Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/06/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session AGENDA JUNE 9, 2025 6:00 p.m. Study session – Community Room Discussion items 1. Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission 2. Climate Action Plan cost update Written reports 3. Planning for Climate Action Plan update 4. Webster Park update - Ward 1 5. Percentage of park and open space in St. Louis Park Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved. Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end. City council study sessions are not broadcast. Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions. The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 9, 2025 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Recommended action: None at this time. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: Based on guidance provided by city council members during the Feb. 3, 2025 special study session which was focused on establishing protocols for boards and commissions, it was decided to schedule regular check-ins between boards and commissions and the city council throughout the year. The June 2025 meeting will spotlight the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, represented by the current chair, David Yakes, and vice chair, Jay Jaffee. The staff liaison to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission is Jason West, parks and recreation director. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission is one of the five advisory boards and commissions whose purpose is to study and consider all phases of public parks and recreation and recommend to the City of St. Louis Park and Independent School District #283 a park and public recreation program which best meets the needs of all residents of St. Louis Park. The discussion will cover an overview of the commission's approved work plan, including any completed tasks, ongoing projects and strategies for addressing unaddressed work plan items. Additionally, the discussion will include opportunities for council feedback, potential modifications or additions to the work plan, and any other relevant topics concerning the commission's activities. In July 2025, the boards and commissions check-in meeting is set to feature the Fire Civil Service Commission. Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. Supporting documents: 2025 PRAC approved workplan 2025 PRAC current roster PRAC Bylaws Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Board and Commission Annual work plan Presented to council: Feb. 18, 2025 Approved by council: Feb. 18, 2025 1 2025 work plan │ Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 1 Initiative name: Joint meeting with Environmental Commission Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☒Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Environmental Commission Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☐No Initiative description: Joint meeting with environmental Commission to include Natural Resources manager and Westwood Hills Nature Center Manager Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: 2nd quarter This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 2 2 2 Initiative name: Youth Association President Summit Initiative type: ☐Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☒Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☒Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: School District Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☐No Initiative description: In partnership with the school district, a summit meeting will be held in May and November. All youth associations are invited to participate in these gatherings to discuss how to ensure all youth have access to athletics. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: May and Nov. (2nd and 4th quarter) This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 3 3 3 Initiative name: Support Vision 4.0 Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☒Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: All Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: Support the citywide Vision 4.0 process by participating directly and/or encouraging others to participate, and by sharing information with other community members about the process. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: 4Q 2025 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Communication from staff liaison about opportunities with Vision 4.0. Liaison comments: Plan to keep the commission informed about opportunities to assist with the citywide Vision 4.0 process. Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 4 4 4 Initiative name: Minnehaha Creek Cleanup Initiative type: ☐Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☒Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☒Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☐No Initiative description: Lead the Minnehaha Creek Clean up which is an annual community event to clean up a portion of Minnehaha Creek. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: October (3rd quarter) This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 5 5 5 Initiative name: Review and provide input on Webster Park master plan Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☒Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: Review and provide input on the redevelopment of Webster Park. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: 3rd quarter This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 6 6 6 Initiative name: Host annual staff appreciation event Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☒Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: The Commission hosts an annual staff appreciation event showing support of Parks and Recreation staff. