays an initiative function by: • Spreading the message. • Convening groups around the need to support young people. • Connecting people and groups with one another. • Keeping this work in the forefront of the community’s mind. • Inviting everyone to be a part of the solution. St. Louis Park teens on average have increased their level of assets by a full two assets since our longitudinal study began in 1997. This is important because surveys completed by students in St. Louis Park, and nationwide, show that young people who have 30-40 of the developmental assets are more likely to do well in school, volunteer in the community and live healthy lifestyles and unlikely to be involved in risk behaviors. In 2003, thirteen percent of St. Louis Park teens were at the 30-40 assets level compared to nine percent in 1997. While increasing assets in all young people community-wide can be a daunting task, St. Louis Park has proven it can be done. Children First spreads the message of asset building by encouraging community members and organizations to respond to pressing needs. Earlier this year, community partners were asked to articulate why Children First is important. The Police Chief cites asset building as a valuable upstream prevention vehicle, as does our representative from the health care community…both referring to their own arenas. The School Superintendent translates its importance into student achievement, both academically and in personal competencies such as self-esteem. The City Manager views Children First as an economic development tool to keep this first ring suburb strong, vital and at the cutting edge. Children First fuels the inspiration and creative energies of individuals and organizations to do things to support our young people, and increase their developmental assets. It operates on an annual budget of $65,000 with one paid staff person and volunteers of all ages. In-kind contributions include office space, computer, phone, postage, and printing. Children First must raise $195,000 in cash and pledges to cover a three-year budget cycle. Your support is greatly needed and much appreciated. For more information about Children First, please contact coordinator Karen Atkinson at 952/928-6075 City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 8 The Meadowbrook Collaborative Meadowbrook is a diversely populated multi-family housing neighborhood of 1200 people. It was established in 1993 to address various quality of life issues, such as crime, truancy, and serious housing code violations and leverage resources to meet families’ needs. The Collaborative is a unique partnership of the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Public Schools, Park Nicollet Health Services, and the Ridgedale Branch YMCA. These organizations work cooperatively with the Meadowbrook residents and property owner. Meadowbrook’s mission is to enhance the self-direction of the Meadowbrook residents toward the betterment of their lives in the areas of health, education, and safety. The Meadowbrook Collaborative exists to evaluate neighborhood needs in the areas of health, education, and safety; develop programs to meet identified needs; connect Meadowbrook residents to resources in the greater community and supervise organized programs and activities within the Meadowbrook neighborhood. Meadowbrook’s primary focus is on youth, providing culturally relevant services and promoting human rights by eliminating barriers that prevent youth and their families from equal access to community resources. Meadowbrook programming provides youth with academic support, enrichment, service learning, crime prevention and diversion activities, mentoring, leadership skills, positive role models and life skills. These programs are designed to prepare youth to take a leadership role; the goal is that their involvement will ultimately lead to systemic change. The program is supported by gifts and volunteer action from the greater St. Louis Park community. The annual budget of $122,761 is raised through a combination of $36,914 of in-kind support (rent, internet, equipment, volunteer workers) and $85,847 in cash gifts and pledges from individuals, foundations, and businesses. Volunteers provide about 936 hours of service annually. For example, residents at a senior high rise make holiday treats and provide fresh fruit for daily snacks. A local florist donates carnations every Mother’s Day for the children to take home. Teens from a nearby private school volunteer on-site as a part of their Christian service program. Churches collect supplies and money and help spread the word of our work. The Junior League facilitates “Girl’s Circle,” addressing the needs, issues, and daily life events for adolescents. The Hennepin County Children’s Read Mobile provides a strong on-site literacy component throughout the summer. Lunches are served all summer to kids, and chances for field trips and fun activities are plentiful. Local Rotarians have been involved since the inception of the project, providing financial support to build a playground and basketball court for neighborhood youth and to build a community center, purchase computers and create a library. Every week, Rotarians are on-site helping Meadowbrook students do homework. They’re giving summer afternoons to build birdhouses, make s’mores, and fix bicycles for the kids. Often, male volunteers from the