HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/06/08 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 8, 2026
6:00 p.m. Study session – Community Room
Discussion items
1. Environment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council
2. Consider study session topic proposal: council ambassador program for advisory
boards and commissions
Written reports
3. Rainwater Rewards Program overview
4. Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
5. Emerald Ash Borer update
6. Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
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 8, 2026
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council
Recommended action: None at this time.
Policy consideration: Does the council have any work direction for this commission?
Summary: The second June 2026 boards and commission check-in with city council features the
Environment and Sustainability Commission (ESC), represented by chair Jessie Hendrix. The
staff liaison for this commission is Emily Ziring, sustainability manager.
The ESC is one of the five advisory boards and commissions whose purpose is to focus on
guiding city initiatives by offering recommendations, collaborating with staff and council,
fostering community engagement, and facilitating partnerships. Additionally, the ESC acts as a
bridge between residents and the public for environmental and sustainability-related
information.
The discussion will include a summary of the commission’s most recent approved work plan,
highlighting completed items, ongoing projects and areas still in progress. The focus of this
check-in will be on opportunities for council feedback, guidance on work plan priorities, and
any additional direction the council would like the commission to consider moving forward.
The next scheduled check-in on August 17, 2026, will feature the Police Advisory Commission.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable
services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships
with residents.
Supporting documents: ESC 2025 Approved Workplan
Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director; Pa Dao Yang, racial equity
and inclusion director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council
Current Roster
Current Roster: Notes/Comments:
Jessica Hendrix (Ward 4) Term expires May 31, 2027
Tatiana Giraldo (Ward 1) Term expires May 31, 2027
Adam Oien (Ward 2) Term expires May 31, 2028
Shaina Ashare (Ward 3) Term expires May 31, 2027
Marisa Bayer (Ward 4) Term expired May 31, 2026
Ryan Griffin (Ward 2) Term expires May 31, 2027
Natalie Wagner (Ward 2) Term expired May 31, 2026
Sasha Shahidi (Ward 2) Term expires May 31, 2027
Ethan Kehrberg (Ward 2) Term expired May 31, 2026
Bennet Myhran (Ward 4) Term expires May 31, 2027
Kati Helseth (Ward 2) Term expires May 31, 2028
Avital Krebs (Ward 1) Youth member - Term expired Aug. 31, 2025
Avery Kuehl (Ward 2) Youth member - Term expired Aug. 31, 2025
2025 work plan │ Environment and Sustainability Commission
1
Initiative name: Prepare for Climate Action Plan update
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):
Shaina Ashare, Ryan Griffin, Ethan Kehrberg, Marisa Bayer
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Planning Commission
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☒No but recommend new work group
Initiative description:
Discuss what, when and how the 2018 Climate Action Plan should be updated, and how to integrate the update into the comprehensive plan.
•Review plan and highlight sections or initiatives to keep, remove and add in prep for update.
•Recommend a timeline for updating the CAP.
•Recommend a structure for updating the CAP: amend current CAP or rewrite?
•Consider a community engagement plan.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Q4
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 beyond staff capacity
Staff support required: New work group will require additional meetings outside of normal working hours. Anticipate 8-10 additional
hours in 2025.
Liaison comments: Supportive of this initiative and help from the work group.
Study session meeting of :une 8, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page 3
Board and Commission
Annual work plan Presented to council: February 18, 2025
2
Initiative name: Electrification 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):
Natalie Wagner, Tatiana Giraldo
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☒Yes—Events (reestablish)
☐No
Initiative description:
Plan a public event to demonstrate e-bikes and share information about e-bike and home electrification incentive programs.
Consider collaborating with other cities’ environmental commissions.
Idea: “Pedal, Pints & Power” event in July or August, would involve multiple stops at local businesses
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: Q3
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: TBD but may require local businesses to sponsor event
Staff support required: Events work group will require additional meetings outside of normal working hours. Anticipate 10-20 additional
hours in 2025.
Liaison comments: Staff appreciate commissioners’ interest in organizing this event. Need to determine whether staff has capacity and
budget to successfully accomplish.
Study session meeting of :une 8, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page 4
3
Initiative name: Promote curbside organics program to single-family households
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):
Jessie Hendrix, Eric Zweber, Ramil G.
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☒Yes – partner with Events work group
☐No
Initiative description:
Support solid waste division staff in promoting organics recycling program to 1-4 unit households. Current participation rate is 43% among 1-4 unit
households.
Assist staff in creating poll to distribute to community members at tabling events to determine resistance to participation. Focus on 2-4 unit buildings
to start.
Encourage residents to participate in organics recycling through social media, outreach at events, and other engagement.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☒ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: Q4
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: TBD
Staff support required: Success depends on capacity within Solid Waste division to support this work plan item, as this is not work
managed by the sustainability division and the ESC liaison.
Liaison comments:
Study session meeting of :une 8, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page 5
4
Initiative name: Educate residents at elementary school open houses
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):
Abigail Oppegaard, Avery Kuehl
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☒Yes – Events work group
☐No
Initiative description:
Table at elementary school open houses to educate residents about city programs and state and federal incentives.
High school commissioners lead an activity with kids to keep them occupied while they talk to parents about programs.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A
Target completion date: Q3
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: TBD but likely $300 for materials for crafts
Staff support required: Events work group will require additional meetings outside of normal working hours.
Liaison comments: Youth commissioners have great ideas for tabling and engaging kids to keep them occupied. Success depends on staff
capacity to assist and provide materials as needed.
Study session meeting of :une 8, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page 6
5
Initiative name: Promote value of trees and native ecosystems
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):
Bennett Myhran, Sasha Shahidi
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
Is this an established work group? (if applicable)
☐Yes
☐No
Initiative description:
Engage in various tree-promoting initiatives, including:
•Assisting staff with Tree of the Year campaign ideas
o Encourage use mystlouispark app or mystlouispark.org to submit ideas
•Lead tree planting at nature center as part of joint meeting with Park & Recreation Advisory Commission in April
•Table at Arbor Day event
•Assisting staff in educating residents about tree care and maintenance via handouts, newsletter articles, social media
Additionally:
•Monitor effects of tree preservation ordinance through periodic meetings with CD and Natural Resources staff
•Review how city categorizes park space and whether a new definition of “wild space” is needed
•Research GHG emissions from wood waste and explore alternatives
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☒ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Q4
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 beyond planned
Staff support required: Success depends on CD and Natural Resources staff capacity to meet with and update ESC on these issues, as this
work is not managed by the sustainability division and the ESC liaison.
Liaison comments: Staff appreciate commissioners’ interest in tree preservation and native ecosystems and will provide as much support
as capacity allows. Because trees within city parks fall under PRAC, further recommend that PRAC commissioners take on some of this
work if interest and time allow.
Study session meeting of :une 8, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page ϳ
6
Initiative name: Support citywide Vision 4.0 process
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):
All
If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission:
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.
This work plan item has been included in all board & commission work plans.
Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A
Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A
Target completion date: Q3
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.