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: 4th quarter This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 7 7 7 Initiative name: Association / community group connection Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☐Staff-initiated ☒Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: The Commission invites youth associations and other community groups to discuss opportunities and successes monthly. Invite staff members for updates and/or introduction (new staff). Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: Monthly This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 8 8 8 Initiative name: Community Events volunteer Initiative type: ☒Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐Independent research project ☐Gather community feedback ☐Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐Third party-initiated ☒Staff-initiated ☐Commission-initiated ☐Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐Yes ☒No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? (if applicable) ☐Yes ☒No Initiative description: Encourage commissioners to volunteer at special events such as ShamROC Ice Bowling, U.G.L.Y. Sweater Dash, ROCtoberfest and other community events. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: As needed This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Initiative Origin Definitions •Third party-initiated – Project initiated by applicant or external agency (statutory boards) •Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff •Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission •Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 9 9 Strategic Priorities 1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2.St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4.St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5.St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement Modifications •Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways: •Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. •If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting. •The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion. Future ideas Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan. Initiative Comments Board and Commission Annual work plan Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 10 Current 2025 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Roster NAME ROLE TERM EXPIRES David Yakes Chair May 31, 2026 Jay Jaffee Vice chair Aug. 31, 2026 Sonya Rippe Regular member May 31, 2028 Bruce Cantor Regular member May 31, 2026 Amy Brandli Regular member May 31, 2027 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 11 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 12 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 13 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 14 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 15 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 16 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Boards and Commissions check-in with city council: Parks and recreation advisory commission Page 17 Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 9, 2025 Discussion item: 2 Executive summary Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Recommended action: This report is intended to provide council with background for discussion. Policy considerations: Does council wish to budget funds to accomplish the goals of Climate Action Plan? (More detailed policy questions will be brought before the council during budget season.) Summary: This report is intended to summarize the updated projected costs of achieving goals 1-5 of the Climate Action Plan, which are the goals focused on buildings and energy (the source of approximately 60% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions). Programs to address goals 1-5 are funded through the Climate Investment Fund (CIF), which was established in 2021 by the council to enable the city to reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals by encouraging property owners to participate in climate action. This fund has proven to be a successful way to leverage private investment dollars when owners are ready to make improvements that reduce carbon emissions and lower energy costs. Aside from capital and operating funds for municipal fleet and facilities efficiency and electrification, the CIF is the only current internal funding mechanism for the city to reach climate action goals 1-5. Goals 6 and 7, which target 10% of the midterm greenhouse gas emissions reductions through travel and solid waste strategies, respectively, are being addressed under separate climate action prog rams and projects managed and funded outside of the sustainability division. Financial or budget considerations: Funding cost sharing programs to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions at an annual level chosen to meet the midterm goals for building energy efficiency (goals 1-4) and renewable energy (goal 5) as well as depaving, tree planting and treatment programs could require an annual investment of between $196,000 and $7.9 million for each of the years 2026 through 2030, depending on a range of assumptions. Possible funding sources are discussed in the report and funding decisions will be made during the 2026 budget process. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager Reviewed by: Amelia Cruver, finance director Brian Hoffman, building and energy director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Discussion Background: Climate Action Plan Midterm Goals Within the Climate Action Plan, each of the seven midterm goals is accompanied by a series of strategies. This report addresses the building energy efficiency goals (goals 1-4) and renewable energy goals (goal 5). Taken together, these five goals will help the city reduce emissions by 45% by 2030. Goals 6 and 7, which target 10% of the midterm greenhouse gas emissions reductions through travel and solid waste strategies, respectively, are being addressed under separate climate action programs and projects managed and funded outside of the sustainability division, including Connect the Park (engineering), installation of public electric vehicle chargers (parks & recreation), and the Zero Waste Packaging ordinance (public works). Projected costs for reaching CAP goals At the July 27, 2020 study session, the city council discussed an annual estimated cost of city incentives needed to meet the strategies laid out in goals 1-5 of the Climate Action Plan (CAP). At that time, staff analysis found that reaching the city’s CAP goals using the strategies laid out in the plan would require an annual city investment of between $1.9 - $2.4 million for each of the years 2021 through 2030, assuming 100% community participation within each of the strategies. Since (outside of the Green Building Policy) the city cannot currently require property owners to make energy efficiency improvements or install renewable energy, incentives are the primary tool available to encourage property owners to undertake any work . In response, the city council established the Climate Investment Fund (CIF) in 2021 to enable the city to reach its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals by incentivizing property owners to participate in climate action. This fund has proven to be a successful way to leverage private investment dollars when owners are ready to make improvements that reduce carbon emissions and lower energy costs. Originally intended to fund midterm goals detailed in the CAP, use of the Climate Investment Fund was expanded in 2023 to partially cover the cost of tree planting programs, tree treatment programs, and Depave SLP (none of which are mentioned within the CAP midterm goals but are still important ways to address climate change). Aside from capital and operating funds for municipal fleet and facilities efficiency and electrification, the CIF is the only current internal funding mechanism for the city to reach climate action goals 1-5. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Climate Action Plan progress to date Greenhouse gas emissions have decreased 20% since the CAP baseline year (2015). Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update The majority of those reductions stem from a cleaner electricity grid , reductions in vehicle miles traveled and better vehicle fuel efficiency, and lower electricity use - particularly from the commercial & industrial sector (in other words, a combination of sustainability programs and external factors). Although staff is unable to isolate the impacts of city programs on the total reduction, St. Louis Park has had greater reductions in electricity use than other cities in Minnesota, which suggests that city programs are making a difference. Consulting firm LHB noted in the city’s 2021 inventory that, “The primary reasons for increases [in greenhouse gas emissions within the city] are all associated with city growth or external factors (such as weather), while the primary reasons for decreases reflect policies, programs, and action at the federal, regional, and local scale.” Present considerations: Climate Investment Fund expenditures In 2024, a total of $217,360 in expenditures for all of the city’s cost share programs successfully leveraged $1.3 million in private investment (property owners’ share) in St. Louis Park. This $217,360 outlay enabled: • 86 Climate Champions projects (all property types combined) • 9 solar projects • 32 full-service tree plantings • 38 tree treatments • 1 Depave SLP project Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Each of these measures rolls up under a CAP midterm goal and brings the city closer to reaching its CAP goals. Further, nearly all measures have had significant participation within the environmental justice-deemed criteria communities since their inception: Assuming that expenditure trends plateau at approximately the current level ($200,000 per year), staff anticipates depleting the Climate Investment Fund by year -end 2026: 2025 and 2026 expenses are projected. Modeling Climate Investment Fund expenditure scenarios Using what has been learned over the past four years about participation and incentives, staff placed each of the goals 1-5 and their underlying strategies into a spreadsheet that would allow staff to calculate the total number of buildings needing to be addressed (retrofitted, weatherized, appliances replaced, renewables installed, etc.) each year under two different scenarios: 1) the number that of building owners who are projected to apply each year (i.e., funding the CIF at a level to meet projected program demand by the community), and 2) the maximum participation required annually to hit the 2030 targets. Revenue Expenses BALANCE 2021 500,000$ 500,000$ 2022 300,000$ 77,060$ 722,940$ 2023 -$ 106,704$ 616,236$ 2024 -$ 217,360$ 398,876$ 2025 200,000$ 198,876$ 2026 200,000$ (1,124)$ Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Financial Considerations: Addressing climate change is a choice of pay-me-now or pay-me-later; while there is a cost to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a much greater cost in doing nothing. Taking no action to reduce emissions will result in much more costly events in the years ahead, including more severe heat waves, droughts, and ice storms, which will result in damage to buildings and infrastructure as well as public health emergencies, most of which will disproportionately affect lower income disadvantaged individuals and communities. The cost of city cost-sharing incentives per year will range depending on the characteristics of