City Council Worksession

South St. Paul WORKSESSION AGENDA SSP City Hall 125 3rd Avenue North Training room Monday, March 28, 2022 7:00 pm AGENDA: 1. Armour – Hardman Site Development and Armour Gates 2. Future Public Works Facility Update 3. Goal Setting Priorities 4. Traffic Calming 5. Council Comments & Questions A CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA REPORT DATE: March 28, 2022 1 DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: Ryan Garcia, Director of Economic & Community Development ADMINISTRATOR: JRH Agenda Item: Armour – Hardman Site Development and Armour Gates Desired Outcomes: • Provide an update on development interest in the site, and determine if there is consensus to work towards facilitating the development. • Considering the lack of sufficient grant support to relocate Armour Gate structures, generate consensus around “what to do” with the structures. Overview: In early 2021, the EDA was approached with a development proposal for the site at the southwest corner of Armour Avenue and Hardman Avenue. In general, the proposal to construct a multi-unit, 45,000 square foot office/warehouse facility hinged on the relocation or removal of the 1918 gatehouse structures that are located midway through the Amour Avenue frontage on this 4-acre, oddly shaped lot. Given a lack of consensus among the Council and a sense (on the developer’s part) that there was significant public sentiment that the development would be a net negative to the community if the structures were compromised, the developer chose not to pursue the project any further at that time. Recently, the developer has re-engaged Staff to express continued interest in the site for office/warehouse development. The development continues to hinge on the relocation or removal of the structures, so Staff is requesting renewed discussion on this topic at Monday’s worksession. The Armour Gates: The 1918 brick and limestone towers mark the historic entry point to the Armour & Co. Meat Packing Campus and are understandably important reminders of the City’s history and legacy. However, the structures themselves are not significantly utilized by the community at large, or even the business park community. They have not been effectively cared for by the HRA and now the EDA, and are showing signs of deterioration. Although there was a flurry of correspondence from a handful of community members in early 2021 (see attachments – representing all of the correspondence that staff is aware of on this topic), no party stepped forward with a feasible or sustainable preservation solution, although ideas ranged from “tear them down” to “restore and preserve them” and a few options in between. Today, the structures appear as forgotten and misplaced relics within their current context, and continue to present a practical challenge to effectively improving the surrounding site to its highest potential. In early 2021, Council and Staff worked together to try and explore how or if relocation of the structures was a viable option. Working with Senator Bigham’s office, the City requested $350,000 in state funds to assist with relocation of the structures, based upon numerous preliminary estimates ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 for such an effort. As Council is aware, we were awarded only $50,000 for this effort, which would be insufficient for relocation of the structures and thus would require significant contribution of City funds to accomplish. In previous discussions, the general consensus seemed to be that it would not be prudent to expend significant City resources to fund relocation of the structures. Staff has concluded that, unless a private benefactor or other third-party organization comes forward to relocate the structures, relocation is not currently a practical option due to costs and the lack of a viable, nearby location for the structures. Relocating the structures to Hastings (Pioneer Village) or Farmington (Dakota City), while in concept makes a lot of sense, would certainly add to the expense and risk of relocation. Alternatives to Relocation Staff would like to engage Council to discuss exactly what physical presence the Council would define as a “success” when all is said and done with the abandoned gatehouse structures. The current physical condition of the