Study session meeting of :une 8, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page 8
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
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.
Study session meeting of :uneϴ, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page ϵ
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
Study session meeting of :une 8, 2026 (Item Eo͘ 1)
Title: nvironment and Sustainability Commission annual meeting with council Page 10
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 8, 2026
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Consider study session topic proposal: council ambassador program for advisory boards
and commissions
Recommended action: There is no action being requested. This item is for discussion purposes.
Policy consideration: Does the city council want to implement the council ambassador program
for the five advisory boards and commissions?
Summary: Council members submitted a study session topic proposal to explore creating a
council ambassador program for the city’s five advisory boards and commissions (Community
Technology Advisory Commission, Environment & Sustainability Commission, Human Rights
Commission, Police Advisory Commission, and Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission). The
goal of this model is to strengthen communication between the council and its advisory bodies,
addressing the ongoing desire for more consistent and meaningful connection.
Staff reviewed the proposal and prepared a high-level analysis. On May 4, 2026, the council
chose to move this item to a future study session for additional discussion. All related materials
are now ready for the council’s consideration to determine whether they want to move
forward with this model.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a city that delivers reliable
services, uses city resources responsibly, operates transparently and builds strong relationships
with residents.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director;
Pa Dao Yang, racial equity and inclusion director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Consider study session topic proposal: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions
Discussion
Background: During the study session on May 20, 2024, regarding the broader boards and
commissions program, the council discussed how it wanted to provide policy direction to its
advisory bodies. At that time, the idea of establishing a council liaison was introduced, but the
council did not implement the idea because a number of members felt they lacked the capacity
to effectively support such a structure.
Since then, the concept has resurfaced as the council continues to explore ways to strengthen
its presence and engagement with advisory boards and commissions. To take a closer look, a
previously established working group made up of three council members and three staff
liaisons reconvened on Feb. 24, 2026. The discussion focused on what a council ambassador
model could entail, including the role, expectations and boundaries needed for the program to
be successful.
Present considerations: The discussion for the council during this study session focuses on
identifying the core purposes and intent of the ambassador program. The following topic areas
and recommendations reflect the consensus of the working group:
1.Purpose and Intent
a.Increase visibility between council and commission
b.Strengthen lines of communication
c.Demonstrate council’s commitment to board and commission work
2.Ambassador Role Definition
a.What should ambassadors be:
i.Observers and listeners (ears)
ii.Information sharers about council consensus on decided matters
iii.Thought partners (with careful boundaries)
iv.Conduit for quicker communication
b.What ambassadors should not be
i.Commissioners themselves
ii.Replacements for staff liaisons
iii.Provide work direction or make decisions/commitments on behalf of the
council
iv.Voices speaking for the entire council (unless sharing already-decided
positions)
3.Responsibilities and expectations
a.Minimum of two meetings per year
b.To coordinate ambassador’s attendance through email threads including agenda
packets with the same RSVP expectations as commissioners
c.Ambassadors should defer to staff liaisons for most questions during meetings
d.Commission members should continue using formal communication processes
rather than directly contacting ambassadors
e.Outside-of-meeting contact should go through proper forms and processes
f.Ambassadors can share updates on council decisions already made
4.Boundaries and guardrails
a.Ambassadors must be clear when speaking personally versus sharing council
positions
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Consider study session topic proposal: council ambassador program for advisory boards and commissions
b.Formal communication processes must still be used for commission business
c.Staff liaisons remain operational leads
d.No outside meeting or lobbying by individual commissioners to ambassadors
5.Matching and assignments process
a. Initial interest-based pairing, with annual review opportunities
6.Training and onboarding needs
a.Commission rosters
b.Rules and procedures document
c.Current workplans
d.City code sections relevant to the commission
7.Communication structure (with full council)
a.Standing agenda item following written reports on study session agendas for
verbal updates that need to be shared with the full council
8.Evaluation and continuous improvement
a.Annual review process
i.First review to occur at the beginning of 2027 (note: this is less than a full
year in order to be able to receive earlier feedback)
ii.Subsequent reviews of assignments and program effectiveness at the
beginning of each year
b.Commissioner feedback
i.Annual email survey to all current commissioners for anonymous
feedback
ii.Exit interviews for commissioners completing their service (not seeking
reappointment or term-limited)
9.Relationship -building and recognition
a.Council-signed thank you notes for departing commissioners
Next steps: If the council chooses to move forward with this concept, staff will coordinate the
next steps and ensure that the implementation occurs in alignment with council direction.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 8, 2026
Written report: 3
Executive summary
Title: Rainwater Rewards Program overview
Recommended action: The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the city’s
Rainwater Rewards Program.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The city’s Rainwater Rewards Program supports homeowners in making yard
improvements that reduce runoff from roofs, driveways and other hard surfaces that do not
allow water to soak into the ground naturally. These projects help reduce pollutants carried
into local lakes and streams, improving overall water quality.
The Rainwater Rewards Program is structured as rebates offered by the city for projects such as
rain gardens, rain barrels, permeable pavement and green roofs. Depending on the project,
homeowners can receive up to 75% of the project cost, with a maximum reimbursement of
$3,000.
The city offers two different ways to complete a rainwater rewards project:
•Rain Garden Lottery – rain gardens are designed and installed for the residents by
professionals.
•Rainwater Rewards Do-It-Yourself (DIY) – projects designed and built by the
homeowners with or without help from professional designers and contractors; also
includes rain barrels.
Applications are accepted year-round, but funding is limited and available on a first-come, first-
served basis, so residents are encouraged to apply early. Since 2017, the program has helped
residents install 363 rain gardens, 128 rain barrels, three permeable paver projects and one
small water reuse project. The program has also received more than $150,000 in Clean Water
Land and Legacy Funds to help support resident projects through the Rain Garden Lottery
program.
Financial or budget considerations: The annual budget for this program in 2026 is $83,900. The
city received $27,900 in Clean Water grant funds and the remaining $56,000 is funded through
storm water utility funds. Any operating and maintenance costs are the responsibility of the
property owner.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a climate leader that cares
for the planet and maintains dynamic parks that connect people and nature.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Prepared by: Erick Francis, water resources manager
Reviewed by: Sarah Schweiger, engineering services manager;
Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Rainwater Rewards Program overview
Discussion
Background: The focus of the Rainwater Rewards Program is to help roughly 12,000 single-
family properties reduce the runoff and to mitigate drainage issues through infiltration
practices that improve water quality and wildlife habitat while also reducing pressure on the
city's stormwater infrastructure.
The initial planning process for the Rainwater Rewards Program began in 2016. By spring 2017,
the program had been approved by the city council and funding was secured. Immediately
following approval, the program was opened to the community and it began taking applications
that summer. The water resource manager led the creation of the program and advocated for
its many benefits, including improving water quality, increasing pollinator and wildlife habitat,
and helping address isolated flooding issues.
What kinds of projects qualify? Eligible projects include anything that can demonstrate a
reduction in rainwater runoff, which typically includes rain gardens, permeable pavement,
green roofs, rain barrels, tree trenches and water reuse.