the buildings addressed, including property type, size, age and whether some strategies have already been achieved (for example, if there is on-site solar already in place or appliances have been recently replaced). Costs modeled assume that the number of buildings affected is spread evenly over five years, however, the budget could start lower and ramp up, or fluctuate based on projected demand, over the five-year period. The total cost for each property owner to meet goals 1-5 will vary, but each commercial building owner can expect to spend between $50,000 - $1.6 million and each residential property owner can expect to spend $3,000 - $25,000 (depending on square footage of each property, cost of equipment, level of insulation needed, number of solar panels, etc.). Many of these costs will have a short return on investment and have the potential to increase property values, as well as improve indoor air quality and building comfort. A summary of the estimated cost of city incentives needed to meet the strategies laid out in goals 1-5 of the CAP by 2030 is below. The costs do not include inflationary increases. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Potential 5-year cost of incentives (projected) Potential 5-year cost of incentives (maximum) Goal 1: Reduce energy consumption in large commercial and industrial (C/I) buildings by 30% by 2030, as compared to the business-as-usual forecast. $127,500 $800,000 Goal 2: Reduce energy consumption in small to mid-size commercial buildings by 30% by 2030, as compared to the business-as-usual forecast. $162,500 $645,500 Goal 3: By 2030, design all new construction to be net-zero energy (NZE). NA NA Goal 4: Reduce energy consumption in residential buildings by 35% by 2030, as compared to the business- as-usual forecast. $375,000 $28,851,450 * Goal 5: Achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030. $97,650 $9,134,460 TOTAL $ 762,650 or $ 152,530, annually $ 39,431,410 or $ 7,886,282 annually * Note that this high dollar value is driven primarily by Goal 4 Strategy 4: Appliance, Equipment, and Fixture Efficiency: 17,820 (75%) households replace electrical equipment with high efficiency models, and 7,200 households replace natural gas equipment with high efficiency models by 2030. This strategy was written prior to the proliferation of heat pumps, which can replace both air conditioners and furnaces with one piece of equipment. This strategy also includes an unspecified number of lighting, water heating, refrigeration, and drying upgrades, which could be done at a lower cost than assumed in the model above. As mentioned, the CIF also funds programs not mentioned in the CAP (therefore, there is no participation goal listed for any). Those program expenditures are projected below. Five-year Cost of Incentives (projected participation) Five-year Cost of Incentives (maximum participation) Full-service tree planting $50,000 NA Tree treatment $70,000 NA Depave SLP $97,500 NA TOTAL $217,500 or $43,500 annually Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 8 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Summing goals 1-5 with the additional program costs above: Five-year Cost of Incentives (projected participation) Five-year Cost of Incentives (maximum participation) $ 762,650 + 217,500 = $ 980,150 or $ 196,030 annually $ 39,431,410 + 217,500 = $39,648,910 or $7,929,782 annually Achieving our city’s Climate Action Plan midterm goals requires a substantial investment. In summary: in order to meet midterm goals 1-5, a city investment of between $1.0 million and $39.6 million over five years would be required (depending on environmental justice criteria, square footage of each property, amount and cost of equipment, level of insulation needed, number of solar panels, etc.). Because this analysis focuses on community-facing incentives, the city’s own operating and capital costs for meeting CAP goals are not included. Impacts of changes to external funding landscape As mentioned in the Environmental Stewardship system kick-off report, the current federal administration has halted or rescinded many of the climate and environmental justice-related programs created and funded under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). As of this writing, there are a number of federal incentives (both residential and commercial tax credits and rebates) that may be repealed that the city had planned to promote to residents that could be “stacked” with city, state and utility rebate programs. Below is an illustration of how these incentives could be stacked to maximize value. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 9 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update * HEAR program is only eligible to income-qualified households The incentives that would disappear with the rollback of IRA provisions are the federal HEAR program and all clean energy tax credits. Further, the federal government has fired all 25 of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services staff who administered Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 10 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update LIHEAP. This program helps income-qualified households pay heating and electricity costs and serves people at or below 50% area median income, or approximately 150,000 Minnesota households. LIHEAP provides an average benefit of $500, plus additional support to respond to emergencies. In Hennepin County, nearly $19 million in energy assistance was distributed in 2023. Approximately 2,600 households in St. Louis Park received LIHEAP funds in 2023. Eligibility for LIHEAP is also required in order to receive fe deral weatherization assistance, and without weatherization it will be very difficult to meet CAP residential energy goals (not to mention the