Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018/05/29 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session
AGENDA MAY 29, 2018 6:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning June 4 and June 11, 2018 2. 6:05 p.m. Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest 3. 7:05 p.m. Bicycle Sharing Discussion 4. 7:35 p.m. Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard 5. 8:05 p.m. Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan 9:35 p.m. Communications/Updates (Verbal) 9:40 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 6. Buckthorn Management Program 7. Utility Improvements at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South 8. April 2018 Monthly Financial Report 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: May 29, 2018 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning June 4 and June 11, 2018 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a special study session on June 4 and for the regularly scheduled study session on June 11, 2018. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: This report summarizes the proposed agenda for a special study session on June 4 and the regularly scheduled study session on June 11, 2018. 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 – June 4 and June 11, 2018 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning June 4 and June 11, 2018 JUNE 4, 2018 5:20 pm – Special Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1. Race, Equity & Inclusion Update – Administrative Services (80 minutes) Discussion will include information on next steps, planning, community outreach/education & learning, participating in Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) and understanding council priority regarding affirming environment for transgender individuals. 2. Boards & Commissions Update – Administrative Services (40 minutes) Information related to our Boards & Commissions will be discussed, including structure, connection, setting expectations, youth & senior advisory commissions and overall communication with City Council. JUNE 11, 2018 6:00pm – Skate Park Ribbon Cutting – Carpenter Park 6:30 pm – Study Session – Community Room Tentative Discussion Items 1.Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2.Ranked Choice Voting – Administrative Services (60 minutes) The ordinance related to the rules for the conduct of municipal elections will be discussed including basic definitions, a legal overview of the implementation process and a review of the Minneapolis model. 3.Retail/Service/Liquor Stores Size – Community Development (45 minutes) Discussion regarding appropriate size of specific uses in commercial and mixed use districts. 4.Minnesota GreenCorps Presentation – Operations & Recreation (20 minutes) Staff will update council on the benefits of being a Minnesota GreenCorps host city and the great work our 2017-2018 Minnesota GreenCorps member has done to improve recycling at both multi-family properties and city parks. 5.Minimium Wage Ordinance – Administration (15 minutes) Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Written Reports 6.Urban Park Apartments Development Proposal 7.France Avenue Sidewalk Project Update: 4018-2000 Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning June 4 and June 11, 2018 Study Session Prioritization & Projected Discussion Timeline Priority Discussion Topic Comments Date 4 Revitalization of Walker/Lake Area Part of Preserving Walker Building Reports: 8/28/17, 9/25/17, 1/22/18, Design Study 2/12/18, update 4/23 Ongoing 4 Communication to HRC on Council Expectations 6/4/18 4 Race Equity/Inclusion Courageous Conversations 6/4/18 4 Creating an Affirming Environment for Transgender Individuals 6/4/18 4 Zoning Guidelines for Front-facing Buildings w/ Windows Not Papered Over 7/9/18 4 Finalize Council Norms Reviewed on 5/7/18; deferred to a future study session on 5/21/18 TBD 4 Establish a Local Housing Trust Fund Discussed 5/14 – staff following up TBD 4 Policy for Funding Non-profits Discussed on 4/9/18. Staff following up TBD 3 Historical Society Space Part of Walker Bldg discussions on 8/28/17 & 11/20/17, 12/11/17, 4/23 Ongoing 3 The Nest 5/29/18 3 Develop a Youth/Senior Advisory 6/4/18 3 Retail/Service/Liquor Stores Size 6/11/18 3 Minimum Wage Ordinance 6/11/18 3 Design Guidelines - New Home Construction 7/9/18 3 Discuss & Evaluate Our Public Process 7/23/18 3 Living Streets Policy 3rd Qtr 2018 3 Crime Free Ordinance / Affordable Housing Strategies Discussed 5/14. Staff following up TBD 3 Easy Access to Nature, Across City, Starting w/ Low-income Neighborhoods TBD 2 SEED’s Community Green House / Resiliant Cities Initiative TBD 2 Bird Friendly Glass TBD 2 Dark Skies Ordinance (Light Pollution) TBD 2 Community Center Project TBD 2 Revitalization of Monkey Island TBD ? Firearm Sales Discussed 5/21/18. Staff following up TBD ? Utility Pricing Policy TBD 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: May 29, 2018 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required at this time. SLP Nest board members will be in attendance to provide an update on the SLP Nest and a request for funding. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the Council supportive of providing financial assistance for this initiative? As the Council considers this question, what additional information does it need to assist in making a decision? SUMMARY: Two years ago a group of St. Louis Park High School students developed an idea to create a space for students to gather for social, recreational and educational activities. This idea formulated into an idea for the Nest. The students organized SLP Nest as a 501(c)(3) non-profit business, created a business plan, and have begun fundraising. The students have also created a brand logo and tagline, have secured lease space at 3412 Library Lane in the Historic Walker Lake District, and have entered into a preliminary agreement with Muddy Paws Cheesecake to supply the student-run coffee shop with food and beverages. According to the attached correspondence from SLP Nest, the school district has offered class credit to SLP Nest Student Board members, an option to offer a SLP Nest Learning Lab as an elective for the 2020-21 school year and beyond, which includes ⅕ of a staff person to manage the SLP Nest Learning Lab class, and accredited internships through the College and Career Office. Students provided their initial concept to the city council at a meeting on May 1, 2017 and an update to council at a study session on February 12, 2018. At the upcoming study session the Nest board of directors will be providing additional updates and request funding in the amount of $25,000 to assist with lease payments, space improvements, staff salary and programming expenses. The students have set a goal of opening on September 4, 2018. Additional information about the SLP Nest can be found at www.slpnest.org FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: SLP Nest representatives will be requesting financial assistance from the city in the amount of $25,000. As noted in the attached draft funding agreement, as a precondition of receiving these funds SLP Nest must obtain matching, dollar-for- dollar funding from an outside source. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion SLP Nest Memo Link to SLP Nest Business Plan: www.slpnest.org/the-nest-mission Draft Funding Agreement Prepared by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 2 ) Page 2 Title: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In 2016, a group of St. Louis Park high school students and parents recognized a need to create a space for students to engage in unstructured recreational, educational, artistic and social activities. This became the impetus for the creation of the Nest; a student-run space for students, managed by a student board, designed by students, with adult support to complement school and home support structures. Since that time, the students have incorporated into a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, have created a business plan, developed a logo and marketing materials, built community relationships, secured a lease space, entered into an agreement with Muddy Paws Cheesecake to supply the coffee-shop food and beverages, partnered with the school district to design accredited learning lab and internships for students involved in the SLP Nest, and have raised over $17,000 in donations. Students are continuing fund-raising activities, as well as making applications to various organizations for grant funds to help them reach their goal of being open and operational by September 4, 2018. According to SLP Nest, they have created a number of partnerships in efforts to bring their idea and vision to fruition through funding and support. These partnerships include: • SLP’s Friends of the Arts • SLP’s Community and Youth Development Fund • Metro Regional Arts Council • St. Paul Foundation • St. Louis Park Family Collaborative • Local Rotary organizations • Youth Sport Grants (Hennepin County) • Youth Development Grants (Hennepin County) • Best Buy • Grave Foundation • Weston A Price Foundation • St. Louis Park Community Foundation • Bush Foundation • 21st Century School Fund • Park Nicollet Foundation Students provided their initial concept to the city council at a meeting on May 1, 2017 and an update to council at a study session on February 12, 2018. At the February study session, council requested the Nest to create a more robust business plan that included a detailed proforma and operating plans in the event the city does not provide funding assistance. Additionally, questions were raised which have been addressed in the business plan and/or will be addressed during the study session, including: • Do you have sources identified for the year one $97,000 budget and the ongoing $200,000 operating budget? Can you list these sources and expected amounts from each? • Have you spoken to these sources to ascertain likelihood of funding? • Are these one-time start up grants or ongoing operating grants? • What does it mean to “start small with flexible operating model”? Is this the $97k (instead of $200k) or another plan? • What are your metrics of success? • How many students do you expect to utilize the Nest per month? Per year? • What is your strategy (beyond the limited time the city’s staff can provide) for ensuring inclusion of students of color in the Nest? Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 2 ) Page 3 Title: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest Additional information about the Nest can be found at www.slpnest.org PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The Nest has secured a lease space at 3412 Library Lane in the Historic Walker Lake area for their operational space. 3412 Library Lane Aerial View City building and zoning staff have toured the property and found it to be conducive to the Nest’s plans with no significant build-out required. The location provides easy access from the high school and offers sufficient parking. The Nest will be requesting $25,000 in funding assistance from the city for the first year of operations. These funds are proposed to be used for lease payments, build-out, staff, and programming. The Nest is anticipating additional requests for funding from the city of $20,000 in year two, and $15,000 in year three. The draft funding agreement requires the Nest to enter into a lease for a minimum 12-month period, to keep the space open and free-of-charge to all St. Louis Park public and private school students during normal business hours, raise matching funds, and submit receipts for reimbursement of eligible funding activities. NEXT STEPS: If the council is supportive of providing funding to the Nest, staff will bring the Funding Agreement to council for formal action at an upcoming council meeting. The Nest will take occupancy of the space in June or July and will begin build-out in preparation for opening on September 4, 2018. May 21, 2018 TO: Karen Barton, Community Development Director, City of St. Louis Park FROM: SLP NEST Board of Directors RE: Potential city funding Since our last meeting, we have made quite a bit of progress on SLP NEST, much of it in response to the suggestions and challenges laid out the council and city staff. These are: ●Space: We have secured 3412 Library Lane in the Historic Walker Lake District. It’s currently an unused building owned by Jim Arneson, a long-time business owner in St. Louis Park. Jim and his brother Dave own several buildings in the area and run Precision Instruments Company. While the it is smaller than our original plan called for, the rent is also less and there are a number of advantages to the space as well. City staff have toured the building and the use fits the current zoning. ●Our Ask Today: We are still requesting $25,000 in seed money for this first year of SLP NEST. While the rent has been reduced, there is still a need for seed money for staff, and other expenses as you can see in our business plan. ●Our Ask in future years: Our Pro Forma plans that we will request $20,000 of the city council in Year Two and $15,000 in Year Three, phasing out entirely in Year Four as other sustaining revenue becomes available. But Years Two and Three are not what we are requesting today. We are requesting the $25,000 to get started. ●Operation: We will hire a Youth Coordinator for on site management of SLP Nest. This person will be responsible for the safety and security of the students in addition to helping the Board carry out activities, events, and promotions related to our mission. An additional note: our operating plan for the coffee shop has changed. For a few reasons, SLP NEST will now be operating the coffee shop. Muddy Paws Cheesecake will be the main supplier of fresh foods and act as a consultant. o Operating the coffee shop on our own, on a very limited basis, provides an opportunity for a more robust “learning lab” which can involve more students interested in learning about business. o To the public, proceeds from sales will clearly be provided to SLP NEST. Otherwise, there may have been some confusion about proceeds going to Muddy Paws. o By keeping the coffee shop within SLP NEST’s organization, we ensure that there is no conflict between the coffee shop operation and the core mission of SLP NEST. ●Business Plan: We encourage the city council to read the business plan. It has been favorably reviewed by Rob Smolund of Open To Business. Rob suggested a number of modifications with the financial outlines that we have made. ●Fundraising & Development: Our fundraising is going very well. As of today, we have exceeded $16,000 in support. Since our presentation in February, we have tripled the size of our grant writing team, but are not limited to grants. Details regarding revenue sources can be found in the business plan. ●School District Support: School Board members are highly supportive of SLP Nest. Although the Board is unable to provide immediate financial support, the District Administration has offered (1) Class Credit to SLP Nest Student Board members, (2) an option to offer SLP Nest Learning Lab as an elective for the 2120-21 school year and beyond, which includes ⅕ of a staff person to manage the SLP Nest Learning Lab class, and (3) Accredited Internships through the College and Career Office. ●Mission: Our mission is one thing that has not changed. We believe the city’s funding of this concept is one of the best ways for the community to live out one it’s Vision 3.0 recommendations-Prepare the next generation. ●Service to the Community: The hours between 3 and 7 pm are the riskiest for unsupervised youth. Between the time when school lets out and parents come home from work, teens are more likely to experiment with drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and sex than any other time during the week. They’re also more likely to engage in or be the victim of criminal activity. By providing a safe place for teens to be during the hours they need it most, we believe we can contribute to the long-term health and well-being of the entire community, including many residents who are currently underserved. Thank you! Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest Page 4 3412 Library Lane Sketch of Floor Plan and Lot provided by Jim Arneson Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest Page 5 196654v2 196654v2 1 FUNDING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on ____________, 2018, by and between SLP NEST, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“SLP Nest”), and the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”). WHEREAS, SLP Nest is a 501(c)(3) non-profit business that was created by St. Louis Park High School students and community members, to create a space for students in the community; and WHEREAS, SLP Nest has requested rental assistance from the City; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.935 allows a home rule charter city to appropriate money to support the facilities, programs, and services of a private, not-for-profit youth center; and WHEREAS, the City believes that granting SLP Nest’s request is in the best interest of the City and its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein expressed, the parties agree as follows: 1.SLP Nest will enter into a commercial lease for operational space for SLP Nest’s business for a length of at least 12 months (“Lease”). 2.Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.935, the City agrees to provide a maximum of $25,000.00 in funds (“Funds”) to “support the facilities, programs, and services” of SLP Nest. Such support may include, but is not limited to, reimbursement for the following: monthly lease payments, facility improvements, staff salary, and programming costs. Funds will be paid on a reimbursement basis upon monthly verification by SLP Nest of rent payments, improvement costs, staff salary, programming expenses, etc. in a form satisfactory to the City, which may include copies of rent payments, certification of payments by SLP Nest’s lessor under the Lease, receipts for materials and labor used to improve the operational space, receipts or copies of payments for other expenses as applicable. 3.As a precondition of receipt of Funds, SLP Nest must obtain matching, dollar-for-dollar funding from an outside source (“Match Funding”). For purposes of this Agreement “outside source” will include all funding of every kind from public or private sources other than the Funds identified by this Agreement. The City will only release Funds to SLP Nest in an amount equal to or less than the Match Funding SLP Nest has obtained as of the date of release. 