Ways to participate: There are two options to participate in the Rainwater Rewards Program:
Rain Garden Lottery: The lottery has been held every spring since 2018, and the
program offers between 30 and 40 rain gardens annually, depending on available
funding.
This program is a partnership between Metro Blooms (a non-profit who designs the rain
gardens), Conservation Corps of Minnesota and Iowa (a non-profit whose staff construct
them), and residents who pick up the plants at a designated annual pickup event held at
the Westwood Hills Nature Center and plant them in their new rain gardens. Additional
planting assistance is available if needed.
The program's format had to be converted to a lottery early on due to overwhelming
interest among residents. Depending on the year, over 100 residents participate in the
lottery.
Once selected through the lottery, homeowners pay an upfront consultation fee of $50.
Once the project is completed, homeowners also cover 25% of the design and plants
costs, averaging about $200 for the entire project. The city contributes 75% of the
design and plants costs and Clean Water Land and Legacy funding reimburses the
Conservation Corps of Minnesota and Iowa for their work constructing the gardens.
Rainwater Rewards Do-It-Yourself (DIY): These are custom-made projects designed and
built by homeowners; with or without help from professional designers and contractors.
Often, DIY projects are completed as part of a home addition, larger landscaping
project, to help reduce localized flooding issues, or to add pollinator habitat to their
yard.
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Rainwater Rewards Program overview
Rain barrels are also a part of the DIY program. They are a great way to collect roof
runoff that can later be reused to water gardens and plants, helping to reduce potable
water use.
Participants in the DIY program are typically eligible for reimbursement of up to 75% of
project costs, with a maximum reimbursement of $3,000. Rain barrels are reimbursed at
$50 each, up to three rain barrels and a maximum of $150. Reimbursement is issued
after the city inspects and approves the completed project.
How do residents apply? Homeowners can submit applications on the city’s website year-
round. Once approved, residents get notified via email and can start on the project. They also
receive a specialized link to upload final documentation once the project is complete. Once the
documentation is uploaded, the completed project is reviewed and reimbursement is issued.
Projects that were not approved by the city before construction began are not eligible for
funding. The project must be completed within one year of approval.
On the city’s side, most of the documentation process is handled automatically using ArcGIS
software. The water resources manager has been successful in minimizing staff time spent
administering the program and maximizing the funds available to residents to complete
rainwater projects.
Community benefits: The St. Louis Park residents widely accepted and embraced the Rainwater
Rewards Program. In its first nine years of implementation, the program supported the
installation of 363 rain gardens, 128 rain barrels, three permeable paver projects and one small
water reuse project. The program has also received more than $150,000 in Clean Water Land
and Legacy Funds to support resident projects through the Rain Garden Lottery program.
The program makes landscaping projects more affordable for residents by covering a significant
portion of project costs. It also helps more community members improve the appearance of
their property while providing water quality and wildlife benefits.
Operation and maintenance:
Maintenance agreements are required under St. Louis Park's Rainwater Rewards program to
support collaborative water-resource protection, education, and outreach efforts between the
city and the property owner. The agreements function as the city's mechanism to ensure that
publicly funded private stormwater improvements continue to operate as designed and deliver
intended environmental benefits over time. Specifically, they allow the city access to inspect
each Best Management Practice (BMP) to verify proper function. Ultimately, the agreements
help foster shared responsibility between the city and property owners in caring for these
practices for years to come. Agreements are filed against the property for a five-year term
under the DIY program. The lottery program, which are funded through clean water funds,
require a ten-year agreement.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 8, 2026
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
Recommended action: None at this time.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: In 2025, council members requested that staff study the impacts of drive-throughs
on the environment. The purpose of this report is to respond to this request.
Drive-through windows can negatively affect greenhouse gas emissions, local air quality and
walkability. However, they can also improve access for people with limited mobility, support
businesses and generate tax revenue from previously underutilized land.
The city zoning code already limits where drive-throughs may be built. Proposed zoning code
changes would further restrict them. In areas where drive-throughs are allowed, the zoning
code includes multiple regulations that directly mitigate common concerns related to vehicle
emissions, traffic impacts and pedestrian safety.
Staff will monitor trends in drive-through usage and will return to council if there is a desire for
policy amendments.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time.
Strategic priority considerations: St. Louis Park is committed to being a climate leader that
cares for the planet and maintains dynamic parks that connect people and nature.
St. Louis Park is committed to being an inclusive, equitable and vibrant city where everyone
feels safe and experiences a strong sense of belonging.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing safe, reliable and well-maintained infrastructure and
neighborhoods that connect people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking and transit.
Supporting documents: Oct. 11, 2021 study session agenda
Oct. 11, 2021 study session minutes
Discussion
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, deputy community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
Discussion
Background: In 2021, council directed staff and the environment and sustainability commission
(ESC) to collaborate on research and recommendations around the topic of vehicle idling. At an
Oct. 11, 2021 study session, staff presented a menu of options to council, highlighting the two
endorsed by the ESC. Council expressed opposition to regulating idling of privately owned
vehicles but indicated support for staff and the ESC’s two recommendations: an idling reduction
policy for city fleet vehicles, and an educational campaign for drivers in St. Louis Park.
In 2022, the city manager approved the Idling Reduction Policy, which was then shared with
departments through a series of staff meetings (the information has been re-shared annually in
the years since). In collaboration with Park Nicollet/HealthPartners and St. Louis Park middle
school students, parents and faculty, sustainability staff also launched Idle-Free SLP, a public
health and education campaign for cleaner air and healthier lungs. Under Idle-Free SLP, “please
do not idle” signs were distributed and posted in school and park parking lots, and property
owners were invited to request a free aluminum sign for their commercial parking lots (includes
schools, nonprofits, businesses and multifamily buildings). Handouts explaining the impacts of
idling were also created and continue to be provided to school bus drivers, including those
transporting kids from outside of St. Louis Park to programs at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
The Idle-Free SLP campaign has been well received by the public, and staff continue to field
phone calls from other jurisdictions interested in replicating the program in their cities.
Simultaneously, council has considered a few new commercial development proposals that
feature drive-throughs. Because using drive-throughs results in some amount of vehicle idling,
this has led to some council members repeatedly raising the issue of the impact of drive-
throughs on the environment. During the February 2025 council study session discussion about
a proposed drive-through within the Terasă development and at the Oct. 6, 2025 council
meeting discussion about a proposed Chipotle restaurant development in the Knollwood area,
a number of council members requested that staff study the impacts of drive-throughs on the
environment. The purpose of this report is to respond to those requests.
Present considerations: There are currently nearly 20 existing drive-throughs in St. Louis Park
(an additional three have been approved but are not yet built: Knollwood Chipotle, Park Place
East and Terasă). Businesses with drive-throughs include eight banks, one pharmacy, a dry
cleaner, two coffee shops and seven fast-food restaurants. An additional dozen or more
businesses offer curbside pick-up for drivers to park and wait. The drive-through and curbside
pick-up locations are noted in Figure 1 and Figure 2:
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
Figure 1. Map of St. Louis Park businesses with drive-throughs
Note that the map does not include three additional drive-throughs that have been approved
but are not yet built or open: Knollwood Chipotle, Park Place East, and Terasă.