structures is generally fair to poor but deteriorating with time and neglect. Staff would like to know where the Council is at on the following spectrum: A. RETENTION OF BOTH structures in exactly their current physical form (size, material, condition) and exactly their current physical location is of utmost importance. This is to say, one open-air structure and one structure (the gatehouse itself) with a door and windows (currently boarded over with plywood), effectively a small one-room building. B. RETENTION OF JUST ONE of the structures in its current location is acceptable/preferable, as it acknowledges the importance of Armour’s and the meatpacking industry to the community. o Retain the open-air structure o Retain the gatehouse C. REPLICATION of the structures is the preferred approach, at a smaller scale and of similar materials, either in the same general location or somewhere within the site. D. RECOGNITION of the structures is the preferred approach. As an option, the developer has recently proposed integrating preserved/restored materials from the structures as prominent architectural features into the corners of the proposed office/warehouse building. The existing historical marker signage would be retained, possibly with updated language. Staff looks forward to the Council Discussion on these options Monday. About the Current Development Interest: The EDA will recall that a developer has engaged Staff, on and off, over the past 36 months to explore the potential of developing the site as an office/warehouse building, potentially subdivided as units for sale to individual small businesses. This developer has successfully delivered a similar product type in South St. Paul in the past, and believes that the market is ripe for more of this product type. The developer has resolved that to make the project economically viable, a building of about 45,000 SF would be needed. As the EDA will recall, the developer has determined that removal of the entry gate monuments is most likely necessary to make the building economically viable for their model and expectations. This particular issue became a flashpoint in 2021, but the developer remains interested in pursuing this approach if the gatehouse structure issue can find some conclusion. Staff estimates that the project as envisioned by the developer could accommodate between 45 – 75 jobs, add about $4,500,000 to the City’s property tax base and generate an additional $132,000 in additional annual property tax. Summary: The vacant industrial property at 450 Hardman Avenue South continues to draw development interest. Staff understands and appreciates the need to consider the public’s sensitivity and sentiment towards the Armour Gatehouse structures, which ranges from “tear them down” to “retain them and develop an elaborate plaza around them” and everything in between. Staff’s opinion is that resolution of the fate of the gatehouse structures is needed in order to determine how to position the site for future development, or for enhanced public use. Site/Orientation Map Draft Development Concept Concept Corner Image Correspondence (2021) A CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION AGENDA REPORT DATE: March 28, 2022 2 DEPARTMENT: ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepared by: Ryan Garcia, Director of Economic & Community Development ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Potential Public Works Facility Update DESIRED OUTCOMES: • Continue to discuss and potentially arrive at consensus about potential public works facility location. OVERVIEW: The City Council has identified the need to replace the current central public works facility on Richmond Street as a high priority. Resolution 2021-141 authorized the City Administrator to request $11,000,000 in state bond financing for the design and construction of the estimated $22,000,000 project, and as of this writing the Governor’s bonding proposal recommends financing that request (although there is still work to do to finalize that). In November 2021, the Council agreed to eliminate a few potential options from further consideration at least for the time being: • The “Southport” site at the far northern end of the City, adjacent to Alter Metal Recycling due to inadequate access and infrastructure • The Wakota Crossing site (generally, immediately south of 494 and east of Hardman Avenue) due to concerns about accessibility due to at-grade rail crossings • Additionally, although the Council expressed an interest in exploring the potential of siting the new facility at 587 Verderosa (immediately north of 494 and east of Hardman), in January a preliminary PUD was reviewed for that site to develop as a private industrial development (Danner, Inc.) Given that the Governor’s bonding proposal suggests significant state funding for a new public works facility, having a viable location identified will ensure that we’re ready to hit the ground running. Considering this, Staff would like to keep Council up to date as frequently as necessary as possibilities evolve. We will be prepared to provide an update at Monday’s meeting. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS: There are a couple of general assumptions to keep in mind about a future public works facility, regardless of location: 1. Staff has estimated that a facility of about 75,000 square feet is needed to adequately serve the department’s needs. The current facility is about 33,000 square feet. 2. Public Works will benefit from having a site that will allow for at least some exterior storage and general stockpiling of material and/or equipment. 3. It is estimated that a site of between 5 – 7 acres would be necessary to accommodate the building and exterior yard space that Public Works would need for efficient operations.  COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT A DATE: MARCH 28, 2022 3 DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATION Prepared By: Joel Hanson, City Administrator ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Goal Setting Session Follow-Up DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: REVIEW THE RESULTS OF THE GOAL SETTING SESSION CONDUCTED ON MARCH 23, 2022 AND PROVIDE CONSENSUS OF THE TOP PRIORITIES FOR ADOPTION. OVERVIEW: In our goal setting session held on Wednesday, March 23rd, the Council established a priority listing. Staff is looking for the Council to review and confirm the priorities to be adopted at our Council Meeting of April 4th. Once the Council adopts their 2021 priorities, staff will prepare action plans for implementation. Here are the rankings from the Goal Setting Session: Council (7 Voters) 1. Develop Parks & Recreation Master Plan (Pursue County funded park, Jefferson site, resolution of former CLC space, revisions to alcohol ordinance for events in parks, and programming of more community events) 22 points and six voters (Joint Goal) 2. Develop Master Plan for City Buildings (Public Works without State dollars, re-use of library, pools, Fire Station, City Hall) 19 points and five voters (Joint Goal) 3. Undertake Crime Prevention Initiatives/Proactive Policing (use of social media, Town Square TV, etc.) 13 points and three voters Note: Does not meet four vote minimum. 4. Continue to Prioritize Infrastructure Needs (Commit to $3.5 million annual revenues for on- going infrastructure funding by 2027, installation of digital traffic signs, installation of EV charging stations, security fencing for City Hall, and inclusion of non-City funding sources) 12 points and five voters (Joint Goal) 5. Develop strategies to implement Housing Master Plan 12 points and four votes Staff (15 Voters): 1. Develop Master Plan for City Buildings (Public Works without State dollars, re-use of library, pools, Fire Station, City Hall) 60 points and 15 voters (Joint Goal)  2. Continue to Prioritize Infrastructure Needs (Commit to $3.5 million annual revenues for on- going infrastructure funding by 2027, installation of digital traffic signs, installation of EV charging stations, security fencing for City Hall, and inclusion of non-City funding sources) 57 points and 14 voters (Joint Goal) 3. Continue Hardman Triangle Redevelopment 28 points and 9 voters 4. Develop Parks & Recreation Master Plan (Pursue County funded park, Jefferson site, resolution of former CLC space, revisions to alcohol ordinance for events in parks, and programming of more community events) 20 points and 9 voters (Joint Goal) 5. (Tie) Enhance Code Enforcement Activities (ordinance for vacant/nuisance properties, proactive code enforcement, fees for excessive service usage) 10 points and four voters (Note: Less than ½ the staff voted for this) 6. (Tie) Evaluate City Services for Possible Discontinuance/Outsourcing (compost site, boulevard trees, election administration by Dakota County) 10 points and four voters (Note: Less than ½ the staff voted for this) The Summary Sheets for the ratings are attached to this memo. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A  2022 GOAL SETTING RESULTS Priority Ranking-Elected Officials Total Number Goals Mayor Tom Lori Sharon Joe Pam Todd Points of Votes Rank 1 Reorganize Public Works Staffing 0 0 13 Develop Master Plan for City Buildings 2 (PW with/without State $, Re-use of Current Library, Pools, Fire Station, City Hall, etc.) 2 5 4 5 3 19 5 2 3 Pursue Social Services Development in SSP through Dakota County 1 2 3 2 9 4 Continue Pursuit of New Business (including Hangar Development at Airport) 1 1 1 12 Continue to Prioritize Infrastructure Needs 5 ($3.5 million by 2027, Digital Traffic Signs, EV Charging Stations, Security Fencing, Use of Non-City $) 3 4 1 2 2 12 5 4 Develop Parks & Rec Master Plan 6 (pursuit of County funded park, resolution of former CLC space, alcohol ordinance revisions, community events, community center/pools) 5 3 5 4 4 1 22 6 1 Implement Communications Specialist Position (Planned 7/1 Start) 7 (Evaluate Social Media Advertising for position recruitment, Community Survey) 0 0 13 8 Continue Hardman Triangle Redevelopment 3 3 1 9 Enhance Code Enforcement Activities 9 3 4 7 2 6 (vacant/nuisance properties ordinance, proactive code enforcement, fees for excessive service usage) Evaluate City Services for Possible Discontinuance/Outsourcing 10 (compost site, boulevard trees, election administration by Dakota County) 0 0 13 11 Develop Strategies to Implement Housing Master Plan 4 2 4 2 12 4 4 12 Evaluate Possible Employee Retention Strategies 1 1 2 2 11 13 Conduct South Concord Land Use Study 3 2 5 2 8 14 Crime prevention initatives - proactive policing (Town Square/Social Media) 5 3 5 13 3 3 15 Traffic calming strategies/pedestrian safety, digital signs, traffic officer 1 5 6 2 7 16 0 0 0 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 105 35 105  2022 Priority Ranking - Non-Elected Officials Goal Listing Anderson Blair Dunn Garcia Griffith Halgren Hardie Hilger Juelfs Messerich Polka Wall Wicke Wilcox Young Total Points Total Votes Ranking 1 Reorganize Public Works Staffing 0 0 13 Develop Master Plan for City Buildings 2 (PW with/without State $, Re-use of Current Library, Pools, Fire Station, City Hall, etc.) 5 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 5 3 5 60 15 1 3 Pursue Social Services Development in SSP through Dakota County 4 5 9 2 7 4 Continue Pursuit of New Business (including Hangar Development at Airport) 1 5 6 2 9 Continue to Prioritize Infrastructure Needs 5 ($3.5 million by 2027, Digital Traffic Signs, EV Charging Stations, Security Fencing, Use of Non-City $) 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 4 2 4 57 14 2 Develop Parks & Rec Master Plan 6 (pursuit of County funded park, resolution of former CLC space, alcohol ordinance revisions, community events, co 3 2 2 1 4 2 1 3 2 20 9 4 Implement Communications Specialist Position (Planned 7/1 Start) 7 2 2 1 5 3 11 (Evaluate Social Media Advertising for position recruitment, Community Survey) 8 Continue Hardman Triangle Redevelopment 4 3 2 3 2 5 5 1 3 28 9 3 Enhance Code Enforcement Activities 9 (vacant/nuisance properties ordinance, proactive code enforcement, fees for excessive service usage) 3 1 2 4 10 4 5 Evaluate City Services for Possible Discontinuance/Outsourcing 10 (compost site, boulevard trees, election administration by Dakota County) 1 2 2 5 10 4 5 11 Develop Strategies to Implement Housing Master Plan 2 1 1 1 5 4 11 12 Evaluate Possible Employee Retention Strategies 1 3 2 1 1 1 9 6 7 13 Conduct South Concord Land Use Study 0 0 13 14 Crime prevention initatives - proactive policing (Town Square/Social Media) 0 0 13 15 Traffic calming strategies/pedestrian safety, digital signs, traffic officer 2 3 1 6 3 9 16 0 0 0 13 Total Points 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 225 75 Total Votes 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 225 75  2022 GOAL SETTING SUMMARY Priority Ranking By All Participants Elected Officials Non-Elected Participants Total Participants Goal Listing