4. On or before July 1, 2018 SLP Nest must provide the City with copies of the following: (a)Detailed revenue and expenditure and contingency plans Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest Page 6 196654v2 196654v2 2 (b)Ongoing operating budget (c)Management/oversight plans for the SLP Nest property (d)Marketing plans that include outreach to students of color and low-income students (e)The Lease (f)SLP Nest’s accounting logs and receipts documenting Match Funding 5. In exchange for the provision of Funds, SLP Nest agrees to keep the operational space for SLP Nest’s business open to use free-of-charge by all St. Louis Park public and private school students during normal business hours. SLP Nest may, however, charge a rental fee for any person or entity who wishes to use the SLP Nest space to host an event, and such event space rental will not be considered a violation of this Section 5. 6. Nothing contained in this Agreement, nor any act by the City or SLP Nest, shall be deemed or construed by the SLP Nest or any third person to create any relationship of third-party beneficiary, principal and agent, limited or general partner, or joint venture between the City and the SLP Nest. 7.SLP Nest hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City and City’s officials, agents, employees, and assigns, from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, suits, proceedings, liabilities, damages, losses, costs, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, caused by, incurred, or resulting from the acts or omissions of SLP Nest pursuant to this Agreement. 8.A violation of any of term of this Agreement shall constitute an Event of Default. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, SLP Nest will have seven (7) days to remedy the same. If SLP Nest is unable to remedy the default, the City may terminate this Agreement upon an additional seven (7) days’ notice to SLP Nest. 9.The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement contains all the agreements between the City and SLP Nest. The Parties have no other written or oral agreements. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The parties agree that the Minnesota state and federal courts will have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of this Agreement. If a court determines that any part of this Agreement is unlawful or unenforceable, the remaining portions of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. Any ambiguity in the agreement will not be construed presumptively against any party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date written above. Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest Page 7 196654v2 196654v2 3 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By _________________________________ Jake Spano, Mayor By _________________________________ Tom Harmening, City Manager SLP NEST By __________________________________ _________________________ Its _______________________ Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 2) Title: Update and Request for Funding for SLP Nest Page 8 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Bicycle Sharing Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff will provide an overview of the status of bicycle sharing in the region and requests council direction on next steps. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want City staff to pursue procuring bicycle sharing services in the near future or wait to learn from other cities’ experiences? SUMMARY: In January, Lime approached city staff to discuss implementation of dockless bicycles in St. Louis Park. In order to develop an understanding of the technology and educate staff, an interdepartmental dockless bicycle taskforce was formed to discuss the emerging technology and how it relates to St. Louis Park. The group has met monthly, and had a demonstration of dockless bicycle sharing technology from Lime. The taskforce has developed two options for the city to pursue at this time and are seeking council direction on next steps. There are pros and cons to each option that should be weighed before making a decision. A.No Action at this Time/Monitor Activities in Other Cities Waiting to implement (if the city decides to implement in the future) allows us to observe the experience in other cities and develop a better understanding of common problems and solutions that arise. This will make St. Louis Park better prepared to host the technology if it were decide to do so. B.Actively Pursue Bicycle sharing in St. Louis Park Implementing the technology would increase the accessibility to non-motorized travel in St. Louis Park. Moving forward on implementation could also result in increased staff time dedicated to the management of the bikes in respect to public outreach and customer service. This is normally done by the bicycle sharing company, but the average resident would think to call the city first before another company. Before a final decision is made on a path forward, staff recommends engaging the public to receive feedback regarding bicycle sharing in the community. Staff did not want to take this discussion to the public without first receiving direction from the council. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Dockless Article (Chicago Tribune) Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Bicycle Sharing Discussion DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: In February, an interdepartmental dockless bicycle taskforce was formed to discuss the emerging technology and how it relates to St. Louis Park. The group has met monthly. On February 26, 2018, City Council was given a report titled, “Dockless Bicycles”. The report informed council about what dockless bike share is, how it works, and its place in the Twin Cities. On May 21, 2018, staff provided a follow up report titled “Dockless Bicycle Update”. That report provided an update explaining where dockless bike share are today in the Twin Cities, and where St. Louis Park may or may not fit in the picture at this time. Twin Cities Update The City of Golden Valley approved an MOU with a dockless bike company, Lime, in March and will be operational sometime this year. It is estimated that they will have about 200 bikes available for rent across the city. This is a non-exclusive arrangement. The City of Edina approved an MOU with Lime on May 1, 2018. It is expected that Edina’s bikes will launch the same time as Golden Valley sometime this year. It is estimated that they will have about 500 bikes available. This is a non-exclusive arrangement. The City of Minneapolis amended their bicycle ordinance to accommodate dockless bike share on April 27, 2018. Through an agreement with Motivate, Nice Ride plans to transition all of their bicycle sharing to dockless by 2020. To accommodate this, Minneapolis updated their bike share agreement with Nice Ride to include Motivate’s relationship. Minneapolis’ agreement is exclusive to Motivate. While Lime users will be able to bike through Minneapolis, they not be allowed to end their trip and drop off their bike within the city’s borders. Public Process At this time staff has not done public outreach regarding implementation of bicycle sharing. Our internal staff taskforce was formed in order to respond to the eminent implementation in Minneapolis, Golden Valley, and Edina. If the Council directs staff to move forward with pursuing bicycle sharing, staff will reach out to the public for comments regarding the service. Our communications staff has been a part of the staff group and will be assisting in the public engagement. We anticipate reaching out via social media with a survey, and holding listening sessions. Staff has identified a number of questions that need to be asked before implementing this technology. It is anticipated that this list of questions will grow through public engagement. Shared mobility services has been identified as a goal in our Comprehensive Plan. To gauge public support for this goal, we added a general question to the Comprehensive Plan 2040 survey. Here is the question from that survey: Shared Mobility Services Car, bike, or ride sharing is an innovative alternative to driving personal vehicles for short distance trips within the city. These systems allow you to rent or check out a bicycle or car for short-term use, or enable users to arrange a ride through a website or application. Some systems have specific pick up and drop off locations and some allow random pick up or drop off throughout a service area. Sharing services can provide a variety of affordable transportation options to a greater number of people. Please indicate your level of support for the following statement: (1 to 4) St. Louis Park should pursue shared use mobility options, such as bike, car or ride sharing systems. Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Bicycle Sharing Discussion Staff Recommendation Staff is looking for direction from council on a path forward regarding bicycle sharing. The group has come up with two options. They are described below. In either case, there are pros and cons. Regardless of the option we pursue, there are additional questions that have to be answered by the city. These are summarized below. A. No Action at This Time/Monitor Activities in Other Cities: Choosing this option would direct staff to not pursue bicycle sharing at this time. Rather, staff would monitor bike sharing efforts in other communities. Using this approach, St. Louis Park would get to learn what works and what doesn’t work in Golden Valley, Edina, and Minneapolis. Furthermore, St. Louis Park would be able to take these lessons learned and employ a better strategy if we choose to pursue bicycle sharing in the future. Situations the city would get to learn more about in the process include but are not limited to the relationship between city staff and the company, resident feedback and how much residents actually use the service. Downsides to waiting to see what happens may include: • Perception that St. Louis Park does not support shared mobility services. • The City may still have to deal with dockless bikes being left within our city limits. Concerns regarding safety, aesthetics, and right-of-way management will fall to staff to resolve. If Council direction is to not take action at this time, the following questions still have to be answered: • If a dockless bike is left on City right-of-way, how do we respond? o Do we impound them if the company does not respond? o Do we issue fines? • If City employee time and dollars are spent dealing with these bikes, what should be done? o Do we charge for staff time to respond to concerns from the public? • What does the public desire? B. Pursue Bicycle Sharing: Choosing this option would direct staff to pursue getting bicycle sharing operational in St. Louis Park. Positive outcomes to this option include offering uninterrupted bike service for residents across the west metro suburbs and/or between our city and Minneapolis. The City would be able to offer more access to non-vehicular transportation to residents without any direct cost to the City or our residents. The goal of reducing vehicle trips is in line with goals within the newly approved Climate Action Plan and one of the recently adopted Strategic Priorities related to mobility around the community. There are two forms of bicycle sharing, docked and dockless. Moving forward with this option, staff would explore opportunities for bike sharing companies to offer their services within the city. This would include contacting the companies operating in the Twin Cities. Docked bicycle sharing: Nice Ride has been operational in Minneapolis since 2010. This system has 190 stations with a fleet of 1700 bikes. Through an agreement with Motivate, Nice Ride plans to transition all of their bicycle sharing to dockless by 2020. Previous conversations with Nice Ride were held about 3 years ago, and they were interested but not ready to implement at that time. They cited that they wanted to wait until SWLRT was operational and perhaps add bicycle docks along the regional trail and at the stations. Staff would check in with Nice Ride to determine if they were interested in expanding their docked system in the city at this time. Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Bicycle Sharing Discussion Dockless bicycle sharing: Staff would explore opportunities for dockless bike companies to offer their services within the city. This would include contacting the two companies operating in the Twin Cities (Lime and Motivate). Staff recommends the following for a path forward with dockless: •Pursue a non-exclusive Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Lime to bring their services to the City. •Contact Motivate exploring the possibility of expanding their service to the City. Since no other city has a direct agreement with Motivate, it is unclear what form this would take. Downsides to pursuing these bikes include unforeseen consequences with piloting new programs with new technology. There have been reports across the country about the dockless bikes being vandalized, taken onto/into private property, and put in dangerous places (on railroad tracks). There may be situations in which the police are contacted for something related to the bikes. If the City pursues dockless technology, there are a few things that have to be done beforehand. In existing public MOUs between dockless companies and Minnesota cities, there have not been guarantees regarding racial equity and equal access to services. With the city’s continued efforts in advancing racial equity, it would be important to ask for equitable service within our city. Other questions staff has identified that should be addressed include but are not limited to: •Where can or should these bikes be parked in the city? •What types of dockless technology does the city desire? ie. Bikes, e-bikes, scooters? •Is there a preferred system the city desires i.e. Connect with suburbs only, connect with Minneapolis only, all of the above? •Would there be a desire to create a permit-based system in the future? •Should we designate specific areas where the dockless bikes can be left? Should we let the users inform the system? Or a combination of both? •What does the public desire? Schedule Engaging the public and negotiating with providers will take time. It is unlikely that this work will be complete before the end of summer, and staff is concerned about having bikes in the right-of- way during the winter months. As a result, staff anticipates that if bicycle sharing is approved in St. Louis Park, it would not be implemented until 2019. T By Mary Wisniewski Chicago Tribune MAY 4, 2018, 4:15 PM he city’s new dockless bike share program mandates that rental bikes be capable of being locked to some physical object — like a bike rack or signpost — by July 1. Chicago is planning to launch a pilot program for a "dockless" bike share program on the South Side that would allow users to rent bikes more cheaply than Divvy. Dockless bike companies protest Chicago's lock rule: 'No other city has required this' But China-based Ofo and California-based LimeBike, which use wheel locks rather than cables or U- locks to secure bikes between rentals, say they hope to change the city’s mind on the “lock-to” requirement in the next two months. “We are hoping to show the city that it’s not necessary — no other city has required this,” said Chris Nakutis Taylor, Ofo’s North American head. He said Ofo educates its riders on correct parking, and Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Bicycle Sharing Discussion Page 5 that employees make sure bikes are evenly distributed, kept in good repair and out of the pu blic’s way. In some other cities, dockless bikes have posed problems and cluttered sidewalks when parked carelessly. “We really think locking to something is a policy that should be pushed forward by cities,” said Dave Reed, Chicago market manager for Zagster. He said bikes not locked to fixed objects like bike racks can become a “public nuisance.” Dockless bikes allow users to locate bikes to rent through a phone app, instead of getting them from a bike station, as required by the city-owned Divvy program. The city’s six-month pilot program will run from 79th to 138th streets and from the Skyway west to Pulaski Road. This will fill a bike share desert, as there are no Divvy stations south of 87th Street. Zagster’s Pace bikes are equipped with built-in cables to lock to fixed objects, which has allowed the Massachusetts-based firm to have 250 bikes, the maximum allowed under the pilot program, while Ofo and LimeBike are currently limited to 50 bikes each because they lack lock-to technology. Divvy charges $3 for a 30-minute ride, while Pace and Ofo each charge $1 for 30 minutes. LimeBike electric-assist bikes costs $1 to unlock, and 15 cents per minute. mwisniewski@chicagotribune.com Twitter @marywizchicago RELATED Ald. Beale wants Divvy, not dockless, bike share for Far South Side; calls for hearings » Chicago to test-drive new ‘dockless’ bike share program » Copyright © 2018, Chicago Tribune This 'attr(data-c-typename)' is related to: Divvy Missing comments? We’ve turned off comments across chicagotribune.com while we review our commenting platform and consider ways to improve the system. If you purchased points through the Solid Opinion platform and would like a Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 3) Title: Bicycle Sharing Discussion Page 6 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Davis Group and United Properties representatives will present their concept plans for this proposed project POLICY CONSIDERATION: What is the city council’s initial feedback on the concept plans? What is city council’s initial comments on the proposed relocation of the existing billboards? SUMMARY: Davis Group and United Properties are planning a new five story, 115,000 square foot multi-tenant office building, and three-level parking ramp at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard. The plan proposes site access from Wayzata Boulevard and Colorado Avenue. The existing Westside Office Park building is a low rise, one and two-story, office building that is structurally substandard and functionally obsolete. It includes a large surface parking lot. The present uses on the site include auto sales and other class C office and storage uses. The proposed redevelopment would include demolition of the existing building. The developer is exploring several options for removal of the existing billboard. The developer asserts that their plan cannot move ahead with the billboard in its current location. The zoning code prohibits off-site advertising; therefore, relocating or reconstructing the billboard is not allowed. The city has generally promoted or required removal of existing billboards on major redevelopments that require planned unit development or city financial assistance. For the project to move forward as proposed in the concept plans, a change would be needed to revise the city code to allow billboards. The site is guided Commercial in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The site is zoned C-2 General Commercial, and it is within the Travel Demand Management Zone B and Floodplain overlay districts. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan proposes Office as the future land use designation. The project would be subject to the Green Building Policy. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The developer intends to apply for tax increment financing (TIF). As part of this redevelopment, the EDA would need to establish a tax increment financing district. The amount of the TIF request is not yet known. NEXT STEPS: The developer and staff will schedule future study session(s) with the city council to discuss the recommendations of the traffic study and the tax increment financing requests, prior to city council consideration of formal applications. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Development Plans Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard DISCUSSION SITE INFORMATION: Site Area: 4.52 acres Current Uses: Commercial & office Comprehensive Plan: COM Commercial Current Zoning: C-2 General Commercial, TDM Zone B, Floodplain Surrounding Land Uses: North: Wayzata Blvd, I-394, bus stop East: Railroad tracks, hotel, Townhomes West: auto repair, engineering/manufacturing South: multi-family residential SITE LOCATION: PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Site and Building Design: Davis Group and United Properties propose a new five story, 115,000 square foot multi-tenant office building at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard. The developer also proposes a three story parking ramp on the site. The developer owns the parcels. The site would be required to meet all the city’s building and site design requirements, including landscaping, stormwater, and lighting. Access: The site would be accessed from Wayzata Boulevard and Colorado Avenue. Parking: Per the zoning ordinance, office uses between 50,000 and 200,000 square feet require one parking space for every 275 square feet. An office building of 115,000 square feet would therefore require approximately 418 parking spaces. Proposed parking on the site is located in a small Location of billboard Interstate 394 Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard surface lot east of the proposed office building, structured underground parking beneath the office building, and in a three story parking ramp on the south portion of the site. The site may be eligible for a 10% reduction in the minimum amount of off-street parking due to nearby high-frequency transit stops. Traffic Demand Management Plan: The site is located in the Travel Demand Management (TDM) District Zone B. The developer would be required to submit a TDM plan, which would be reviewed and approved by a joint task force with representation from the cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. The city council would review and approve the development plan as part of either a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval process. The developer would pay a traffic management administrative fee to the city. Fifty percent of the fee would be paid at the time the zoning application is formally submitted, and fifty percent of the fee would be paid at the time the developer applies for building permits. The fee is based on the building floor area. As part of the TDM plan, staff would commission a traffic study to be financed by the developer. The results of the study would be presented to the city council at a future study session. Billboard: A two-sided billboard currently owned (not leased) by Clear Channel is located in the northwest corner of the site. The developer proposes relocating the two-sided billboard off site to a nearby parcel they own. Other options the developer has explored preliminarily with Clear Channel is the removal of this billboard in exchange for another existing nearby billboard to be converted to electronic displays. The developer has also explored purchasing the billboard for removal; however, the price to do so would be cost prohibitive to the project. City policy and the zoning ordinance does not allow for the construction of new billboards, nor the relocation or reconstruction of existing billboards. For the project to move forward as currently proposed or with either of the first two options above, city council would have to reverse past city practices and amend City Code Section 36-362 Sign Regulations to allow off-site advertising. The city has generally promoted and/or required removal of existing billboards on major redevelopments that require discretionary city approvals, such as a planned unit development or city financial assistance. NEXT STEPS: If the developer proceeds, future study session(s) would be scheduled with the city council to discuss the findings and recommendations of the traffic study and the tax increment financing requests, prior to city council consideration of formal applications. 05.10.2018 OFFICE BUILDIN G WAYZATA BLVD SITE PLAN PARKING RAMP SERVICE DROP OFFRAMP ENTRY COLORADO AVE SCOURTYARD Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard Page 4 05.10.2018 VIEW OF ENTRY Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard Page 5 05.10.2018 VIEW OF LOBBY Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard Page 6 05.10.2018 VIEW OF LOBBY Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard Page 7 05.10.2018 VIEW OF LOBBY Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard Page 8 05.10.2018 VIEW OF COURTYARD Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 4) Title: Office Development Proposal at 6009 Wayzata Boulevard Page 9 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and provide feedback on the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. No other action is required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed draft Comprehensive Plan in keeping with the council’s expectations? SUMMARY: Please find the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan at: www.stlouispark.org/slp2040 Following the Council Study Session of May 14, 2018, the outline and organization of the draft Plan was changed to reflect the Council’s comments; the new outline is attached. Also attached is a general description of each section of the Plan. At the meeting Staff will provide an overview of the various sections. A community on-line survey of several proposed goals/strategies/directions in the Comprehensive Plan began on May 14th and will continue until June 20th. The survey is being advertised widely, including the city’s website and social media sites, Nextdoor; ParkTV, Neighborhood leaders and block captains and other means. As of Monday, May 21st, over 368 surveys had been received. Over the next few weeks the draft Plan will be supplemented with photos, quotes, icons and additional editing, prior to council action to release the draft Plan for review. Analysis of the input from the community survey may result in needed additional discussion by the Planning Commission and City Council over the coming months, as issues that are of a policy level arise. During the 6-month review period, additional editing can take place prior to final approval by the Council by the end of December. NEXT STEPS: This draft of the Plan will be presented for informal review by the Planning Commission on May 30, 2018 and formally on June 6, 2018, when a recommendation to the Council will be made. The Council will consider the action to send the Plan out to surrounding communities and other jurisdictions for a 6-month review period at its June 18, 2018 meeting. The Plan will be presented to the Metropolitan Council for an informal review in the fall, with final action on the Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council toward the end of 2018, FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The funding for the Plan has been allocated in the 2017 and 2018 community development budgets. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Revised 2040 Comprehensive Plan Outline 2040 Comprehensive Plan Descriptions Link to Draft 2040 Comp Plan: www.stlouispark.org/slp2040 Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan Outline TABLE OF CONTENTS VISION STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities and Key Themes Demographics Racial Equity A LEADER IN RACIAL EQUITY AND INCLUSION Environmental Stewardship A LEADER IN ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP A.Climate and Energy B.Parks, Open Space and Natural Resources C.Water Resources 1.Water System 2.Sanitary Sewer 3.Surface Water D.Solid Waste E.Utilities A Livable Community A BROAD RANGE OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT A.Planning Context B.Land Use Plan C.Economic and Redevelopment D.Housing Plan E.Historic Resources F.Plan By Neighborhood (not included at this time) Mobility: Getting Around Town A VARIETY OF OPTIONS TO GET AROUND THE CITY How We Govern BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL THROUGH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT A.City Government B.Public Health and Safety 1.Public Health 2.Inspection Services 3.Police Department Services 4.Fire Department Services C.Implementation of the Plan APPENDICES: Water Supply Plan, Surface Water Management Plan, I & I Study, Climate Action Plan These plans will be referred to and available with the Comprehensive Plan. Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Page 2 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update St. Louis Park May 29, 2018 St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan Outline CHAPTER Req’d elements DESCRIPTION Vision 3.0 St. Louis Park Strategic Priorities and Key Themes Vision provides guidance for the city’s specific plans. The key themes have been developed from vision and all of the important thematic directions the city is working towards for the future. These themes are addressed throughout the plan, and will be shown by icons in the goals of each chapter as pertinent. Demographics X Provides both city’s projections from Met Council and other pieces of demographic information important to the overall plan. Racial Equity Description of the city’s past, current and future efforts related to race and equity. Environmental Stewardship A.Climate and Energy Solar only The Climate Action Plan will be summarized and referred to in this section, as well as numerous other programs and plans the city is working on. A section on solar resources is required. B.Parks, Open Space and Natural Resources X Shows the city’s park system and facilities, programs, and natural resources. Also addressed park design standards, improvements and maintenance and planning for the future. C.Water Resources 1.Water System X A Water Supply Plan is being completed by consultants and will include detailed information on volume and capacities and plans for future improvements. Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) set out specific requirements for these plans. 2.Sanitary Sewer X Met Council owns and operates the sewer systems in the Twin Cities Metro Area and the city owns and operates the local system that feeds into it. Growth projections are shown relating to sanitary sewer needs. Attention to preventing and reducing excessive inflow to the systems is also required. 3.Surface Water X A Surface Water Management Plan is being completed by consultants, and will meet detailed rules by various watershed and state agencies. The final plan will be completed in fall of 2018, as required by these agencies. D.Solid Waste The city has made important improvements and strides in solid waste programs and is continuing its efforts into the future. These will be described. Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Page 3 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update St. Louis Park May 29, 2018 Other utilities This chapter notes various utility providers in the city and discussed the extension of fiber in the city. A Livable Community A.Planning Context Provides historical background of planning and development of the community. B.Land Use Plan Sets out land use plan for the future by showing existing and future land use categories descriptions and maps. Land uses on map show the types of uses allowed and density ranges. C.Economic and Redevelopment Provides guidance for future economic development and redevelopment in city. Includes employment, economic development assistance and redevelopment objectives. D.Housing Plan Provides a description of housing in the community, including a variety of statistics. Describes housing programs by City and Housing Authority. Sets out future housing goals and direction for the city. E.Historic Resources Describes historic preservation in the community and the St. Louis Park Historical Society and its work. F.Plan By Neighborhood Looks at each neighborhood individually, showing statistics and reflecting the desires of the local residents from the Neighborhood Planning Workshops Mobility Bicycles and Pedestrians X Analyzes bike and pedestrian networks and recommends improvements. Transit X Describes bus and light rail transit systems and city’s work with Metro Transit on services. Roadway network X Describes the roadway system, predicts future traffic volumes and areas of future congestion, and recommends roadway improvements. Freight Rail X Describes freight rail routes in city and issues related to rail routes. Aviation X Describes MSP airport impacts on the city, the city’s interactions with the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and required Federal Aviation requirements for building and noise mitigation. How We Govern A.City Government Describes the city government structure and organization. B.Public Health and Safety Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Page 4 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update St. Louis Park May 29, 2018 1.Public Health Public health has become more important to the city and is being addressed on a number of fronts. This section will describe the work that has been completed as well as efforts for the future. 2.Inspection Services The Inspections Department covers many areas of public safety. They are described here. 3.Police Services The Police Department employs Community Policing, which is described here, along with goals and strategies for the future. 4.Fire Services Fire services include responding to fire and medical calls, which is described, along with looking at ways to improve health services in the community. C.Implementation of the Plan Specific steps for implementing the Comprehensive Plan will be listed and described. APPENDICES: Water Supply Plan, Surface Water Management Plan, I & I Study, Climate Action Plan These plans will be referred to and available with the Comprehensive Plan. Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 5) Title: Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Page 5 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Buckthorn Management Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to inform the City Council of the updated and current Buckthorn Management Program being implemented throughout the city. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Buckthorn is an invasive species that has been in Minnesota for a number of years. Its current status in Minnesota is a Restricted Noxious Weed which means it is detrimental to human or animal health, the environment, public roads, crops, livestock or other property. The only feasible means of control is to prevent its spread. Staff has created a plan for buckthorn management on city properties - primarily parks where the majority of buckthorn is found in St. Louis Park. The management plan is broken into three distinct management objectives: eradication, control and low priority. The main focus and emphasis is on eradication and control. City parks with minimal buckthorn infestation are deemed eradication parks and parks with a bit higher buckthorn infestations, but definitely manageable, are considered control parks. Low priority parks are so infested with buckthorn that comprehensive management efforts are considered impractical, since the areas of buckthorn growth are expansive and the efficacy of management efforts is poor at best. Buckthorn management is a very labor intensive undertaking. It needs to occur three to five consecutive years or areas of management will revert back to dense buckthorn growth. Park maintenance staff, along with Hennepin County’s Sentence to Service crews will focus efforts on all of the parks identified as able to eradicate the buckthorn. We will then move into the control parks. The goal is to attain this by the end of 2018. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Operational budgets are covering STS and park maintenance staff efforts. For Westwood Nature Center, our current LCCMR grant with Great River Greening is covering contractor costs to remove buckthorn. 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 Map Prepared by: Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Buckthorn Management Program DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: There are two types of buckthorn found in Minnesota. Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) was first brought to Minnesota from Europe in the mid-1800 as a very popular hedging material. Shortly after its introduction here, it was found to be invasive in natural areas. Although the nursery industry stopped selling it, buckthorn hedges can still be found in older neighborhoods throughout St. Louis Park and Minnesota. Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), also from Europe, has been sold by the nursery trade in three different forms. The cultivar Columnaris has a narrow and tall form; the cultivars Aspenifolia and Ron Williams have narrow leaves that give them a fern-like texture. This buckthorn aggressively invades wetlands including acidic bogs, fens and sedge meadows. Why is buckthorn such a problem? • Out-competes native plants for nutrients, light, and moisture • Degrades wildlife habitat • Threatens the future of forests, wetlands, prairies and other natural habitats • Contributes to erosion by shading out other plants that grow on the forest floor • Serves as host to other pests, such as crown rust fungus and soybean aphid • Forms an impenetrable layer of vegetation • Lacks "natural controls" like insects or disease that would curb its growth (no “biological control”) PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Park properties were evaluated on the amount of buckthorn growing on each parcel and then ranked according to whether we felt we could eradicate buckthorn from the entire parcel, control it as best we could (limiting a relatively small amount of buckthorn present on property) or the amount of buckthorn on the parcel was far too much to effectively control and deemed a low priority for management. Eradication parks are evenly spread throughout the city, currently have little to no buckthorn, and are being managed and monitored. Crews have removed or will remove any remaining buckthorn on site and treat the stumps with an herbicide to prevent regrowth. Crews will come back to these sites next year in anticipation of further growth (from old buckthorn seeds in the soil or dispersed by birds) and will perform the same management steps to eradication. Monitoring of these sites will be annual and management efforts will continue as prescribed. NEXT STEPS: Once staff completes the parks identified to eradicate buckthorn, they will begin on the parks we are trying to control. These efforts will require a great deal more labor and time. Control parks will be worked on for two years (2018 - 2020) with the hope of curtailing buckthorn growth and expansion. The ultimate goal for City of St. Louis Park properties is to work into and through the low priority parks, minimizing the amount of buckthorn found in them and replanting areas with native plants. We may never eradicate buckthorn from St. Louis Park, but we can limit it as best we can. Unfortunately, private properties still contain a lot of buckthorn, so this management program is solely geared to public properties. Private management of buckthorn is unenforceable and is not an effective use of city resources. £¤?A@ £¤ £¤\]^ \]^ ?A@ \]^ ?A@ GWX GWX GWX ?A@GWX ?A@ GWX GWX GWX Dakota Park Wolfe Park Carpenter Park Bass Lake Park Browndale Park Minikahda Vista Park Cedarhurst Park Twin Lakes Park Shelard Park Pennsylvania Park Jersey Park Cedar Manor Park Texa-Tonka Park Rainbow Park Willow Park Ainsworth Park Nelson Park Birchwood Park Sunshine Park Roxbury Park Keystone Park Center Park Walker Field Freedom Park Parkview Park Knollwood Green Aquila Park Sunset Park Elie Park Jackley Park Justad Park Jorvig Park Webster Park Blackstone Park Bass Lake Preserve Northside Park Fern Hill Park Lamplighter Park Cedar Knoll Park Otten PondHampshire Park Westwood Hills Nature Center Louisiana Oaks Isaac Walton League/Creekside Town Green Park Bronx Park Oregon Park Edgebrook Park Lilac Park Carroll Hurd Park Oak Hill Park Kilmer Park Hannon Lake Lake St Meadowbrook Lake 7 394 394 100 394 100 25 5 3 100 3 7 5 5 17 169 169 169 ´ 4/2018 Buckthorn Management Plan Minnehaha Basin Control Eradicate Low Priority Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 6) Title: Buckthorn Management Program Page 3 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Utility Improvements at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is intended to provide the council with an overview of utility work at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions regarding staff’s planned action for this issue? SUMMARY: Currently the garage and driveway at 2837 Ottawa Street is located on top of two (2) city owned utility lines - a storm sewer pipe and a sanitary sewer pipe. The city has a storm sewer easement but not a sanitary sewer easement over the existing pipes. The garage, which was built sometime in the 1950’s, is in poor condition and the homeowner wants to replace it. City policy is to not allow structures to be built in easement areas over utility pipes due to structural concerns for the pipe, access to the pipes for maintenance, and concerns regarding the stability of the structure being built after such work. In working with the homeowner, Engineering staff determined that construction over the pipes could be undertaken, providing that work is done to reinforce the pipes and put them in casings. This action would allow the homeowner to make reasonable upgrades to their property without the additional cost of reinforcing existing utility pipes. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project would be paid for using storm water utility and sanitary sewer funds. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Lot Exhibit Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: Utility Improvements at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Currently there are two (2) city owned utility lines, a storm sewer pipe and a sanitary sewer pipe that are located underneath the garage at 2837 Ottawa Street. Typically the city will have easements over utilities and would not allow structures to be built within the easement area. In this case, the garage was built sometime in the 1950’s without a city permit or review. To complicate things further, the city only has an easement over the storm sewer line and not the sanitary sewer line. A condemnation action for this utility easement in 1956 failed to list both pipes in the easement documents. As a result, the city only has a storm sewer easement. In 2000, the homeowner approached the city with plans to replace the garage as part of a home addition, in which a new attached garage would be constructed in the location of the existing garage. After consulting with the city attorney, staff was advised that we not allow buildings to be built over city utilities and that the city would need an easement over both pipelines. The issue was brought to the city council study session on May 22, 2000, in an effort to find a better solution to properties which improvements were restricted due to utility conflicts. As part of this report, three options were presented to the council to resolve conflicts (all of which would be at the homeowner’s expense); 1) relocate the utilities 2) encase the utilities under the structure or 3) bridge the existing utilities with a removable span (deemed not feasible). At the meeting council agreed to amend the special assessment resolution to allow for the homeowner to be assessed the utility improvements needed to construct the new garage. With this change in the assessment policy, the homeowner agreed to pay for the encasing of the storm sewer and the cost to relocate of the sanitary sewer. The city agreed to pay for encasing the sanitary pipe, provided that the homeowner would grant an easement to the city for this pipeline. This agreement did not advance to construction, as the estimated costs to the homeowner, $41,400.00, was deemed too expensive. The entire project was estimated to cost $87,488.11. The property was eventually sold to a contractor who made improvements to the house and then sold it to the current homeowner in 2012. In 2016, the current homeowner contacted the City with a similar proposal to replace the garage. Once presented with the previous options, he realized that the cost of utility work was prohibitive to making improvements to the garage. Engineering staff met with the owner’s architect and developed an alternate plan that reduced the total cost of the utility work to $57,707.00. Under this new plan, the homeowner’s cost responsibility was reduced from $41,400.00 to $26,383.00. While this reduction was significant, it was also seen as cost prohibitive, since it did not include a new driveway or garage. Staff Recommendation The garage has been in poor condition since this issue first came to the city’s attention in 2000. Poor drainage has resulted in rotting boards and ponding inside the structure have deteriorated it beyond repair. The cost of upgrading the pipes to accommodate construction far exceeds the value of installing a new garage or home addition and is a prohibitive factor in the homeowner’s ability to replace the structure. After discussing this issue internally, staff is recommending that the city pay for the $57,707.00 pipeline encasing project in exchange for the easement needed for the sanitary sewer pipe. This Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Title: Utility Improvements at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South action would allow the homeowner to make reasonable upgrades to their property without the additional cost of reinforcing existing utility pipes. Under this arrangement the city would be responsible for the cost and installation of the underground work necessary to encase each of the utility lines so that the pipe encasements would not be disrupted by the load of a new garage and driveway. The homeowner’s responsibility would be: •Sign the drainage and utility easement (see attached figure) to the City of St. Louis Park •Remove the existing garage and foundation before construction can begin •Any driveway repair caused by construction and driveway extension needed due to the new garage location would be the homeowner’s cost It is anticipated that this would be a 2018 project. The timing is dependent on the homeowner. This project would be paid for using stormwater utility and sanitary sewer funds. 2837 Ottawa Utility Improvement Sewer Fittings Other Bend Cross Reducer Reducing Tee Sleeve Tee Sanitary Sewer Pumps Sewer Control Valves <all other values> Backflow Control Other Sanitary Sewer Vaults Sewer System Valves Sanitary Sewer Manholes Sewer Gravity Mains Sewer Pressurized Mains Storm Discharge Points Sink Source Storm Manholes Storm Inlets Storm Gravity Main SLP Sub- Watersh... Metro Watersheds Water Curb Stop Valves Water Hydrants Water System Valves Other Ball Butterfly Gate Water Mains May 22, 2018 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 inch = 47 feet ± Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 7) Title: Utility Improvements at 2837 Ottawa Avenue South Page 4 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: May 29, 2018 Written Report: 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: April 2018 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 April, General Fund expenditures are at approximately 29.6% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 3.5% under budget. 