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
Figure 2. Map of St. Louis Park businesses with curbside pick-up
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
Environmental impacts
Drive-throughs impact the environment in a number of ways.
Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
Drivers who elect to use a drive-through are deciding to idle while they wait to place their order
(or transact business) and/or pick-up their order at the pick-up window. In some cases, often
when orders are placed in advance, drivers still need to park and wait for orders to be delivered
to their vehicles—and although staff could not find research on how often drivers shut off their
vehicles while parked and waiting for orders, anecdotal evidence suggests this happens rarely
at either drive-through waiting areas or at curbside pick-up locations. As long as engines are
running, diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles emit pollutants that are harmful to both local air
quality and to global greenhouse gas concentrations. These tailpipe pollutants include carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), hydrocarbon (HC), particulate matter (PM), and carbon
dioxide (CO2).
Estimating the amount of pollutants emitted is challenging due to the variability of drive-
through wait times, drive-through customers, vehicle types, vehicle condition and vehicle
features. To walk through one example:
•A large sedan burns, on average, 0.39 gallons/hour while idling; this is equivalent to 7.6
lbs. of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent, a measure of greenhouse gases).
o 7.6 lbs./60 minutes=0.13 lbs. per minute.
•McDonald’s national average wait time in 2025 was just over six minutes.1
•Six minutes of idling a large sedan emits 0.78 lbs. of CO2e at the drive-through.
•Assuming 650 customers use the drive-through daily, that equates to 507 pounds CO2e
emitted per day at McDonald’s. This is equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions
produced by burning 26 gallons of gasoline.
If this example were a bank instead of a McDonald’s, it would likely be less than half that
amount (banks generate about 170 drive-through visits per day for every 1,000 square feet of
building).
Depending on the length of the vehicle queue, wind conditions, and the amount of sunlight
present, these pollutants can be more concentrated and unhealthier, creating clouds of poor air
quality and ground-level ozone (smog). This can cause equity and public health concerns for
those who live, work, or wait for transit near retail businesses with drive-throughs, including
the retail business employees themselves.
There are additional variables that can affect the amount of pollution caused by drive-throughs.
The example above does not necessarily consider what’s known as “stop-start” or “idling stop”
systems, where when a vehicle comes to a complete stop, the technology may turn off the
vehicle’s engine. In the US, manufacturers began to include this technology around 2012 when
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made it so car companies could earn a credit
toward federal emissions rules by installing the feature in vehicles; now over 62% of 2023
1 2025 QSR Drive-Thru Report
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 6
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
model-year vehicles come with it installed. Depending on driving conditions, stop-start
technology can improve fuel economy by up to 26%, although most cars also have the option to
turn this feature off easily on the main dashboard (disabling the feature must be done each
time the car is re-started). In February 2026, the EPA rescinded the ability for manufacturers to
earn a credit for employing the start-stop feature, referring to the technology as “almost
universally hated” in its press release.2
Safety for non-vehicular travelers
St. Louis Park’s support of non-motorized transportation is well established and is reflected in
the city’s “Connected, safe infrastructure” priority. But the physical elements needed to
operate most drive-throughs—wide driveways, multiple lanes for circulation, and curb cuts—
can conflict with the desire to create safe paths for pedestrians and cyclists to get around.
Additionally, land for parking and vehicle stacking can place the retail establishment farther
from the sidewalk than it would otherwise be. This can make it less convenient, direct and
welcoming for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate these retail establishments and their
surrounding area. Drivers who are distracted by ordering and waiting or impatiently driving
away after receiving their order may not be looking for people on foot or bikes, which adds
risks to their safety.
Pedestrian-oriented design and interaction
An indirect environmental impact is that customers who visit retail drive-throughs are less likely
to engage with other local businesses than customers who exit their vehicles or approach on
foot or bicycle. There are more opportunities for social interactions outside of vehicles—
customers can get to know their local businesses and one another. Walk-in customers are also
more likely to complete additional errands or stops without getting back into their vehicles,
reducing vehicle emissions.
Drive-throughs also impact building orientation. Having a drive-through means that a business
is likely to have vehicle traffic encircling it, which in turn creates an environment in which
customers are less willing to approach on foot or on bicycles.
Benefits
Drive-throughs also pose a number of benefits for communities and their residents and visitors.
Equity for customers
Drive-throughs allow people with disabilities and anyone with limited mobility to access retail
businesses without issue (as long as they have a vehicle). They are also a convenient option for
parents and caregivers of young children, saving the time and hassle of unbuckling and carrying
kids, especially in inclement weather. These opportunities spur revenue for these businesses
that might not be generated in the absence of a drive-through.
Use of underutilized land
Redevelopment projects can transform land that generates limited tax revenue into active sites
that contribute significantly more to the tax base. This applies to all types of redevelopment
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026, February 12). President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver
Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History [Press release]. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/president-
trump-and-administrator-zeldin-deliver-single-largest-deregulatory-action-us
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 7
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
projects, including those with drive-throughs. Some recent examples include the Park Place
East, Knollwood Chipotle and Terasă projects.
Park Place East is an approved project located at 5775 Wayzata Boulevard that proposes
redeveloping a portion of an existing office parking lot with two retail buildings. The buildings
may contain a total of four fast casual restaurants and a drive-through lane for pick-up orders
only. The existing site has a nine-story office building and two underutilized surface parking lots
with over 550 parking spaces. The project would more efficiently use existing parking to meet
the needs of both uses, provide desired services in the area and generate more economic
productivity on the site. It would also provide additional aesthetic and environmental benefits
through landscaping and stormwater management improvements and by helping to screen part
of the shared parking lot behind the new buildings from the street.
The Knollwood Chipotle project on the northwest corner of Highway 7 and Aquila Avenue South
developed a vacant site formerly used as on-ramp to Highway 7 with a Chipotle restaurant with
a drive-through lane for pick-up orders only. The site was previously encumbered by a highway
easement until the Minnesota Department of Transportation released a portion of this
easement in 2022, allowing redevelopment of the land. Despite releasing the easement, the
property presented several development challenges given its size, shape and lack of direct
access to a roadway. Knollwood Chipotle will increase the value of this vacant site and add to
the commercial nature of this corner of the city. The project is currently under construction
with an anticipated opening in mid-July 2026.
Another example is the Terasă project, which is currently under construction at 5401 Gamble
Drive, directly south of the Shops at West End. The redevelopment will convert a 3.3-acre office
property into a six-story, 223-unit mixed-use, mixed-income apartment building with
approximately 21,000 square feet of commercial space, potentially including a grocer,
restaurant and coffee shop with a drive-through. The current assessed market value of the
subject redevelopment site is $6.87 million and the estimated value upon project completion is
$73.1 million. The developer has also shared that having a drive-through use in one of the retail
spaces reduces the financial gap significantly compared to a non-drive-through use.