local Rotary Club offer the only positive interaction many of the children have ever experienced with an adult male. Watching the interaction between adult volunteers and kids is heartwarming. Youth who didn’t want to be touched are now reaching out for a hug, and receiving so much more than any of us could ever have anticipated. Thanks to the support of the St. Louis Park community, the quality of life in the Meadowbrook neighborhood has greatly improved. Families are connected to preventative health care. Parents are engaged in their children’s education, and kids are going to school ready to learn. But the story is not over. Meadowbrook is a model that could be replicated elsewhere in the St. Louis Park community and beyond. It deserves our continued support. Meadowbrook seeks to raise $250,000 to continue its programs for the next three years. For more information about the Meadowbrook Collaborative, please contact outreach coordinator Linda City Council Study Session Discussion Item 050806 - 3 - Children First, Meadowbrook & STEP Page 9 St. Louis Park Emergency Program STEP Serving the St. Louis Park community for over 30 years, STEP evolved from a faith-based initiative to a community-wide resource serving the basic needs of over 2900 households each year. Its mission is to identify, address, and respond to the critical and emergency needs of St. Louis Park residents. STEP runs the local food shelf and provides other services in areas such as transportation, housing, clothing, information and referrals, and supportive counseling. Programs specifically for children include the distribution of backpacks and school supplies, birthday bags, holiday gifts, warm hats, mittens and scarves, as well as many volunteer opportunities for youth. STEP has an annual budget of $519,000 and operates with 6.5 staff positions and many volunteers. Community members contributed a total of 10,000 volunteer hours in 2005. Seventy-two percent of the total food shelf intake – 234,553 pounds of food – was generated by private donations. STEP also provided 620 children with school supplies and backpacks for the current 2005-2006 school year, and 70 children with warm mittens and gloves. The December holiday program assisted 1,074 households with food; 876 children were provided with holiday gifts from the annual toyshop. In all, the transportation program served 481 families. STEP provides a 3-day supply of nutritious food to households in St. Louis Park; there were 4,719 food shelf visits in 2005. Emergency financial assistance for rent, car repairs, and prescriptions went to 205 households. From 2001-2005, STEP experienced a 64.4% increase in household visits for food, and a 68.5% increase in the number of individuals served. Young people not only benefited from STEP services; they gave back. Community youth donated an amazing 2,300 hours of volunteer hours at STEP – almost 25% of total 2005 volunteer hours! STEP has many time-honored community partnerships, including the city, schools, local business, the faith community, service organizations, and private individuals. Last year a local private school official shaved his thick head of hair in response to a challenge that he would do so if students collected a certain amount of food for the food shelf. Students exceeded the challenge, collecting hundreds of pounds of food. Retired people answer phones, schedule appointments, stock food shelves, and run the clothing closet – and that’s just a sampling! Community members volunteer countless hours to plan and host Empty Bowls, an annual event to raise community awareness and thousands of dollars for the STEP food shelf. Local Rotary Clubs support STEP in many ways. Each December, local Rotarians deliver and unload a truckload of toys for the annual holiday toyshop. Local clubs donate collectively, as well as promote individual gifts of food, warm mittens for kids, holiday gifts, and volunteer hours. A spring and fall chore day is annually coordinated through the efforts of Rotary, inspiring an intergenerational volunteer workforce of Rotarians, high school athletes, and neighborhood youth to come together and help homebound senior citizens with yard work. The involvement of young people energizes those leaving their own un-raked autumn leaves to donate a Saturday or two; and, the elderly folks who receive chore day services are deeply moved by the generosity of youth and the kindness and laughter shared by all. STEP must raise $218,000 in funding over the next three years to continue to provide services at the current level. In addition to this operating revenue, STEP is in need of a permanent facility to house its programming. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 1 4. 