impact that drafty homes have on energy bills and home comfort and the difficulty of electrifying drafty homes in a cost-effective manner). City staff await information from the Minnesota Department of Commerce about whether and how LIHEAP will continue. Impacts of changes to internal funding landscape As discussed, the CIF was established with one-time funding from unobligated general funds, and a long-term funding plan was not discussed at its inception. Funding sources to replenish the CIF are the same funding sources for other city programmatic expenses: the property tax levy and franchise fees. Property taxes make up 72% of the city’s general fund revenue. The general fund also receives revenue from licenses and permits, intergovernmental grants and aid, charges for services, fines and forfeits, transfers from enterprise funds, interest income and miscellaneous revenues. Both the EDA and HRA levies are also paid by property tax payers. The EDA levy is used for cost of land maintenance, non-loan business development supports, and the cost of zoning analysis and outreach related to land sales. The EDA levy cannot exceed 0.01813% of the estimated market value of the city. By law, HRA levy funds are used for housing and redevelopment purposes in the City of St. Louis Park. The HRA levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the city. Because the EDA and HRA levies are more restrictive than general levies, the city’s long range financial plan holds these levies flat and prioritizes increases to the general levy to flexibly cover city spending needs. Franchise fees are fees that cities can impose on utility companies that use the public rights -of- way to deliver utility service. These utilities then pass on these charges to utility customers on monthly bills. As fees are collected through monthly customer bills, utilities then return the fees collected back to the city. In St. Louis Park, franchise fees fund the city’s annual pavement management projects that use road condition to prioritize improvements in rotating sectors of the city. In recent years Engineering has had to reduce the scope of these annual projects to fit within the expected revenues, as inflation has driven up the cost of road work. Additional uses for this revenue cannot be supported without removing current ones or increasing franchise fees. Additionally, until and unless Xcel and CenterPoint Energy changes their policies to allow for franchise fees to be charged as a percentage of electricity consumption rather than a flat fee, this fee will continue to disproportionately impact those with low utility consumption, such as renters living in apartments. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 2) Page 11 Title: Climate Action Plan cost update Next steps: Sustainability staff will continue to track progress against Climate Action Plan goals and strategies following the outcome of the city council discussion. If council wishes to budget funds to continue operating the programs required to meet Climate Action Plan goals, staff will return during budget season with a recommendation for the source, level, and frequency of replenishing the Climate Investment Fund. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 9, 2025 Written report: 3 Executive summary Title: Planning for Climate Action Plan update Recommended action: None at this time. Policy consideration: None at this time. Summary: Since the Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2018, the city, state and federal governments have chalked up several climate-related wins; at the same time, staff has acknowledged that the city is not on track to meet its midterm (2030) climate goals. Staff is proposing to add, remove and refine the Climate Action Plan implementation strategies to 1) focus efforts on those that are within the city’s control and will move the needle furthest and 2) layer in the strategies from the recent state, county and regional climate action plans that impact the city. Financial or budget considerations: There are no current costs to prepare for an update to the Climate Action Plan, however, staff may request 2027 operating budget funds for consulting services to assist with greenhouse gas emission reduction calculations associated with revised implementation strategies. Strategic priority consideration s: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, building and energy director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Planning for Climate Action Plan update Discussion Background: In February 2018, the city council formally adopted the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). The goals of the plan are some of the most ambitious of any city in Minnesota. The biggest bowl outcome of the plan is for the community to achieve total carbon neutrality by 2040, with seven important midterm goals set for 2030. The CAP is a climate mitigation plan, meaning that staff focus on actions to reduce and stabilize the sources or enhance the sinks (sponges) of greenhouse gases, e.g., energy efficiency, renewable energy, low-carbon transportation, organics recycling and tree planting. Climate Action Plan goals The CAP is organized by Goals, Strategies, Initiatives and Actions. The goals were set for 2030 as a midway point for the city to assess its progress toward becoming carbon neutral by 2040. The strategies were determined through the development of the wedge diagram tool and illustrate targets for potential emissions reductions. Specific targets (i.e. metrics) that were calculated for the Climate Action Plan using the wedge diagram tool are assigned to each strategy, and each strategy is supported by initiatives and actions intended to help the city achieve these targets . Using the wedge diagram tool, emissions reductions can be visualized