Zoning code and design standards mitigate concerns
Reflecting prior city council direction dating back to 2003, the zoning code limits drive-throughs
to specific zoning districts and subjects them to conditions intended to address their potential
impacts. Under the current zoning ordinance, drive-throughs are permitted with a conditional
use permit (CUP) in the C-1 neighborhood commercial, C-2 general commercial and O office
districts. Drive-throughs are also permitted with conditions in three planned unit development
(PUD) districts (10, 12 and 25). Drive-throughs located in the C-1, C-2 and O districts must meet
the following conditions:
•Locate more than 100 feet from a residentially zoned property with a residential or
institutional use (e.g., school, religious institution, community center)
•Comply with yard requirements
•Provide stacking for a minimum of six cars per customer service point
•Demonstrate the use will not adversely impact the existing level of service on adjacent
streets and intersections
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 8
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
•Demonstrate the use will not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic
movement
•Provide site access from a collector or arterial roadway
•Ensure compatibility between canopies and principal building design
•Conform to the comprehensive plan
The table below details where drive-throughs are permitted or prohibited:
District Permission Notes
C-1 neighborhood
commercial
Permitted with CUP
C-2 general commercial Permitted with CUP Not permitted as an accessory use to
pawnshops, firearm sales, payday loan
agency and currency exchange
O office Permitted with CUP
PUD 10, 12, 25 Permitted with
conditions
PUD 10 limits in-vehicle sales and services as
accessory uses to restaurants, banks and
pharmacies
PUD 10 – Knollwood Mall
PUD 12 – McDonald’s on Excelsior and
surrounding area
PUD 25 - Terasă
N districts Not permitted
BP business park Not permitted
IP industrial park Not permitted
IG general industrial Not permitted
MX-1 neighborhood
mixed use
Not permitted
MX-2 vertical mixed use Not permitted Specifically prohibited for banks, food
service, post office customer service, private
entertainment (indoor) with or without
intoxicating liquor license, service, vendor
market
POS parks and open space Not permitted
PUD 2, 22, 24 Not permitted Specified under the list of permitted
commercial uses
PUD 1, 3-9, 11, 13-21, 23,
26
Not permitted Not listed as a permitted use
Under the proposed zoning code update phase 2 (to be considered by council later this year),
drive-throughs siting could be subject to an additional restriction; as currently drafted, the
amended code would not allow them in residential mixed-use buildings. Further, they would
not be permitted in the MU-1 district, which includes Historic Walker Lake and the smaller
commercial nodes along Minnetonka Boulevard and most of Excelsior Boulevard.
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 9
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
Although the zoning code permits drive-throughs, it incorporates multiple regulations that
directly mitigate common concerns related to vehicle emissions, traffic impacts and pedestrian
safety. These provisions emphasize site design and transportation alternatives that reduce
reliance on single-occupancy vehicles.
First, the off-street parking ordinance supports reduced vehicle trips by allowing parking
requirement reductions for developments located near transit. Depending on proximity and
transit type, parking may be reduced by 10 to 30%. This encourages transit use and limits the
scale of auto-oriented site design typically associated with drive-throughs. The city further
reinforces this approach by coordinating with Metro Transit and developers to ensure site plans
provide convenient and comfortable access to nearby transit facilities.
Second, the zoning code promotes lower-emission transportation options. All new, expanded or
reconstructed parking structures or lots must include bicycle parking proportional to the
amount of off-street parking and the use of the site. Parking lots with 15 or more parking
spaces must also provide electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure including both EV chargers
and infrastructure to accommodate future installation of EV chargers. These requirements
support a shift toward biking and electric vehicle use, helping offset emissions associated with
drive-through activity.
Third, design standards prioritize pedestrian safety and walkability, which are key concerns for
drive-through developments. Requirements for pedestrian infrastructure ensure safe and
accessible pathways through sites, while ground-floor transparency standards enhance visibility
and create a more engaging streetscape. Together, these elements reduce conflicts between
vehicles and pedestrians and discourage auto-dominated site layouts.
Finally, in cases where drive-throughs are included in a planned unit development or the overall
project receives financial assistance from the city, they must comply with the city’s green
building policy. This policy requires third-party sustainability certification and includes
standards for energy efficiency, renewable energy use and resource conservation, further
mitigating the environmental impacts associated with drive-through uses.
Collectively, these zoning regulations proactively offset some of the negative impacts of drive-
throughs with transportation demand reduction, sustainable infrastructure and pedestrian-
oriented design.
Looking into the future
The future of drive-throughs is difficult to predict. Historically, fast food drive-throughs have
comprised 50 to 70% of visits—but trends since the pandemic show that fewer and fewer
people are visiting drive-throughs each month and instead, are opting for “off-premises dining”
provided by delivery and take-out. The National Restaurant Association reported that in 2025,
nearly 75% of all restaurant traffic occurred off-premises 3. At the same time, in an effort to
retain and attract more customers, fast food restaurant operators are evolving, pouring capital
3 National Restaurant Association. (2025, April 16). From Trend to Transformation: Off-Premises Dining Now
Essential for Restaurant Consumers, Operators [Press release]. https://restaurant.org/research-and-
media/media/press-releases/from-trend-to-transformation-off-premises-dining-now-essential-for-restaurant-
consumers,-operators/
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 10
Title: Environmental impacts of drive-throughs
into improving their drive-throughs since the pandemic. Restaurant chain locations with drive-
throughs are more profitable than those without them because they require less staff and
maintenance. Nationally, many fast-food chains are investing in shrinking dining rooms,
building more drive-through lanes and upgrading drive-through technology with artificial
intelligence-based cameras and order taking equipment (the country’s only Taco Bell “Defy”
location, which is drive-through only, is located in Minnesota). Banks are also investing more in
mobile banking, reflecting trends that show fewer and fewer customers visiting branches or
ATMs each year and over 75% of people preferring to bank online or via app. Even dry-cleaning
consumers are shifting towards contactless service, preferring app-based pick-up and delivery
rather than visiting their local dry cleaner 4.
Consumer behavior is one variable, and technology is another. Even if manufacturers decide to
stop installing start-stop systems in vehicles, any resulting tailpipe emissions increase may be
offset by the increase in the number of EVs and hybrid electric vehicles on the road (vehicle
types that produce no tailpipe emissions). EV ownership has been rising steadily in St. Louis
Park in recent years. In 2025, EVs (including both battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles) made up 2.5% of cars registered in the city (1,227), compared to 0.36% in
2018 (177). Assuming the 2025 rate of adoption remains steady, EVs will make up 7% of cars in
the city by 2030. The city’s Climate Action Plan calls for EVs to make up 28% of car ownership
by that year, and staff are working on plans to further promote EV ownership and
simultaneously increase the number of EV chargers in the city.
Although municipal bans and restrictions on drive-throughs generate significant news coverage,
Minneapolis was the first city in the US to ban drive-throughs (2019) and only five other
American cities have put bans or restrictions in place since.