Total Points # of Votes Total Points # of Votes Total Points # of Votes Rank by Points 1 Reorganize Public Works Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Develop Master Plan for City Buildings 2 (PW with/without State $, Re-use of Current Library, Pools, Fire Station, City Hall, etc.) 19 5 60 15 79 20 1 3 Pursue Social Services Development in SSP through Dakota County 3 2 9 2 12 4 8 4 Continue Pursuit of New Business (including Hangar Development at Airport) 1 1 6 2 7 3 12 Continue to Prioritize Infrastructure Needs 5 ($3.5 million by 2027, Digital Traffic Signs, EV Charging Stations, Security Fencing, Use of Non-City $) 12 5 57 14 69 19 2 Develop Parks & Rec Master Plan 6 (pursuit of County funded park, resolution of former CLC space, alcohol ordinance revisions, community events, community center/pools) 22 6 20 9 42 15 3 Implement Communications Specialist Position (Planned 7/1 Start) 7 0 0 5 3 5 3 13 (Evaluate Social Media Advertising for position recruitment, Community Survey) 8 Continue Hardman Triangle Redevelopment 3 1 28 9 31 10 4 Enhance Code Enforcement Activities 9 (vacant/nuisance properties ordinance, proactive code enforcement, fees for excessive service usage) 7 2 10 4 17 6 5 Evaluate City Services for Possible Discontinuance/Outsourcing 10 0 0 10 4 10 4 11 (compost site, boulevard trees, election administration by Dakota County) 11 Develop Strategies to Implement Housing Master Plan 12 4 5 4 17 8 5 12 Evaluate Possible Employee Retention Strategies 2 2 9 6 11 8 10 13 Conduct South Concord Land Use Study 5 2 0 0 5 2 13 14 Crime prevention initatives - proactive policing (Town Square/Social Media) 13 3 0 0 13 3 7 15 Traffic calming strategies/pedestrian safety, digital signs, traffic officer 6 2 6 3 12 5 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 KEY Shared Goal Council Goal Staff Goal A COUNCIL WORKSESSION REPORT DATE: MARCH 28, 2022 4 DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING Prepared by: Sue Polka, City Engineer ADMINISTRATOR: JRH AGENDA ITEM: Traffic Calming DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES: Provide staff with input on: • Demonstration Project at Kaposia Education Center • 9th Avenue N and 3rd Street N intersection OVERVIEW: The School District has received funding for a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) demonstration project. They are proposing to install temporary curb extensions (bump outs) at two intersections adjacent to the Kaposia Education Center (see attached diagram). The locations are at the intersections of 1st Avenue S. and Dale Street and 1st Avenue S. and Spruce Street. The purpose of the project is to provide traffic calming measures and to reduce the crosswalk distances from 30 feet to 22 feet. They are hoping to implement this program this spring. At the March 18th Council meeting, a resident reported stop sign violations at the intersection of 9th Avenue and 3rd Street (see attached map). The resident felt that speed humps or speed bumps would solve the issue. These measures are not the perfect solution for every traffic calming scenario. Steep grade changes can cause the speed bump to create more of an impact than intended and are not recommended where grades are in excess of 8% as is the case on a portion of 9th Avenue. Staff is proposing to investigate temporary measures such as curb bump outs and/or the electronic stop signs to determine a permanent solution. SOURCE OF FUNDS: General Fund  SRTS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT KAPOSIA EDUCATION CENTER SOUTH ST. PAUL, MN PROPOSED: CURB 30’ EXTENSIONS REDUCE CROSSING DISTANCES TO 22’ INITIAL CONCEPT DRAFT - 12/15/2021 Note: Dimensions/corner radii and project element placement to be refined in future draft DALE ST W 30’ DALE ST E 1ST AVE S W DOUGLAS ST E DOUGLAS ST PROPOSED: CURB 30’ EXTENSIONS REDUCE CROSSING DISTANCES TO 22’ W SPRUCE ST 30’ E SPRUCE ST N  9th Ave. N/3rd St. N. Legend 1 in = 94 ft Signs 40 mph R8: Parking Prohibition Other 10 mph R1: Stop/Yield Parking Regulation Sign Two Foot Contours 15 mph R-3: Turn & Lane Use Bus Stop 10-Foot (Index) ± 20 mph R4: Movement Regulation Warning Sign 2-Foot (Intermediate) 25 mph R5: Traffic Prohibition School Sign 30 mph March 24, 2022 R6: One Way Hazard Marker Map Powered By DataLink 30 mph R7: Parking Regulation Street Sign