to see which strategies have the greatest impact. The planned emissions graph (Figure 1) shows businesses-as-usual emissions to demonstrate the emissions reductions that result from the actions in this plan. The gray line across the top of the wedges depicts the business -as-usual (BAU) emissions; the wedges beneath the BAU line represent carbon emissions reduction by sector over time. Figure 1. Total emissions reductions resulting from CAP implementa tion (2023 inventory) Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Planning for Climate Action Plan update Since the CAP was adopted in 2018, the city , state and federal governments have chalked up several climate-related wins: • Inflation Reduction Act funding for building energy and renewable energy (as it currently stands) • Carbon-free energy statewide by 2040 • Minnesota Climate Action Framework (2022), forthcoming Climate Action Framework update, and new state funding for home energy upgrades • Building energy benchmarking requirement statewide • Advanced building energy codes • Green Building Policy amendment • Connect the Park progress • Net-zero energy designed nature center • Doubling the amount of rooftop solar in St. Louis Park, including 400 kilowatts of new solar on existing municipal buildings • Installation of 12 publicly-owned EV charging stations and purchase of many electric fleet vehicles and tools • Proliferation and support for e-bikes These advances (and others not listed) present the city with a timely opportunity to reassess progress made under the CAP and retool the strategies beneath the 2030 and 2040 goals. Present considerations: Why should the city update the 2018 Climate Action Plan? • Originally a 22-year plan, the CAP is now seven years old (and five years from midterm goals) • There is a need to operationalize the strategies—add more how to the list of actions • Equity should be considered within CAP strategies • Technology has changed, and the city should incorporate new technologies and remove obsolete ones (e.g., the city no longer incentivizes stand-alone natural gas furnaces) • Many of the strategies in the plan are improbable (e.g., installing wall insulation in large commercial buildings) or outside of the city’s control (e.g., adoption of EVs by non-St. Louis Park residents) • Many of the strategies are not trackable with existing data and do not tie to existing utility programs (e.g., resident behavior change), making it difficult to track progress at the strategy level for most strategies in the plan As discussed, the city is not currently on track to meet the 2030 goals. Although emissions have decreased 20% since the 2015 baseline (primarily from electricity and transportation), it is important to refine strategies to focus more on those that are directly tied to city programs and will move the needle furthest and fastest. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 4 Title: Planning for Climate Action Plan update For the sake of transparency and clarity, staff plans to organize and sort the actions according to three categories: lead (or implement), partner (or advocate and collaborate), and influence (or encourage). • Lead: strategies the city can instigate and administer through authority to adopt policy and/or provide funds for projects and programs • Partner: strategies that will require external partnerships or state/federal enabling legislation to achieve • Influence: strategies that the city can encourage and aid others to implement their own climate actions Being transparent about the regulatory limitations of municipal government will be one way to show the public that the plan requires everyone’s voluntary participation - that the city’s CAP is a community CAP. Environment and sustainability commission work group At their annual retreat, the environment and sustainability commission (ESC) established a work group to advise staff on creating a plan for a future update to the CAP. The goals of the work group are to: • Determine timeline for CAP update, including how to integrate or align the update with the 2050 Comprehensive Plan • Determine approach to CAP update (i.e., amend or rewrite) • Determine high-level structure (i.e., midterm goals + advanced strategies, different goals, new categories?) • Decide on an appropriate community engagement plan (goals and strategies will use science-based targets, so community input will be limited to small-scale choices) Further, the work group will assist staff in answering high -level questions, including: • How do statewide, county and regional CAPs affect St. Louis Park strategies? Top-down policy or direction may come from those, so do they need to be added? • Should the plan include “moonshot” measures that may be politically sensitive? • How do we ensure that all strategies have data sources to track their progress ? • How do we engage the community without misleading them about their ability to influence the plan? • How do we incorporate equity? • Should natural resources play a larger role in mitigation? (Trees are barely mentioned in the CAP) • Should we add climate adaptation (adjusting to current and project climate impacts) and resilience (preparing to absorb and recover from climate emergencies)? • Should the plan address water consumption? Staff will meet with work group members every six weeks for the foreseeable future. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 3) Page 5 Title: Planning for Climate Action Plan update Next Steps: The following timeline is recommended to prepare and update the CAP: 2025- 2026 • Staff reviews and suggests edits to plan • Staff authors new or revised strategies, initiatives and actions • ESC reviews draft update • Comprehensive Plan meetings • Progress update delivered to council 2027 • Staff hires consultant (if needed) to prepare GHG mitigation calcs and wedge diagram • Community engagement (if recommended) • Revisions made • ESC reviews and approves final update 2028 • Council adoption Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 9, 2025 Written report: 4 Executive summary Title: Webster Park update - Ward 1 Recommended action: None at this time. Summary: For approximately 50 years, the City of St. Louis Park has operated and maintained Webster Park, a public park located on Webster Avenue and West 33rd Street. A portion of this park area is owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), who has offered a no-cost lease to the city in return for maintenance and upkeep of the property. The current two-year lease expires Nov. 30, 2026. Rather than extending the temporary lease for the park, the city and MnDOT have been exploring city acquisition of the parcel for public purposes. MnDOT has indicated its willingness to sell its interest in the property, contingent upon the city obtaining clear title to the underlying land. Once the city owns the land, staff will begin working with the neighborhood on a long-range plan for the park. The reimagined park may also include regional storm water treatment. This report is intended as an update on the progress of acquiring the land needed for the park. Staff will share estimated costs and timelines when more information is available. Financial or budget considerations: Staff continues to work with MnDOT and does not have a cost estimate for obtaining the property currently. Staff seeks to draft an agreement with MNDOT for the acquisition. City costs may include title research, appraisals, legals fees, environmental investigation and purchase payments. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Discussion Prepared by: Jason T. West, director of parks and recreation Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Webster Park update – Ward 1 Discussion Background: For nearly half a century, Webster Park has served as a vital public green space in the City of St. Louis Park. Located at the intersection of Webster Ave and West 33rd St, the park is partially situated on land owned by the Minnesota Department of Trans portation (MnDOT). Since its inception, the city has maintained this portion of the park under a no-cost lease agreement with MnDOT in exchange for upkeep and maintenance. The current lease, renewed on a two-year basis, is set to expire on Nov. 30, 2026. In pursuit of a more permanent and sustainable solution, city staff has initiated efforts to acquire full ownership of the state-owned parcels. MnDOT has indicated its willingness to sell its interest in the property, contingent upon the city obtaining clear title to the underlying land. To accomplish this, the city may need to utilize condemnation proceedings, a legal process allowing municipalities to acquire private property for public use. Securing ownership of the entire parkland will allow the city to embark on a collaborative long-range planning process with residents to reimagine the future of Webster Park. This redevelopment could include enhanced recreational amenities and the integration of regional storm water treatment infrastructure. This report serves as a status update on the city's efforts to acquire the necessary land. Staff is actively working with MnDOT and conducting preliminary research but ha s not yet determined the full cost or timeline for the acquisition. Potential expenses may include title searches, property appraisals, legal fees, environmental assessments and purchase payments. Further details will be shared as the effort progresses, and more information becomes available. Present considerations: The present consideration is the city’s effort to acquire full ownership of the state-owned portion of Webster Park to secure a long -term solution for its use and development. Staff is currently: •Working with MnDOT on the process to transfer ownership. •Exploring how to obtain clear titles to the underlying parcels, potentially using condemnation, if necessary. •Estimating potential costs associated with the acquisition (e.g. title research, appraisals, legal fees, environmental reviews, purchase price). •Providing this update as a progress report, with detailed cost estimates and timelines to come later. Essentially, the city is in the planning and research phase of acquiring the property, with the ultimate goal of owning the land so it can move forward with a comprehensive, community - informed plan of Webster Park. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Webster Park update – Ward 1 Next steps: 1.Negotiate price to obtain parcels from MnDOT. Staff will receive a preliminary appraisal of the parcels to estimate costs. 2.Receive direction from city council on the city’s willingness to use condemnation to acquire the parcels. 3.Enter into an agreement with MnDOT. 4.Order informational title commitments for all parcels. 5.Order Minimum Damage Acquisition Appraisals for all parcels. 6.The council considers a resolution authorizing condemnation. 7.Begin condemnation process; notices sent; acquisition costs paid to county. 