2005 – 2006 Visioning Update Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: The purpose of this agenda topic is to provide for a follow-up discussion on the 2006 Vision process. BACKGROUND: During the study session of April 10, City staff and consultants presented the results of the 2006 visioning process to date and proposed next steps. During this discussion the Council raised questions about the validity of some of the data shared based upon contacts made to them by citizens. Council asked that staff return for additional discussion on this issue before proceeding further. Council did indicate support for the “next steps” proposed by staff. Based on the April 10 discussion, staff is including additional data in the attached document. We are again sharing background on the Vision St. Louis Park process and story. It highlights the areas that our residents tell us are working well, should grow and should be celebrated. In addition, we are also including: 1. Vision areas that need Vision Action Teams to study data obtained during the vision process, undertake other research as necessary, and present recommendations for moving forward One of these Vision areas is new - Environment. The other Vision areas involve going deeper into the original vision areas. We are proposing vision teams for different subsets of the Vision areas, thus making the groups more focused. Proposed areas for Vision Action Teams are: a. Environment b. Transportation c. Community Gathering Places d. Community Events and Celebrations e. Arts and Cultural Activities f. Housing g. Diversity 2. Information on four of the original vision areas that did not show up as concerns to our residents during the Vision process. Even though there were no red flags and, in many cases positive feedback, we believe that none of these areas will ever stay the same. They will either grow or decline. Hence, we want to make sure that we continue the growth. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 2 Therefore, we plan to ask groups already connected to these areas to look at what we have accomplished over the last 10 years, the vision data and make recommendations for improvement. These four vision areas and assigned groups are: a. Safety: Police Advisory Commission b. Children First: Children First Vision Team and Executive Committee c. Lifelong Learning: Community Education Advisory Council d. Business: St. Louis Park Business Council 3. A potential governance structure for the Vision Action Teams as requested by council. 4. A piece on the town meeting process regarding data collection and an integration of 1995 and 2005 vision areas as requested by Council. Attachments: 2005/2006 Vision Report Prepared by: Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 3 Vision St. Louis Park 2006: The Unfolding Story Discover, Dream, Design St. Louis Park is a community with a vision. Leaders and residents can point with pride to the results of the 1995 Vision St. Louis Park process – a new town center and dramatic progress on eight goals. In 2006 members of the community partnership that emerged in 1994 decided to invite the community to revisit the 1995 vision. The Community Partners – the City of St. Louis Park, the St. Louis Park School District, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, Park Nicollet Health Services and Children First – wanted to: • Continue the successful Partnership begun with Children First and Vision 1995. • Develop new ways to hear from citizens and workers. • Involve as many people as possible, both residents and workers, in St. Louis Park (not just “the usual suspects” but a true cross-section of the community). • Identify priorities to guide decision-making by the Partners. • Encourage citizens and workers to take initiative on ideas outside of the normal channels. In 1995 eight goals emerged from the work of nearly 200 citizens participating in task groups charged to assess problem areas in the community and make recommendations to address those problems. For Vision 2006 the Partners wanted to include more people in the process and build on past success by using an Appreciative Inquiry process to learn:  What is already working in St. Louis Park that gives life and vitality to the community; what we want to preserve and build on?  Ideas, dreams and wishes that participants most was to realize over the next 5-10 years Vision 2006 involved more than a 1000 people including those who work but do not live in St. Louis Park. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 4 THE PROCESS Key milestones in this community-wide vision process included: • June 2005, Kick-off meeting: Diverse group of 65 citizens and workers met and identified four topics for inquiry – Connectivity, Transportation, Health, and Special Urban Place. • June 05-January 06, Individual, Group and online interviews conducted with 750 people. • Feb. 2, 06, Summit I, 70 people; a cross-section of the community and members of the Partner organizations met to review the interview data, identify common ground and propose Challenging Possibilities for the future to be brought to a larger group of people at Summit II. • February 12, 06, Summit II (Town Meeting) 200 people met, heard the Challenging Possibilities from the participants of Summit I and responded by: o Proposing priorities (among the existing goals and the new, Challenging Possibilities), o Identifying promising actions, and o Signing up to participate in future action steps • The City website has been enhanced to support the work of action groups and to promote city-wide dialogue about the community’s Vision, Priorities and Initiatives currently underway. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 5 THE VISION 2006 RESULTS TO DATE The 2006 vision process was an opportunity to review progress on 1995 goals and to point new directions for growth. The results are outlined below: • The first section indicates (in order or priority) what participants most appreciate about St. Louis Park – what is working well. o These are community assets that citizens want to maintain and build on. o It is clear that they are pleased with progress on the 1995 vision and are happy that the City is committed to continue working on these goals. • The second section identifies Challenging Possibilities (in order of priority) – new directions to grow. o One new area of Challenge was identified – Environment o Key Challenges were also identified in three existing goals – Community Connections, Housing, Diversity o Children First continues to be a priority – the community wants children and youth involved in responding to the Challenges. What residents and workers appreciate most about this community • Good Schools -- reflect the value we place on children in St. Louis Park o We put dollars into schools o Teachers care about kids o The community is involved o Alternative programs and schools o Mentorship program at the high school • Great neighborhoods – give this community a small town feel within a great urban center. o Neighborhood associations o Volunteers o Lots of activities in the neighborhoods – National Night Out, Block Parties, Clean up days • Excelsior and Grand – is a visible expression of the success of Vision St. Louis Park 1995 o Good restaurants o Wolfe Park and green spaces nearby o Mix of retail and housing o Safe place to shop o Rec Center close by City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 6 • Trails and Parks – provide beautiful, safe, fun, outdoor recreation o Opportunity to keep fit by walking, biking, skating o Westwood Nature Center offers educational opportunities and kosher food o Green spaces throughout the community • Diversity – is seen as a contribution to the richness of life in St. Louis Park o Rich diversity o Kids play together o Good place to learn from each other – religion, race, different cultures o Many opportunities to learn • Location – very accessible to two great cities o Lots of activities close by o City lakes easily accessible o Easy commute (except rush hour on Hwy 100) • Children First – children and youth are truly valued members of the community o Children and youth are included in all aspects of community life o Community decisions consider the impact on children and youth o Youth Summit • Good Healthcare – is available at nearby, high quality clinics and hospital o Quality care o Methodist Hospital gives a sense of safety o Great to have specialists in one place o Park-Nicollet • Good government – the leadership of St. Louis Park is seen as a great asset o Accessible leaders o Support for Neighborhood Associations o Police and fire, recycling, snow removal o Bookmark in the Park o Parktacular City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 7 What participants challenge Community Partners, residents and workers to grow and improve in St. Louis Park. The challenges below emerged as the passionately felt desires of participants in the 2006, year-long, community-wide vision process. Each Challenging Possibility from the Town Meeting has been placed in the context of the existing (8) goals or vision areas from Vision St. Louis Park 1995. While most point to new challenges related to existing goals, one new goal emerged: St. Louis Park’s outdoor and built environment is clean, green, healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing. Action Groups can now be charged to identify effective actions for realizing measurable outcomes for each goal. • The phrases in bold (below) identify possible new action groups that can be drawn from participants in the vision process. • The charge for other goals can be given to existing groups already responsible for outcomes. (The charge to these action groups is outlined on page 9.) Vision Goals and Challenging Possibilities I Goal (Environment) – St. Louis Park’s outdoor and built environment is clean, green, healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing. ► The Governor of the state of Minnesota has declared St. Louis Park to be a “Fit Community” because of conveniently located recreational opportunities and facilities that are easily accessible to all generations. ► St. Louis Park has a connected network of safe sidewalks and trails with informational stopping points of interest, to ensure a fit city by 2008. II Goal (Community Connections) – All who live and work in St. Louis Park have strong connections to our neighborhoods, businesses and community. ► St. Louis Park offers a variety of transportation modes – sidewalks and trails roads, public transit, light rail – for getting anywhere in St. Louis Park in a safe and enjoyable manner and for connecting to the metro area. ► Families, residents and workers enjoy the many gathering places available in St. Louis Park – including Recreation Centers, Youth Centers and a Malt Shop where teens can gather and Community Art Centers, parks, and shopping centers; they frequently visit the City website to see what is happening. ► There is an urban village at each of the three LRT stations that is dense, diverse and walk-able. ► Community events and celebrations through the year provide ways for residents, workers and visitors to come together for fun, entertainment and learning. ► Diverse arts and cultural activities permeate all aspects of life in St. Louis Park. III Goal (Housing) – St. Louis Park has expanded the stock of balanced housing so residents will be able to live here through all life stages. ► … (outcome