Next steps: Staff will monitor trends in drive-through usage and will return to council if there is
a desire for policy amendments.
4 Unisec. (2025, March 10). The Future of Dry Cleaning: Innovations, Market Trends, and Industry Growth.
https://www.unisecdc.com/news-/the-future-of-dry-cleaning%3A-innovations%2C-market-trends%2C-and-
industry-growth
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 8, 2026
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Emerald Ash Borer update
Recommended action: No action recommended. The purpose of this report is to inform council
members of the status of the emerald ash borer infestation in the city and resulting actions
taken.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: Emerald ash borer (EAB) is a destructive invasive pest that kills ash tree and was first
discovered in St. Louis Park in 2019. The city preemptively began preparing for the impending
infestation years before the discovery with strategic preventative injections in 2016 and an
increased focus on planting. Since 2019, thousands of ash trees have been removed within the
city, including 1,376 on city boulevards and maintained parks - nearly half of the inventoried
ash tree population. This reduction in canopy prompted the city council to establish tree
canopy goals of 30% by 2035 and 35% by 2045. Over the past decade, the city has planted or
partially funded over 10,000 tree plantings on public and private properties and currently
injects over 1,300 mature ash trees. These actions come with a significant cost. To moderate
this burden, city staff have applied for multiple grants and have been awarded over $1.2 million
in grant funds since 2019.
The peak infestation in St. Louis Park appears to have been in 2023 – 2024 with a significant
reduction in the number of ash trees remaining untreated. The next phase of EAB response is
continued treatment and protection of remaining mature ash trees, continued planting, and an
increased emphasis on maintaining the new cohort of trees that have been planted during this
epidemic response.
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a climate leader that cares
for the planet and maintains dynamic parks that connect people and nature.
Supporting documents: None.
Prepared by: Michael Bahe, natural resources manager
Reviewed by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Larry Umphrey, parks superintendent
Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Emerald Ash Borer update
Discussion
Background: Historically, the city has actively managed infectious tree diseases (Dutch elm
disease and oak wilt) and pests to reduce or prevent spread. Dutch elm disease has killed
thousands of elm trees since the mid-1900s, leaving very few mature elms remaining. The city is
now managing the emerald ash borer (EAB) beetle epidemic. This invasive insect species has
been attacking and killing ash trees in the United States across the trees’ native range, including
St. Louis Park.
Emerald ash borer is an extremely destructive invasive pest that infests and kills all species of
North American ash trees (trees in the genus Fraxinus). The first ash trees identified with EAB in
St. Louis Park were found in 2019 and tree removal began that same year. Since that time,
1,376 public ash trees have been removed from our boulevards and maintained park areas with
numbers peaking in 2024 (Figure 1). The spike in 2024 can be partially attributed to a state
bonding grant that was awarded to the city to expedite removals before the trees became
hazards. In addition, thousands more have been removed from our public natural areas, such as
Westwood Hills Nature Center, and on private property.
Figure 1. Ash Tree Removals from Parks and Boulevards
Note. A state bonding grant allowed for expedited removals in 2024.
Many ash trees were protected from EAB with an insecticide injection treatment through the
city’s injection program. These injections are very effective in healthy ash trees. In 2016, the
city initiated the treatment program for public trees in maintained areas. The focus was on
treating high quality ash trees that were over 15 inches in diameter measured at 4.5 feet above
the ground (DSH). These trees were injected on a three-year rotation based on research for
large ash populations. Injections prior to the heaviest infestation years accomplished two main
objectives: they protected the trees that received treatment and killed any of the adult EAB
that subsequently fed on those trees. This reduced the overall EAB population, effectively
slowing the progression of infestation within the city and allowing time to react without dead,
hazardous trees standing.
4 21 47
224 210
726
128
16
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Tr
e
e
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
Year removed
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Emerald Ash Borer update
During 2023 and 2024, it appeared that the EAB population was reaching its peak in St. Louis
Park. At that time, council provided additional funding for tree treatments that were utilized to
increase injection rotation for the highest priority ash trees. At the end of 2025, the city treated
a total of 1,366 ash trees; 435 trees treated on a two-year cycle. The average size of these trees
was 22 inches in diameter.
Also in 2016, as part of the injection contract, the awarded contractor was required to provide
a discount to private property owners in St. Louis Park for preventative injections. As of the end
of 2025, 709 privately owned ash trees were protected utilizing this discount. Through this
partnership, the city also educated homeowners on the value of treating their ash trees. This
included promotional mailings, featured pieces in local news media, social media campaigns
and the utilization of neighborhood communication applications.
Injections have preserved a significant amount of tree canopy throughout the city and all the
benefits that trees provide to urban areas, such as increased property values, lower local
temperatures, reduced stormwater runoff, storage of carbon, reduction of pollutants, wildlife
habitat and healthier people. In many cases, especially on private property, injections can be
continued for over a decade for the same price as removing the tree.
The loss of ash trees has resulted in a loss of canopy coverage throughout the city. In 2015 the
University of Minnesota estimated the canopy coverage in St. Louis Park was around 38%.
During an analysis in 2023, performed by city GIS staff, the coverage was 28.5%. It should not
be assumed that the city has lost precisely 9.5% of its canopy in eight years because the same
methods for data sources and software were not used, but it is safe to say a significant decline
has occurred. In reaction to this decline, the city council approved ambitious canopy goals in
2024: 30% canopy by 2035 and 35% by 2045. To accomplish this, the city has aggressively
planted trees in city boulevards, city parks, natural areas and on private property. Since 2016,
the city has planted over 7,300 trees in parks and boulevards (Figure 2), and over 3,000 trees on
private property through the city tree sales. To reduce future tree epidemic impacts, planted
species have been diversified to ensure that one species does not dominate the population.
Figure 2. Trees Planted in Maintained Parks and Boulevards Since 2016
464
563 631 621
854
462
592
855
1109 1153
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Tr
e
e
s
p
l
a
n
t
e
d
Year planted
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Emerald Ash Borer update
Removals, injections and replanting have come with significant financial cost to city operations
and residents. To lessen this burden, city staff have consistently pursued grant funding over the
past decade. Since 2016, the city has received ten grants totaling over $1.27 million for ash tree
removal, injections, tree planting and tree maintenance (Table 1). From that total, $471,100
was received for direct support to private property owners for managing ash trees.
Table 1. Grants received for ash tree management since 2016
Grant name
Funding
organization
Year
received Grant amount
SLP Healthy Canopy Grant Hennepin County 2019 $10,000.00
EAB Tree Planting Grant MnDNR 2020 $30,000.00
Shade Tree Program Bonding Grant MnDNR 2021 $40,000.00
Protect Community Forests by Managing Ash
for EAB Grant MnDNR 2022 $25,320.95
2023 ReLeaf Community Forestry Grant MnDNR 2023 $371,100.00
2023 Shade Tree Program Bonding Grant MnDNR 2024 $489,232.00
Centering Communities in Canopy Solutions MnDNR & USDA FS 2025 $100,000.00
Community Tree Planting Grant MetCouncil 2025 $72,383.00
2025 Community Tree Planting Grant MnDNR 2026 $44,204.00
2025 ReLeaf Grant MnDNR 2026 $96,484.00
Total: $1,278,723.95
The city also hosted seven AmeriCorps service members from GreenCorps and Climate Impact
Corps from 2020 to 2025. These members supported natural resource staff with many tasks
such as tree inventory, tree planting, tree watering, educational outreach, volunteer
coordination, policy updates and grant activity management.