8.Once parcel is legally city property, start community engagement. Meeting: Study session Meeting date: June 9, 2025 Written report: 5 Executive summary Title: Percentage of park and open space in St. Louis Park Recommended action: None at this time. Policy consideration: Is the current park land amount acceptable to the city council? Summary: During the Housing and Neighborhood-Oriented Development system in fall of 2024 and again as part of the zoning code update, Community Development had a discussion with council regarding the disposition of certain city-owned parcels. The city council directed staff to determine the amount or percentage of park and open space in St. Louis Park and compare that to whatever standards may exist for a preferred, healthy amount, or percentage of parks and open space in a community. The city council also wanted to know the amount or percentage broken down by park and open space category (programmed parks, unprogrammed parks, dog parks, open space, etc.). It was found that in St. Louis Park, 81% of all residents are within one-quarter mile from a park and 100% are within one-half mile from a park. According to the Urban Land Institute and Trust for Public Land, the 10-minute walk metric (equivalent to approximately one-half mile) is essential to creating an equitable park system. St. Louis Park has a total of 922.15 acres of park and open space. According to the World Health Organization, it is recommended that there should be about 620 acres for 50,000 population. The 2025 National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) Agency Performance Review’s national average states: • There are 9.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents which equates to 2,299 residents per park. The City of St. Louis Park offers: • 18.44 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (74% more than the national average) which equates to 926 residents per park (157% more than the national average). Financial or budget considerations: None at this time. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Discussion Parks & Open Space Evaluation Prepared by: Jason T. West, director of parks and recreation Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Percentage of park and open space in St. Louis Park Discussion Background: The 2025 National Recreation and Park Association Agency (NRPA) Performance Review states that communities typically have 9.2 acres of park land (parks and open space) per 1,000 residents. Given St. Louis Park’s estimated population of 50,000 residents, the benchmark for park land would be 530 acres. Current data shows that St. Louis Park has 922.15 acres of park land and open space, which is 74% above the national average. Additionally, the national average is approximately one park per 2,299 residents. For a population of 50,000, this would equal 21 parks. St. Louis Park currently has 54 parks, which is 157% above the national average. Breakdown of city-owned park land and open space: • The total park and open space is 922.15 acres (100%). o Non-programmable areas (open space): 855.78 acres (92.9%) o Programmable areas (dog parks, athletic fields, playgrounds): 66.37 acres (7.1%)  Off-leash dog parks: 1.37 acres  Athletic and playground space: 65 acres This data highlights that St. Louis Park exceeds the national average park land and park availability benchmarks, providing significant open space and recreational opportunities for residents. Comprehensive Plan park land categories: The comprehensive plan parks, open space and natural areas chapter categorizes the park land owned and operated by the city into four categories: neighborhood parks/historical parks, community parks, open space, and community playfields. There are 21 park areas designated as open space. The smallest open space area is the Town Green at 0.44 acres and the largest is Minnehaha Creek/Basin at 168.8 acres. Public right-of-way and boulevards are not included in our open space calculations. Open space park areas typically include lakes, ponds, fountains, benches, public art, trails, athletic facilities, creeks, dense vegetation and docks/landings. Summation Area (acres) Community parks 317.5 Neighborhood parks 160.81 Parks open space 423.54 Community playfields 20.3 City total 922.15 Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 5) Page 3 Title: Percentage of park and open space in St. Louis Park City and non-city owned parks and open space: Feature Area in acres Comments Municipal boundary area 6,918 City of St. Louis Park total acreage City owned public parks and open space 922.15 Non-city owned open space 214 This includes school district fields/amenities/playgrounds/open space and the Minneapolis Golf Club (Meadowbrook is already included in open space calculations.) Total 1,136.15 Additional comments and clarification of areas that are preserved to be open space, but are not accounted for in the data above: • School district grounds: most of the schools include playground equipment, athletic fields and other amenities that residents have varying access to use and enjoy, though they are mainly to serve students. These spaces are generally guided as civic in the comprehensive plan future land use. • Regional trails. • Minneapolis Golf Club: while a private membership, it also provides open space viewable from surrounding residential properties and streets. • All private multiunit residential developments in the past years have included 12% of the lot area as designed outdoor recreation spaces. These include patios, gazebos, play structures, seating areas, grills, swimming pools, rooftop decks and landscaped sidewalk and trail connections around the building(s) and grounds. Present considerations: The City of St. Louis Park surpasses all national benchmarks and recommended standards that staff were able to identify for park and open space acreage per capita. Next steps: None at this time. Parks & Open Space Evaluation 1111 Park Open Space -apx. 424 Acres 1111 Community Park -apx. 318 Acres Community Playfield -apx. 20 Acres 1111 Historical Park -apx. 3 Acres 1111 Neighborhood Park -apx. 158 Acres Additional Open Space Mapped after 2018 -apx. 64 acres � Muni. Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 �--Mile Source: City of St. Louis Park III St. Louis Park I.I.I M I N N E S O TA �p<-n<-•= 1.-1f'"i;:. , " th<-Pari<:. Study session meeting of June 9, 2025 (Item No. 5) Title: Percentage of park and open space in St. Louis Park Page 4