measures to be added by action group) City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 8 IV Goal (Diversity) – St. Louis Park is a city where everyone feels and experiences a sense of belonging ► St. Louis Park is free of institutional oppression – racism, class, gender, sexual affinity etc. ► … (outcome measures to be added by action group) V Goal (Children First) – Children and youth are a top priority for the entire community. ► Children and youth participate in every aspect of community life (including the city-wide vision process and the actions to realize the vision). ► … (outcome measures to be added by Children First Vision Team and Executive Committee) VI Goal (Safety) – Our community is a safe environment in which to live, work and learn ► … (outcome measures to be added by Police Advisory Committee) VII Goal (Business) – Diverse businesses provide a solid economic base for community and benefits from strong support from residents, schools and government. ► … (outcome measures to be added by SLP Business Council) VIII Goal (Lifelong Learning) – Educational opportunities for all ages abound because a high value is placed on education. ► … (outcome measures to be added by the Community Education Advisory Council) POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS: Possible action by the Community Partners, who initiated this vision process, • Review the vision and priorities that emerged from the Town Meeting (Summit II) • Declare their commitment to be guided by the vision and priorities • Identify actions they will take • Invite participants in the Town Meeting and any others, who live or work in St. Louis Park to: o Join an action group to propose initiatives, or o Form/join an action group to take on one of the many initiatives identified at the February 12, 2006 Town Meeting o See that existing groups for the eight original goals are charged to review successes, note unfinished items and set new challenges. o Create a tool that can be seen and used city-wide for tracking actions and accomplishments on existing goals and new challenges. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 9 POSSIBLE ACTION GROUPS New Action Groups: Action groups 1-8 are associated with “Challenging Possibilities” identified by participants in Vision St. Louis Park 2006. New groups can be formed from participants who volunteered at the Town Meeting. (The charge to each action group is outlined on page 9) Action Group 1: Environment – St. Louis Park’s outdoor and built environment is clean, green, healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing. Action Group 2: Transportation – St. Louis Park offers a variety of transportation modes – sidewalks, trails, roads, public transit, and light rail – to get anywhere St. Louis Park in a safe and enjoyable manner and to connect to the metro region. Action Group 3: Sidewalks and Trails – St. Louis Park has a connected network of safe sidewalks and trails with informational stopping points of interest, to ensure a fit city by 2008. Action Group 4: Gathering places – Families, residents and workers enjoy the many gathering places available in St. Louis Park – including Recreation Centers, youth Centers and a Malt Shop were teens can gather and Community Arts Centers, parks and shopping centers; they frequently visit the City website to see what is happening. Action Group 5: Community events – Activities and celebrations throughout the year provide ways for residents, workers and visitors to come together for fun, entertainment and learning. Action Group 6: Housing – St. Louis Park has expanded the stock of balanced housing to residents will be able to live here through all life stages. Action Group 7: Arts and culture – Diverse Arts and cultural activities permeate all aspects of life in St. Louis Park. Action Group 8: Diversity – St. Louis Park is a city where everyone feels and experiences a sense of belonging. Existing Groups as Action Groups: Action groups 9-13 are associated with Goals from Vision St. Louis Park 1995 that participants in the Vision St. Louis Park 2006 identified as continuing commitments. Existing groups responsible for outcomes related to each goal can be asked to respond to the action group charge. (The charge to each action group is outlined on page 9) Action Group 9: Children First – Children and youth are a top priority for the entire community. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 10 Action Group 10: Safety – Our community is a safe environment in which to live, work and learn. Action Group 11: Business – Diverse businesses provide a solid economic base for community and benefit from strong support from residents, schools and government. Action Group 12: Lifelong Learning – Educational opportunities for all ages abound because a high value is placed on education. Action Group 13: Responsive Government – Responsive service is a hallmark of City Government. POSSIBLE ACTION GROUP CHARGE Vision St. Louis Park 2006 One thousand active members of our community have identified new, Challenging Possibilities for the future of St. Louis Park and recommitted to the existing 1995 Vision Goals. In fact, continuing improvement for 1995 goals has become a part of the way we do business in this city. The Community Partners request that each Action Group recommend additional outcome measures and actions/programs to make the new Challenging