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 May 29, 2018 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Title: April 2018 Monthly Financial Report DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: This report provides 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 be at about 33% of the annual budget at the end of April. General Fund expenditures are under budget at 29.6% of the adopted budget in April. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in the same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes, grants and State aid payments. A few comments on revenue and expenditure variances are explained below. Revenues: License and permit revenues are at approximately 40% of budget through April because the majority of the 2018 business and liquor license revenue has been received. This is typical of previous years. Permit revenue is at 26% through April. Expenditures: Organized Recreation expenditures are at 35.7% of budget. This is a temporary variance caused by the full annual community education contribution in the amount of $187,400 paid to the school district in February. This is consistent with prior years. Utility Funds Revenues: Utility revenue typically lags one month behind for commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on the billing cycle. Much of the revenue billed in the first quarter of 2018 actually applied to 2017. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Actual $2,609 $5,557 $8,439 $11,235 Budget $3,158 $6,316 $9,475 $12,633 $15,791 $18,949 $22,108 $25,266 $28,424 $31,582 $34,741 $37,899 $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $40,000 $ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of April 30, 2018 20182018201620162017201720182018BalanceYTD Budget BudgetAuditedBudgetAuditedBudgetApr YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ 24,837,901$ 25,705,886$ -$ 25,705,886$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 3,985,517 3,924,648 1,589,944 2,334,704 40.51% Fines & Forfeits341,200 299,808 254,200 293,236 269,200 104,227 164,973 38.72% Intergovernmental1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 1,899,006 1,864,877 453,222 1,411,655 24.30% Charges for Services1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 2,051,552 2,162,410 385,258 1,777,152 17.82% Miscellaneous Revenue977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 1,294,452 1,318,037 457,413 860,624 34.70% Transfers In1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 1,951,218 1,929,090 639,697 1,289,393 33.16% Investment Earnings 140,000 114,957 140,000 125,984 160,000 160,000 0.00% Other Income27,450 20,440 30,450 54,303 40,950 10,426 30,524 25.46% Use of Fund Balance *254,891 - 58,541 - 523,835 - 523,835 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 36,493,169$ 37,898,933$ 3,640,187$ 34,258,746$ 9.60%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration 1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 1,056,796$ 1,341,606$ 342,928$ 998,678$ 25.56% Finance 933,624 869,759 957,275 924,832 978,752 304,491 674,261 31.11% Assessing641,038 607,443 707,139 652,015 759,865 225,130 534,735 29.63% Human Resources748,718 801,958 754,699 730,731 796,666 229,833 566,833 28.85% Community Development1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 1,353,476 1,479,911 494,962 984,949 33.45% Facilities Maintenance1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 1,128,339 1,162,342 385,355 776,987 33.15% Information Resources1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 1,421,685 1,589,432 437,460 1,151,972 27.52% Communications & Marketing608,228 657,758 646,841 722,199 755,940 251,366 504,574 33.25% Community Outreach25,587 22,718 26,553 24,403 27,637 5,062 22,575 18.31% Engineering549,251 436,228 376,601 339,876 525,834 153,032 372,802 29.10%Total General Government8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 8,354,352$ 9,417,985$ 2,829,618$ 6,588,367$ 30.04% Public Safety: Police8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 9,255,342$ 9,930,681$ 2,951,438$ 6,979,243$ 29.72% Fire Protection4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 4,319,457 4,657,973 1,464,406 3,193,567 31.44% Inspectional Services2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 2,271,301 2,544,762 723,459 1,821,303 28.43%Total Public Safety14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 15,846,100$ 17,133,416$ 5,139,303$ 11,994,113$ 30.00% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 245,942$ 230,753$ 44,763$ 185,990$ 19.40% Public Works Operations2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 2,809,715 3,091,857 962,634 2,129,223 31.13% Organized Recreation1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 1,470,613 1,582,490 564,811 1,017,679 35.69% Recreation Center1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 1,856,529 1,860,755 464,427 1,396,328 24.96% Park Maintenance1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 1,797,271 1,830,530 507,482 1,323,048 27.72% Westwood Nature Center576,173 555,887 602,400 572,942 622,346 179,810 442,536 28.89% Natural Resources479,408 362,094 550,235 430,995 559,662 110,419 449,243 19.73% Vehicle Maintenance1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 1,088,375 1,253,367 420,635 832,732 33.56%Total Operations & Recreation10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 10,272,383$ 11,031,760$ 3,254,982$ 7,776,778$ 29.51% Non-Departmental: General 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 31,859$ 43,422$ 11,164$ 32,258$ 25.71% Transfers Out- 1,873,000 - 885,000 - - - 0.00% Council Programs198,000 198,000 0.00% Contingency266,719 104,224 385,295 188,254 74,350 - 74,350 0.00%Total Non-Departmental297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 1,105,113$ 315,772$ 11,164$ 304,608$ 3.54%Total General Fund Expenditures34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 35,577,947$ 37,898,933$ 11,235,068$ 26,663,865$ 29.64%*Primarily related to E911 capital items from restricted fund balance.Study Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 8) Title: April 2018 Monthly Financial ReportPage 3 Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of April 30, 2018 Current BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetApr Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,177,384$ 1,100,182$ 5,077,202$ 17.81% 7,421,016$ 1,526,370$ 5,894,646$ 20.57% 3,590,500$ 534,443$ 3,056,057$ 14.88% 3,024,731$ 685,831$ 2,338,900$ 22.67% Other 375,750 405,117 (29,367) 107.82% 30,000 3,813 26,187 12.71% 140,000 2,650 137,350 1.89% - -- Total operating revenues6,553,134 1,505,299 5,047,835 22.97% 7,451,016 1,530,183 5,920,833 20.54% 3,730,500 537,093 3,193,407 14.40% 3,024,731 685,831 2,338,900 22.67%Operating expenses: Personal services1,377,010 482,814 894,196 35.06% 689,225 254,592 434,633 36.94% 631,295 195,185 436,110 30.92% 796,527 208,284 588,243 26.15% Supplies & non-capital430,300 56,606 373,694 13.16% 65,550 19,474 46,076 29.71% 184,750 44,742 140,008 24.22% 31,600 365 31,235 1.16% Services & other charges1,704,224 451,215 1,253,009 26.48% 4,605,626 1,872,283 2,733,343 40.65% 3,014,442 595,799 2,418,643 19.76% 595,187 55,731 539,456 9.36% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,511,534 990,635 2,520,899 28.21% 5,360,401 2,146,349 3,214,052 40.04% 3,830,487 835,726 2,994,761 21.82% 1,423,314 264,380 1,158,934 18.57%Operating income (loss)3,041,600 514,664 2,526,936 16.92%2,090,615 (616,166) 2,706,781 -29.47% (99,987) (298,633) 198,646 298.67% 1,601,417 421,451 1,179,966 26.32%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 15,172 - 15,172 2,391 - 2,391 0.00% 15,000 - 15,000 0.00% 14,800 - 14,800 0.00% Interest expense/bank charges(176,342) (143,446) (32,896) 81.35% (26,584) (18,661) (7,923) 70.20% (25,500) (1,311) (24,189) 5.14% (40,897) (10,425) (30,472) 25.49% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(161,170) (143,446) (17,724) 89.00% (24,193) (18,661) (5,532) 77.13% (10,500) (1,311) (9,189) 12.49% (26,097) (10,425) (15,672) 39.95%Income (loss) before transfers2,880,430 371,218 2,509,212 12.89% 2,066,422 (634,827) 2,701,249 -30.72% (110,487) (299,944) 189,457 271.47% 1,575,320 411,026 1,164,294 26.09%Transfers inTransfers out(601,985) (200,662) (401,323) 33.33% (823,637) (274,546) (549,091) 33.33% (234,046) (78,015) (156,031) 33.33% (322,459) (107,486) (214,973) 33.33%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,278,445 170,556 2,107,889 7.49% 1,242,785 (909,373) 2,152,158 -73.17% (344,533) (377,959) 33,426 109.70% 1,252,861 303,540 949,321 24.23%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,316,199) (678,534) (2,637,665) 20.46% (1,619,500) (547) (1,618,953) 0.03%- - - (2,688,977) (547) (2,688,430) 0.02%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(1,037,754) (507,978) (529,776) (376,715) (909,920) 533,205 (344,533) (377,959) 33,426 (1,436,116) 302,993 (1,739,109) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of May 29, 2018 (Item No. 8) Title: April 2018 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4