Present considerations: In 2026, EAB continues to dominate urban forest management in St.
Louis Park, but large-scale removals and replanting is coming to an end. Over the next five
years, ash management will rely on the continuation of our injection programs and removal of
dead ash trees in natural areas that may impact people or property. Ash trees that are not
hazards will be left standing as snags for wildlife habitat.
Other forestry operations will focus on preserving and increasing canopy by investing in the
maintenance of the new cohort of trees that have been planted over the past decade to
establish quality structure supporting tall canopies with reduced susceptibility to storm
damage. In addition, natural resources staff will continue to actively enforce city tree
protection ordinances on public and private property to preserve the mature trees that are
critical to our canopy goals.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: June 8, 2026
Written report: 6
Executive summary
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
Recommended action: This report is intended to provide the council with a summary of
activities undertaken by the city in 2025 to meet the city’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) requirements.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: The City of St. Louis Park is permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) for the discharge of stormwater from the city’s storm sewer system into waters of the
state, such as Minnehaha Creek. This permit is required based on an amendment to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Act (CWA) and the creation of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). St Louis Park, along with over 200
other Minnesota cities, is permitted as an MS4 community.
Each year, as a condition of the permit, the city conducts a review of its SWPPP to determine
program compliance, the appropriateness of best management practices (BMPs) and progress
toward achieving the identified goals. City staff conducted an annual review of the activities
completed to ensure compliance. The MPCA is in the process of updating their electronic
reporting platform and, as a result, MS4 permittees covered by the 2020 MS4 general permit
are not required to submit an annual report for calendar year 2025 by June 30, 2026. When
MPCA releases its new e-service submittal program, anticipated sometime in 2026, the city will
provide annual reports for our MS4 activities for the previous calendar years.
As a SWPPP requirement, the city provides the public with opportunities to offer input on the
adequacy of the program. The SWPPP and the annual assessment materials are located on the
city’s stormwater management webpage, along with a link to submit questions or comments
regarding the program’s adequacy. Staff also held a public open house to share the city’s
stormwater program activities on March 26, 2026, at city hall. Approximately thirty community
members attended the open house.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable at this time.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a climate leader that cares
for the planet and maintains dynamic parks that connect people and nature.
Supporting documents: Discussion
2025 NPDES SWPPP activity highlights
2025 NPDES MS4 SWPPP activities completed
2026 NPDES MS4 SWPPP initiatives
Prepared by: Erick Francis, water resources manager
Reviewed by: Sarah Schweiger, engineering services manager
Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
Discussion
Background: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits set requirements for discharging stormwater into state
waters. Regulated small MS4 operators must develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SWPPP) that:
•Reduces pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP)
•Protect water quality
•Meeting Clean Water Act requirements
Under the EPA Phase II Rule, the SWPPP includes six Minimum Control Measures (MCMs)
designed to significantly reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff:
•MCM 1: Public education and outreach
Educate the public on stormwater impacts and pollution prevention.
•MCM 2: Public participation/involvement
Engage the community in program development and implementation.
•MCM 3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Identify and eliminate illegal discharges, maintain system maps and public awareness.
•MCM 4: Construction site runoff control
Require erosion and sediment controls for construction sites (1+ acre).
•MCM 5: Post-Construction runoff control
Manage stormwater from new development and redevelopment using BMPs and site
protection.
•MCM 6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping
Reduce pollutants from municipal operations through training and practices (e.g., street
sweeping, reduced chemical use, catch-basin cleaning).
Meeting the MEP standard requires developing and implementing Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and achieving measurable goals for each of the six MCMs.
BMPs are effective, practical methods used to prevent or reduce pollution from nonpoint
sources. These include regulatory measures, structural and nonstructural controls, and
operation and maintenance procedures.
As required by the permit, the city reviews its SWPPP annually to assess compliance, evaluate
BMP effectiveness and track progress toward goals. This review includes evaluating completed
activities to ensure program requirements are met.
MS4 annual report updates: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is developing a
new e-service for MS4 annual reporting and updating report requirements to align with the
2020 MS4 general permit and federal NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule. As a result, permittees
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
are not required to submit a 2025 annual report by June 30, 2026. Instead, once the e-service
launches, anticipated sometime in 2026, permittees will report data for prior years (2022–
2025).
SWPPP review: Although the City of St. Louis Park is not required to submit a 2025 report, staff
conducted an annual review of the activities completed to ensure compliance. The SWPPP is
available on the city’s stormwater webpage. MPCA reporting evaluates BMP effectiveness and
progress toward MCM goals using inspection data and public input collected during the
reporting period.
Public engagement: The city provides multiple opportunities for public input, including
outreach through publications, social media, events, and an annual public meeting. The 2026
meeting was held on March 26, in conjunction with the Metro Blooms Planting for Pollinators
workshop, in the council chambers, where there were thirty attendees.
Ongoing commitment: Staff remains committed to implementing and improving the SWPPP,
maintaining MS4 permit compliance, and refining processes to reduce pollutant runoff and
improve record keeping.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program 2025 Activities
St. Louis Park Engineering Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
www.stlouisparkmn.gov • Phone: 952.924.2656 • Fax: 952.924.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518
The MS4 General Permit requires regulated entities to reduce pollutants in stormwater by
implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and best management
practices (BMPs). The City of St. Louis Park has developed required Standard Operating
Procedures, Emergency Response Procedures and supporting documentation. The summary
below provides the city’s 2025 annual assessment of MCM activities.
MCM-1: Public Education and Outreach
Permit Requirement: Develop and implement a public education program that explains
stormwater impacts and actions the public can take to reduce pollution.
2025 Activities:
Rainwater Rewards Program
•Installed 49 rain gardens; secured $24,800 in Clean Water, Land and Legacy
grant funding.
•Reimbursed 57 rain barrels.
•Hosted three workshops (42 attendees).
Educational materials and outreach
•Distributed materials on rainwater management and yard waste impacts.
•Posted: 2 pet waste, 4 smart salting and 1 illicit discharge messages.
•Shared materials at Westwood Hills Nature Center (38,823+ annual visitors).
•Published 32 stormwater articles (print and online).
•Posted 23 social media updates (248,225+ views; 5,159+ clicks).
•Recorded 3,634 website visits to stormwater program pages.
MCM‐2: Public involvement and participation
Permit requirement: Develop and implement a public participation and involvement program
to solicit public input on the Program.