Possibilities and outcomes for existing goals a reality by 2016. Please prepare and submit your group’s recommendations by October 30, 2006. The Partners request that your group: • Recruit members for this group who are passionately interested in responding to the challenge • Agree to meeting times and choose a leader • Review the summary data from the 750 interviews from Vision 2006 • Review the pertinent recommendations made by Task Groups for Vision 1995 • Review the report of the Outcomes Committee to see what has been accomplished to date on Vision St. Louis Park 1995 • Review the proposed actions developed by participants in the 2006 Vision Town Meeting, Feb 12th • Learn which groups/organizations in our community have responsibilities or interests in this challenge • Develop clear 12 month measures of success for this action group • Develop markers of success for 5 years out • Brainstorm actions to achieve the 12 month goal and the five year goal • Propose a plan and priorities for action that ensure success • Prepare your recommendations to be presented by November 30, 2006 City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 11 POSSIBLE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES Partnership Team Who: City, School District, TwinWest Chamber, Park Nicollet, Children First What: • To oversee the visioning process and communicate back to their particular organizations the results of the action teams • To recruit persons from their organizations to be involved on appropriate action teams • To review their own goals and show how they relate to the direction of the City of St. Louis Park • To be prepared to be involved if action steps relate back to their particular organization. This could mean acting on something or it could mean explaining why something could not be done. Steering Committee Who: An overall citizen chair appointed by City Council. Chairs and staff liaisons of the various Vision Action Teams and Existing Groups will also be on the steering committee (based on the successful 1994 model). What: • To learn about the Vision process to date so that there is an understanding of the Appreciative Inquiry process and what was done. • To learn the Vision results to date so that there is an understanding of data obtained. • To meet monthly between June and November • To keep lines of communication open between and among the action committees • To set check points to ensure progress • To review the final report to the Partnership Team and City Council City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 12 Vision St. Louis Park 2006 Town Meeting Prioritizing Process The chart which follows captures the results of the St. Louis Park Town Meeting (Summit II) on February 12, 2006. Every statement on this chart was either a new Challenging Possibility or a 1995 Goal. The chart shows: o Relationship between the Challenging Possibilities (formulated by participants at Summit I after analysis of the 750 interviews) and the existing Goals from Vision St. Louis Park 1995. o Integration of Vision 1995 and Vision 2006 resulted in some of the Challenging Possibilities becoming Possible Outcome Measures for the new goal, about the environment, or for existing 1995 goal areas. The numbers in brackets after each Challenging Possibility or Goal indicates the number of dots placed on that item. o The numbers in brackets beneath each Vision 2006 Goal indicate the combined dots for Challenging Possibilities and 1995 Goals associated with that goal by the 200 participants in the Town Meeting. The new goal is listed first followed by the 1995 goals (from most to least dots). How the dots were distributed at the Town Meeting: At the Town Meeting, February 12th, 200 people were each given 5 “sticky dots” to place on the nine “Challenging Possibilities” (drawn from the vision interviews and articulated by participants in Summit I) and the eight Goals (from Vision St. Louis Park 1995). They were told they could put all their dots in one place if that was the most important Possibility or Goal from their point of view. Most people chose to spread their dots around. The purpose of the dots was to select which Challenging Possibilities or 1995 Goals should be given attention by groups of participants once priorities were identified. For example, one of the Challenging Possibilities was St. Louis Park’s outdoor and built environment is clean, green, healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing. Participants were free to place dots on particular results (listed under each goal) that might exist if this goal area was adopted and realized, but all dots placed under each goal were counted as support for that goal. Groups were then formed around goals with the most dots. The charge to each group was to brainstorm possible actions to recommend for consideration by Action Groups to be formed after the Town Meeting. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 13 Integration of Challenging Possibilities 2006 and Goals from Vision St. Louis Park 1995 New Goal (Environment) – St. Louis Park’s outdoor and built environment is clean, green, healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing. [111] Possible Outcome Measures (from Town Meeting) ► The Governor of the state of Minnesota has declared St. Louis Park to be a “Fit Community” because of conveniently located recreational opportunities and facilities that are easily accessible to all generations. [16] ► St. Louis Park has a connected network of safe sidewalks and trails with informational stopping points of interest, to ensure a fit city by 2008. [16] ► … (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► ... [Environment: total dots = 143] Goal (Community Connections) – All who live and work in St. Louis Park have strong connections to our neighborhoods, businesses and community. Possible Outcome Measures (from Town Meeting) ► St. Louis Park offers a variety of transportation modes – sidewalks and trails roads, public transit, light rail – for getting anywhere in St. Louis Park in a safe and enjoyable manner and for connecting to the metro area. [47] ► Families, residents and workers enjoy the many gathering places available in St. Louis Park – including Recreation Centers, Youth Centers and a Malt Shop where teens can gather and Community Art Centers, parks, and shopping centers; they frequently visit the City website to see what is happening. [44] ► There is an urban village at each of the three LRT stations that is dense, diverse and walkable. [19] ► Diverse arts and cultural activities permeate all aspects of life in St. Louis Park. [28] ► St. Louis Park is the number one community in the state for walkers because its citizens find ease of interconnectivity between business and residential areas, safe crossings and a desirable environment that promotes non-motorized mobility. [16] ► … (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting, e.g. the following is suggested by the Vision Project Team after review of all vision interviews) ► Community events and celebrations through the year provide ways for residents, workers and visitors to come together for fun, entertainment and learning. ► … [Community Connections: total dots = 192] This Challenging Possibility was inadvertantly ommitted in the original packet Council members received. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 14 Goal (Housing) – St. Louis Park has expanded the stock of balanced housing so residents will be able to live here through all life stages. ► … (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► … [Housing: total dots = 54] Goal (Diversity) – St. Louis Park is a city where everyone feels and experiences a sense of belonging ► St. Louis Park is free of institutional oppression – racism, class, gender, sexual affinity etc. ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► … [Diversity: total dots = 53] Goal (Children First) – Children and youth are a top priority for the entire community. ► Children and youth participate in every aspect of community life (including the city-wide vision process and the actions to realize the vision). ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► … [Children First: total dots = 29] Goal (Safety) – Our community is a safe environment in which to live, work and learn ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► … [Safety: total dots = 36] Goal (Business) – Diverse businesses provide a solid economic base for community and benefits from strong support from residents, schools and government. ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► [Business: total dots = 25] City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 15 Goal (Lifelong Learning) – Educational opportunities for all ages abound because a high value is placed on education. ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► … [Lifelong Learning: total dots = 17] Goal (Responsive Government) – Responsive services is a hallmark of City Government ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► … [Responsive Government: total dots = 5] City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 16 Integration of Challenging Possibilities 2006 and Goals from Vision St. Louis Park 1995 New Goal (Environment) – St. Louis Park’s outdoor and built environment is clean, green, healthy, safe and aesthetically pleasing. Possible Outcome Measures (from Town Meeting) ► The Governor of the state of Minnesota has declared St. Louis Park to be a “Fit Community” because of conveniently located recreational opportunities and facilities that are easily accessible to all generations. ► St. Louis Park has a connected network of safe sidewalks and trails with informational stopping points of interest, to ensure a fit city by 2008. ► … (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) Goal (Community Connections) – All who live and work in St. Louis Park have strong connections to our neighborhoods, businesses and community. Possible Outcome Measures (from Town Meeting) ► St. Louis Park offers a variety of transportation modes – sidewalks and trails roads, public transit, light rail – for getting anywhere in St. Louis Park in a safe and enjoyable manner and for connecting to the metro area. ► Families, residents and workers enjoy the many gathering places available in St. Louis Park – including Recreation Centers, Youth Centers and a Malt Shop where teens can gather and Community Art Centers, parks, and shopping centers; they frequently visit the City website to see what is happening. ► There is an urban village at each of the three LRT stations that is dense, diverse and walk-able. ► Diverse arts and cultural activities permeate all aspects of life in St. Louis Park. ► St. Louis Park is the number one community in the state for walkers because its citizens find ease of interconnectivity between business and residential areas, safe crossings and a desirable environment that promotes non-motorized mobility. ► … (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting, e.g. the following is suggested by the Vision Project Team after review of all vision interviews) ► Community events and celebrations through the year provide ways for residents, workers and visitors to come together for fun, entertainment and learning. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 4 - 2006 Visioning Update Page 17 Goal (Housing) – St. Louis Park has expanded the stock of balanced housing so residents will be able to live here through all life stages. ► … (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) Goal (Diversity) – St. Louis Park is a city where everyone feels and experiences a sense of belonging ► St. Louis Park is free of institutional oppression – racism, class, gender, sexual affinity etc. ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) Goal (Children First) – Children and youth are a top priority for the entire community. ► Children and youth participate in every aspect of community life (including the city-wide vision process and the actions to realize the vision). ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) Goal (Safety) – Our community is a safe environment in which to live, work and learn ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) Goal (Business) – Diverse businesses provide a solid economic base for community and benefits from strong support from residents, schools and government. ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) Goal (Lifelong Learning) – Educational opportunities for all ages abound because a high value is placed on education. ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) ► … Goal (Responsive Government) – Responsive services is a hallmark of City Government ► (Additional outcome measures to be added by Action Groups after further study of vision interviews and results of the Town Meeting) City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 5 - Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Funding Support Page 1 5. Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Constitutional Amendment (MVST) Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To review a proposed resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, would indicate support for the proposed constitutional amendment which would require the use of all motor vehicle sales tax proceeds to be used for highway and transit initiatives. If the Council were to indicate comfort with the resolution, staff would schedule this for formal consideration on May 15. BACKGROUND: On April 24 the Council discussed policy issues associated with the proposed constitutional amendment regarding MVST. At the conclusion of the discussion the Council asked the City Manager to modify the proposed model resolution to identify local transportation issues and concerns and how those relate to the Council’s support of the constitutional amendment. The City Manager redrafted the resolution and sent it out to all Councilmember’s for their review and comment. Several Councilmember’s responded indicating either no change was necessary or suggesting minor edits. The suggested edits are included in the draft resolution attached. I have also attached other background information on MVST. Attachments: Sample Resolution MVST background information from 4-24-06 Study Session Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 6 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 1 6. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next Study Session agenda. BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately 15 minutes is set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for a proposed special study session on May 15 and the regularly scheduled May 22, 2006 study session. Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Prepared By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 050806 - 6 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 2 Future Study Session Agenda Planning Monday, May 15 6:30 p.m. Study Session starts (prior to EDA and Regular meeting) A. Council Priorities/ENDS – City Manager (30 minutes) Continued discussion on the priorities or ENDS from recent Council workshop. City Manager will present various combinations of the information and ask for Council direction. Monday, May 22 6:00 p.m. Box lunches for Council and Charter Commission 6:30 p.m. Study Session starts A. Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) – Administrative Services (1 hour) Joint Meeting of the Council and Charter Commission to listen to a presentation about instant run-off voting. Presentation from Tony Solgard Fair Vote Minnesota and information from City Attorney Roger Knutson. B. Bass Lake Site Conceptual Development – Community Development (1 hour) Discussion on development possibilities on the Bass Lake site. City’s consultant will discuss options along with ideas from Park Nicollet on EDI as a component on the site. Staff will be asking for Council direction. C. SW Transit Way Funding Subcommittee Report – James Brimeyer (30 minutes) Mr. Brimeyer will provide the Council with an update to SW Transit Way and Funding. D. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (15 minutes) 10:00 p.m. End of Meeting