The following are activities completed (see Table 1) in compliance with the Permit sections
17.3-17.7 and the city’s program:
Table 1 Public Events and Meetings Held (2025)
Activities Date Quantity/ Units
Adopt-a-Drain Open throughout the year 336 Participants
585 Drains adopted
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6)
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Page 4
Activities Date Quantity/ Units
Steering Committee for the
Minnesota Cities Stormwater
Coalition
Monthly 200+ Member Cities
Metro Watershed Partners Quarterly meetings 50+ Partners
Metro Blooms workshops 3 42 Attendees
City Council S.S. Report
Stormwater 101 report April 28 10 Attendees
Ecotacular June 14, 2025 100+ Attendees
The Program materials are posted on the city’s website here; comments are welcome at any
time.
MCM‐3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE)
Permit requirement: Develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit
discharges into the city’s storm sewer system.
The following activities were completed in compliance with Permit Sections 18.8–18.17 and the
city’s program:
Illicit discharge response
•Investigated 11 illicit discharges; issued verbal and written warnings.
•ERPs and response records available upon request.
Inspection and mapping
•Identified and inspected high-priority areas (maps available upon request).
•Developed a Cartograph-based inspection and tracking database.
•Inspection reports and maps available upon request.
Training
•Implemented NeoGov training for field staff, including public works, parks and
recreation, engineering, fire, police, and building and energy departments.
Public outreach
•Shared illicit discharge detection and prevention information on social media
targeting residents, businesses, institutions and commercial facilities.
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6)
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Page 5
MCM‐4: Construction site stormwater runoff control
Permit requirement: Develop, implement and enforce a construction site stormwater runoff
control program that reduces pollutants in stormwater runoff related to construction activity.
The following activities were completed in compliance with Permit Sections 19.3–19.15 and the
city’s program:
Permitting and review
•Reviewed 37 construction plans and issued 37 erosion control permits.
•Collected damage deposits to support compliance.
Inspections and enforcement
•Conducted 362 site inspections.
•Issued two written notices of violation (projects >1 acre); contractors responded and
corrected issues.
Training
•Provided required training to engineering staff through NeoGov
MCM‐5: Post-construction runoff control
Permit requirement: Develop, implement and enforce a post-construction stormwater
management program that prevents or reduces water pollution after construction activity is
completed.
The following activities were completed in compliance with Permit Sections 20.3–20.17 and the
city’s program:
Plan review
•Reviewed stormwater management plans for 6 projects.
Inventory and mapping
•Maintained a GIS inventory of structural BMPs not owned or operated by the city
(maps available upon request).
Training
•Engineering and community development staff completed required NeoGov
training.
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6)
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Page 6
MCM‐6: Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations
Permit requirement: Develop and implement an operations and maintenance program that
prevents or reduces the discharge of pollutants from permittee-owned and operated facilities.
The following are activities completed in compliance (Table 2) with the Permit sections 21.3-
21.14 and the city’s program:
Table 2 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping Practices completed (2025)
Maintenance or operational
activity
Location/Element Quantity
Inspected
Storm sewer outfalls 120
Stormwater ponds 60
Stormwater management
best practices (underground
vaults, tree trenches,
pervious pavers, rain
gardens)
52
Maintained
Storm sewer outfalls, sump
manholes, grit pit and
underground vault
Two outfalls replaced,
removed sediment, cleaned
ten sump manholes, two grit
pits
Removed sediment Lamplighter Pond & Beltline
Pond 3,211 cubic yards
Swept Streets and alleys
1,454 miles and 7,545 cubic
yards of material removed
and about 4,200 cubic yards
of leafy material removed
Chloride application Primary roads
883 tons + 24.5 tons = 907.5
24,500 gallons of brine
24.5 tons of salt
Community-Assisted
Monitoring Program (CAMP) Water quality monitoring
6 Lakes: Bass Lake, Cobble
Crest, South Oak Pond, Twin
Lake, Westwood Lake
South Oak Pond
Rehabilitation Project
Installation of a Contech
stormwater filter system (80
filters)
Received $350,000 in Clean
Water Funds
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6)
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Page 7
2025
MCM
Installed 49 rain gardens and received
$32,000 in Clean Water Grant Funding
Sold 57 rain barrels 585 drains and 336 participants
Hosted 38,823 visitors at Westwood Hills
Nature Center
Maintained level 4 Green Step City Inspected 120 storm outfalls,
60 ponds and 52 stormwater treatment
practices; removed sediment from
Lamplighter pond
Public outreach: held annual SWPPP
meeting, reported activities completed to city
council, and attended the Ecotacular event.
The following outlines the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Minimum Control Measure (MCM)
assessment of the activities that have been completed in 2025. These MCMs are included in the Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
MCM ACTIVITIES COMPLETED
Page 8
2025
MCM
Provided Smart Salt training to city staff Performed 362
construction site inspections
Received $350,000 in Clean Water Funding
for the South Oak Treatment system
Held Blue Thumb Resilient Yard, Turf
Alternative and Rain Garden Maintenance
workshops with 42 attendees
23 social media posts with 248,225 views
and 5,159 clicks
Monitored six lakes within the city as part of the
Citizens-Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP)
1,454 miles of streets and alleys swept
with 7,545 cubic yards of material removed
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6)
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Page 9
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program 2026 Activities
St. Louis Park Engineering Department • 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416
www.stlouisparkmn.gov • Phone: 952.924.2656 • Fax: 952.924.2662 • TTY: 952.924.2518
This outlines the 2026 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Minimum Control
Measures (MCMs) required under the City of St. Louis Park’s MS4 permit issued by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
MCM 1: Public education and outreach
Implement a public education program on stormwater impacts.
Focus on Rainwater Rewards and yard waste/mulching education.
Continue Adopt-a-Drain (with Clean Water Minnesota).
Host Metro Blooms Resilient Yards workshops.
Participate in the Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition.
Promote stormwater pollution prevention through partnerships, city communications,
social media, and Westwood Hills Nature Center programs.
MCM 2: Public involvement
Solicit public input on the SWPPP.
Host a public open house on the SWPPP.
Provide outreach at Ecotacular and other events.
Hold a Rainwater Rewards plant pickup event.
MCM 3: Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Detect and eliminate illicit discharges to the storm sewer system.
Continue inspections and public education.
Update mapping and launch a new ArcGIS tracking app.
Provide staff training in NeoGov.
MCM 4: Construction site runoff control
Reduce construction-related stormwater pollution.
Continue erosion control plan review, inspections, enforcement, and education.
MCM 5: Post-construction runoff control
Prevent or reduce pollution after construction.
Continue plan reviews and coordination with watershed partners.
MCM 6: Pollution prevention and good housekeeping
Reduce pollutants from city-owned facilities and operations.
Maintain and repair storm sewer infrastructure.
Identify BMP opportunities in street projects.
Continue routine inspections, street sweeping, and maintenance.
Continue to use Cartegraph and GIS for tracking.
Provide online staff training modules in NeoGov.
Study session meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. 6)
Title: Annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Page 10